CBSA's Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) Activities – Evaluation Study

Evaluation Report
March 2011

This document is also available in PDF (416 KB)  [help with PDF files]

• Executive Summary
• 1. Introduction and Context
  • Overview of the U.S. WHTI
  • The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the WHTI
  • Governance, Roles and Responsibilities
  • Evaluation Purpose and Scope
  • Evaluation Methodology
• 2.  Key Findings
  • 2.1 Relevance
  • 2.2  Performance – Design and Implementation
  • 2.3 Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes
  • 2.4 Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy
• 3.  Conclusions, Recommendations and Management Response
• Appendices
  • Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms
  • Appendix B: CBSA WHTI Presentations, Tradeshows and Site Visits

Executive Summary

The United States (U.S.) Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), enacted as part of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), requires travellers to present a valid passport or other accepted document to enter or re-enter the United States.[ 1 ] Prior to the WHTI, Canadian and American citizens were only required to prove their identity and citizenship through oral declarations and/or the presentation of commonly held documents, such as a driver's licence or birth certificate. With almost $2 billion[ 2 ] in goods and 190,000 people crossing the Canada–U.S. border daily, industry and government stakeholders in both the United States and Canada were concerned over the potential impact of the WHTI on cross-border travel and trade, particularly in the land mode of transportation.[ 3 ]

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) provides integrated border services that support national security and facilitate the movement of legitimate persons and goods. As the CBSA also has expertise in assessing the validity of travel documents and a working relationship with its U.S. counterpart, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the CBSA was tasked to lead Canada's response to the WHTI. In April 2006, the CBSA established a WHTI task force to lead, coordinate and support the Agency's WHTI activities, which involved communicating the WHTI requirements to Canadians and working collaboratively with partners to identify, design, deliver and support policies and solutions to ensure a smooth implementation. One of the solutions agreed to by the federal government was to support the provincial implementation of Enhanced Driver's Licences (EDLs) and Enhanced Identification Cards (EICs) as WHTI-compliant travel document alternatives for land and marine ports of entry.[ 4 ] EDLs/EICs are more secure versions of provincial- or state-issued driver's licences and identification cards that indicate the holder's identity and citizenship.[ 5 ]

In fiscal year 2008–2009, the CBSA and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) each received $6.8 million in new funding over five years to support the provinces with the implementation of EDLs/EICs. In addition, the CBSA will continue to receive $670,000 per year for ongoing maintenance and support.

Evaluation Purpose and Scope

This report presents the findings of an evaluation to assess the relevance and performance of the CBSA's WHTI activities. This evaluation is not an assessment of provincial EDL/EIC delivery, the performance of other government departments in supporting the Agency's WHTI activities, or pre-existing WHTI-compliant documents such as NEXUS or Free and Secure Trade (FAST) cards, and passports.

This evaluation meets a Treasury Board requirement to report on the support provided by the CBSA for the provincial implementation of EDLs/EICs and was identified initially as a priority in the 2008–2011 CBSA Risk-Based Multi-Year Evaluation Plan.

Evaluation Methodology

Research for this evaluation was conducted by the CBSA Program Evaluation Division in the Internal Audit and Program Evaluation Directorate between May and September 2010. Main lines of evidence included a review of documents and literature; statistical analysis; and interviews with CBSA management and staff, partners (other government departments, provinces, U.S. CBP), as well as private sector stakeholders. In total, 80 internal and external stakeholders were interviewed over the course of the evaluation.

Key Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall, the evaluation found that the CBSA's WHTI activities were well managed and that they achieved their intended outcomes. Activities undertaken by the CBSA were consistent with the priorities, roles and responsibilities of the federal government. Given the over 190,000 people and almost $2 billion in goods crossing the border every day, there was a need to make Canadians aware of new WHTI travel document requirements in order to minimize any negative impact on travel and trade.

The CBSA's task force approach to managing its activities proved to be effective. Through working closely with U.S. CBP to implement EDLs, the CBSA demonstrated Canada's commitment to working on the successful implementation of the WHTI. This helped to secure a postponement of the implementation for land and marine modes of transportation from January 2008 to June 2009. The Agency also met its target of ensuring that EDLs were available to more than 75% of Canadian drivers. However, uptake of EDLs was lower than anticipated due to factors that included the higher versatility of passports, the EDL/EIC application process and negative media attention.

The CBSA's outreach activities helped raise awareness of WHTI document requirements, although it is not possible to determine the exact extent since Passport Canada and the United States also conducted WHTI-related advertising. Overall, the CBSA's research indicated that by July 2009, over 90% of Canadians surveyed were aware of the requirement to present a passport or other secure document to travel to the United States.[ 6 ] Increased awareness was also reflected in the number of passports issued. Around 60% of Canadians possessed a passport in 2009–2010, up significantly from the 36% who had passports prior to the WHTI in fiscal year 2005–2006. The 98% rate of presentation of WHTI-compliant documents at the U.S. border indicates that the need for significant WHTI-related outreach activities no longer exists.

The evaluation was not able to determine the extent to which the CBSA's WHTI activities contributed to the mitigation of any negative economic effects of the WHTI. While the CBSA processed 10.6 million fewer travellers in fiscal 2009–2010 compared to 2005–2006, the drop was likely a result of numerous factors in addition to the WHTI including the economic downturn, currency fluctuations, the H1N1 outbreak and higher fuel prices.

There is evidence to suggest that the use of Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) travel documents such as the EDLs and EICs can help reduce border wait times. U.S. CBP experience shows that the use of vicinity RFID technology results in an average reduction of a full minute and 15 seconds in primary inspections compared to those where the information is manually keyed, and that they save on average 14 seconds compared to documents scanned with a machine-readable zone (MRZ). The CBSA currently uses RFID technology in NEXUS and FAST lanes, but does not use it to scan EDLs and EICs. The evaluation noted that the CBSA's Border Management Action Plan includes an initiative for the increased use of RFID technology for land border travellers.[ 7 ]

Although not a requirement for entry into Canada, the presentation of WHTI-compliant documents at Canadian ports of entry has made it easier for border services officers to establish traveller identity, right of entry[ 8 ] and citizenship. CBSA interviewees noted that since WHTI implementation, travellers arriving at Canadian land ports of entry are more likely to show one of the more secure, integrity-based documents. The CBSA's surveys of document presentation rates at land border ports of entry support this finding. As of April 2009, almost 90% of travellers were presenting passports or EDLs.

The Agency built on existing systems, used efficient communication strategies and leveraged in-house and partner expertise in order to minimize costs. By using the CBSA's existing secure connection with U.S. CBP for the transmission of EDL data, and ensuring that the system was designed to meet basic requirements only, the CBSA was able to develop the system without incurring any capital costs. Since 2006–2007, the CBSA has spent $14.8 million, including $8 million in salaries and benefits for the WHTI task force, $5 million in advertising, and $1.8 million in operating and maintenance costs.

The CBSA continues to support the provinces in the ongoing administration of EDLs/EICs. As well, there is an ongoing need to support Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) as it further implements the border-crossing version of the Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS). In the future, the province of Ontario may also introduce the Enhanced Photo Card (EPC), its version of the EIC.

Under Canadian legislation, travel restrictions are imposed on individuals facing criminal charges for an indictable offence in Canada, who are subject to conditions imposed by a Canadian court or parole board, or a sentence of imprisonment in Canada. The risk of EDLs/EICs being used by persons subject to travel restrictions was estimated to be small, since these individuals would likely be denied entry at a U.S. port of entry based on checks against law enforcement databases. Nevertheless, to mitigate this risk, all EDL applicants are required to sign a declaration stating that they are not subject to travel restrictions. Since the effectiveness of this strategy relies on the honesty of the applicant, provincial staff was trained by the CBSA in interview techniques to detect misrepresentation.[ 9 ]

The evaluation noted some non-critical deficiencies in the provincial and INAC document production and issuance processes. However, as the CBSA has not yet developed an oversight and monitoring process for reviewing ongoing compliance with federal requirements as specified in its Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the provinces, the degree of progress towards addressing these deficiencies is not known.

In light of these findings, the evaluation recommends that:

Recommendation:

The CBSA Programs Branch develop and implement a process for ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies with respect to travel restrictions and provincial and INAC compliance with federal standards, including fulfillment of outstanding compliance deficiencies with Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) standards and the Government Security Policy.

1. Introduction and Context

Overview of the U.S. WHTI

Enacted as part of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), the United States (U.S.) Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) requires the presentation of a valid passport or other secure documents that denote both identity and citizenship to enter or re-enter the United States.[ 10 ] Prior to the WHTI, Canadian and American citizens were only required to prove their identity and citizenship through oral declarations and/or the presentation of commonly held documents, such as a driver's licence or birth certificate. The WHTI was phased-in over several years by travel mode, with the objective of enabling the quick and reliable identification of travellers while strengthening border security. The WHTI was designed to address the risks posed by accepting oral declarations and the many potentially unsecure documents that were being presented at U.S. ports of entry.[ 11 ] 

Table 1 – Key WHTI Announcements and Implementation Dates

Date	Travel Mode	Event
December 17, 2004		IRTPA is signed into law by President Bush.
June 2006		Enhanced Driver's Licenses (EDLs) are proposed as a WHTI-compliant alternative at a joint British Columbia–Washington State cabinet meeting.
November 24, 2006	Air	The United States announce the final rule[ 12 ] for air travel to the United States effective January 23, 2007.
January 23, 2007	Air	Passports or NEXUS cards are required to fly to, through, or from the United States.
January 31, 2008	Land and Marine	The United States end the practice of accepting oral declarations and requires Canadian and American citizens to present either a WHTI-compliant document or government-issued photo ID with proof of citizenship. Exemptions apply for children.[ 13 ]
March 27, 2008	Land and Marine	The United States announce the final rule for the land and marine implementation of the WHTI effective June 1, 2009.
June 1, 2009	Land and Marine	Final implementation requiring Canadian and American citizens to present a passport, a NEXUS or a Free and Secure Trade (FAST) card, EDLs and Enhanced Identification Cards (EICs), or Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS). Exemptions apply for children.[ 13 ]

The U.S. implementation of the WHTI included the installation of Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) and licence plate readers at 39 land ports of entry which process 95% of land travellers.[ 14 ] Documents with RFID include NEXUS cards, FAST cards[ 15 ], U.S. Passport cards (a card version of a U.S. passport for land or marine travel), EDLs and EICs. The border-crossing version of an SCIS card, which is also acceptable under the WHTI, does not contain a RFID chip, but does have a machine-readable zone (MRZ).[ 16 ]

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the WHTI

With almost $2 billion in goods and over 190,000 people crossing the border daily, industry and government stakeholders in both the United States and Canada were concerned over the potential impact of the WHTI on cross-border travel and trade, particularly in the land mode of transportation.[ 17 ] The WHTI was perceived to represent a further “thickening” of the border.[ 18 ] To minimize the expected impact, the Government of Canada identified a need for U.S. flexibility in the implementation of the WHTI, including adequate time for raising public awareness in Canada and the United States concerning the requirements and for travellers to obtain acceptable travel documents.

The CBSA was tasked to lead Canada's response to the WHTI due to its mandate to provide integrated border services that support national security and public safety priorities, its expertise in assessing the validity of travel documents, and its working relationship with the U.S. CBP. Activities involved communicating the WHTI requirements to Canadians and working collaboratively with partners to identify, design, deliver and support policies and solutions to ensure a smooth implementation. One of the solutions agreed to by the federal government was the provincial implementation of EDLs/EICs as WHTI-compliant travel document alternatives.[ 19 ]  

In fiscal year 2008–2009, the Treasury Board authorized the CBSA to expend $14.2 million on its WHTI activities over a five year period. Of this total, $6.8 million was new funding and $7.4 million was to be allocated from exiting resources. In addition, $670 thousand in new ongoing funding was approved for the continued support and maintenance of provincial EDLs/EICs.

Governance, Roles and Responsibilities

The CBSA WHTI Task Force

In April 2006, a CBSA WHTI task force was established in the former Admissibility Branch to lead and guide the development of WHTI-specific policy, a communications strategy, and support to EDL/EIC development and implementation. The task force was transferred in April 2008 to the then Innovation, Science and Technology Branch for the technical implementation. The task force was headed by a Director General and was comprised of two divisions, the Program Development and International Relations Division, and the Outreach and Consultation Division.

Specific roles and responsibilities of the Program Development and International Relations Division included:

• identifying solutions to ensure timely access to accepted travel documents;
• developing policies and processes to ensure that selected document options complied with respective Canadian and U.S. federal legislations and requirements;
• negotiating agreements with the provinces and the United States to establish the principles and roles and responsibilities with respect to document development, information sharing, implementation and monitoring;
• providing EDL/EIC/SCIS implementation and post-implementation support (e.g. compliance guidelines and assessments, training); and
• chairing an interdepartmental EDL Management Committee comprised of all CBSA and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) directors involved in implementing EDLs and EICs.

The Outreach and Consultation Division was responsible for:

• gathering, preparing and registering the official comments of the Government of Canada in response to the WHTI notices and proposed rules published on the U.S. Federal Register;
• developing an outreach and communications strategy to ensure Canadians had the information needed to comply with the U.S. WHTI;
• implementing the outreach and communications strategy, including producing and disseminating outreach messages via advertisements, presentations and tradeshows, coordinating news releases, EDL/EIC announcements, and responses to media requests; and
• keeping stakeholders updated on developments.

In April 2010, the CBSA redesigned its organizational structure to clarify branch accountabilities in support of operations in the field. Coinciding with this reorganization, and as the U.S. WHTI had been fully implemented in June 2009, the WHTI task force was disbanded. Ongoing responsibility for WHTI-related activities was assigned to the Traveller Border Programs Division, Programs Branch.

Other CBSA stakeholders

Programs Branch

The Document Integrity Unit within the Risk Assessment Programs Directorate (part of the former Enforcement Branch) participated in the working group to develop the Security and Prosperity Partnership's Recommended Standards for Secure Proof of Status and Nationality Documents to Facilitate Cross-Border Travel, known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) standards.[ 20 ] In addition, the unit guided the provinces on the production of EDLs and EICs that were compliant with SPP standards, and provided training to provincial and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) staff on document examination, fraud detection and interview techniques.

Information Science and Technology Branch

The CBSA's former Traveller Projects and Systems Division, now the Traveller Systems Division, designed, developed and implemented the system for receiving and storing EDL/EIC data from the provinces, and transmitting it to U.S. CBP when a cardholder presents their card seeking entry into the United States at a land or marine port of entry.

Comptrollership Branch

The CBSA's former Corporate Security Division, now the Security and Professional Standards Directorate, conducted site visits of provincial EDL/EIC issuance, data storage, and production facilities to ensure they were compliant with Government Security Policy.[ 21 ]

Operations Branch

Staff in the regions responded to traveller queries concerning WHTI document requirements and distributed WHTI information sheets at ports of entry.

Other Federal Government Departments

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)

CIC developed the process for the provinces to establish the citizenship eligibility of EDL and EIC applicants. CIC advised the provinces on which documents to accept[ 22 ] and developed a citizenship questionnaire which enables the provinces to identify situations where an applicant's citizenship may have been lost or revoked. CIC also provided citizenship training and guidance, and conducts ongoing quality assurance reviews on the eligibility decisions of the provincial issuing authorities. If the citizenship status of an applicant is unclear, provinces refer the applicant to CIC.

Canada Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)

CSIS supported the implementation of EDLs/EICs by conducting security screening of provincial staff to ensure that they met federal security clearance requirements.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)

INAC used the SPP design standards, EDL/EIC processes and data-link for the development and implementation of the border-crossing version of the SCIS.

External Stakeholders

Provinces

Provincial transportation ministries and agencies in the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec issued and administered EDLs and/or EICs. These organisations include the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), Manitoba Public Insurance, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and ServiceOntario.

U. S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

U.S. CBP reviewed the business cases submitted jointly by the CBSA and the provinces, and the CBSA and INAC, and designated EDLs/EICs as WHTI-compliant. The border-crossing version of the SCIS is accepted under the WHTI, though it has not yet been formally approved in the U.S. Federal Register. In collaboration with the CBSA and participating Canadian provinces, U.S. CBP helped develop and test the systems for processing EDL/EIC/SCIS at border passages, including retrieval of cardholder information from the CBSA.

Evaluation Purpose and Scope

This evaluation was initially identified as a priority in the 2008–2011 CBSA Risk-Based Multi-Year Evaluation Plan for the fiscal year 2010-2011. The evaluation, which assessed the relevance and performance of the CBSA's WHTI activities, addresses a commitment to the Treasury Board Secretariat that an evaluation of the development and support of EDL implementation would be conducted in 2010-2011. The scope of the evaluation included the roles and activities of the CBSA in working with partners to inform Canadians of the WHTI requirements and to support the development and implementation of EDLs, EICs and the SCIS. The effectiveness of provincial EDL/EIC delivery, the performance of other government departments in supporting the Agency's WHTI activities and pre-existing WHTI-compliant documents such as NEXUS, FAST, and passports are excluded from this evaluation.

Evaluation Methodology

The following outcomes were identified in the CBSA's integrated Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework / Risk-Based Audit Framework and were used as a basis to formulate the evaluation questions in Table 2:

• Ensure greater U.S. flexibility in the implementation of WHTI.
• Maintain timely access of Canadian travellers and trade with the United States.
• Increase awareness of Canadian public of alternate, valid, secure, low-cost, commonly held travel document.
• Contribute to WHTI-compliant documents.
• Mitigate the negative economic and social impacts of the WHTI.
• Increase client and traveller satisfaction.

Table 2: Evaluation Questions

Evaluation Issue	Evaluation Questions
Relevance	Are the CBSA's WHTI activities aligned with federal and CBSA priorities, roles and responsibilities?
	Are the CBSA's WHTI activities responsive to the needs of Canadians and do they continue to address a demonstrable need?
Performance –Design and Implementation	Were the management and design of CBSA's WHTI activities effective?
	Did EDLs, EICs and SCIS cards comply with federal requirements?
	Are measures in place to safeguard the privacy of Canadians?
	Is the data transmission functioning as intended?
	How satisfied were key stakeholders with the CBSA's WHTI activities?
Performance –Achievement of Expected Outcomes	Did the CBSA contribute to U.S. flexibility in the implementation of WHTI?
	To what extent did the CBSA raise awareness of the WHTI requirements and travel document alternatives?
	Did the CBSA contribute to the availability of WHTI-compliant document alternatives?
	To what extent has the CBSA helped mitigate the economic impacts of the WHTI and maintained timely access to travellers to the United States?
	To what extent have the CBSA's activities contributed to increased traveller satisfaction?
	Were there any positive or negative unexpected or unintended impacts of the CBSA's WHTI activities?
Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy	Have the CBSA WHTI activities been implemented in an efficient and cost-effective manner?
	Were other more efficient and effective alternatives than EDLs/EICs available for achieving the objectives of the CBSA's WHTI activities?

Research Methodologies

Review of Documents

The evaluation reviewed CBSA and provincial WHTI planning and reference documents, including the EDL reference manual, business cases, privacy impact assessments, presentations and reports. In addition, relevant internal correspondence, legislation, policies, procedures and agreements (i.e. memoranda of understanding [MOUs] and service level agreements) were reviewed. The evaluation also drew extensively on previously commissioned polls and studies, EDL post-implementation reviews, threat and risk assessments, and CIC quality assurance reports.

Analysis of Statistical Data

The evaluation collected and analyzed statistical data including the numbers of travel documents issued, and port statistics such as passage, processing and wait-time data from both the CBSA and U.S. CBP. As well, the evaluation analyzed tourism, travel and trade data from Statistics Canada and other sources.

Literature Review

The evaluation examined literature pertaining to the U.S. WHTI legislation, as well as media articles, independent studies, polls, and reports (e.g. Conference Board of Canada/ Canadian Tourism Commission, U.S. and Canadian Chambers of Commerce, SES Osprey media poll). Materials available on government and industry websites were reviewed to provide context and to support the assessment of the relevance of the initiative.

Key Stakeholder Interviews

The evaluation team interviewed a total of 80 stakeholders through 37 individual and group interviews to learn about the effectiveness and impact of the CBSA's WHTI activities. Interviewees included CBSA management and staff, partners (other government departments, provinces, U.S. CBP), as well as stakeholders from six travel, trade and tourism associations or alliances.

Table 3: Key Stakeholder Interviews

Interview Category	Number of Interviewees
CBSA Headquarters	22
CBSA Regions	30
Other government departments	10
Provincial stakeholders	11
U.S. CBP	1
Private sector stakeholders	6
Total	80

Research Limitations

Although this evaluation benefited from a wide range of available documentation, several research limitations remained. Information to assess cardholder satisfaction was based on results of post implementation reviews conducted by the provinces. At the time of the evaluation, only Manitoba and British Columbia had measured cardholder satisfaction. EDL and EIC cardholder satisfaction information for Ontario or Quebec was not available.

It was not possible to measure the extent to which the CBSA's activities mitigated any negative impacts of WHTI due to the fact that other important factors influencing travel and trade coincided with WHTI implementation. These included the economic recession, currency fluctuations and the H1N1 outbreak. Likewise, other than the impact of the postponement of implementation of WHTI for land and marine modes of transportation, the intended outcome of maintaining timely access of travel and trade with the United States could not be fully assessed as it is influenced by many factors in addition to travel document compliance. Examples include border staffing levels, infrastructure and automation, all of which fall within the jurisdiction of U.S. CBP and were not within the scope of the evaluation.

2.  Key Findings

2.1 Relevance

Are the CBSA's WHTI activities aligned with federal and CBSA priorities, roles and responsibilities?

By helping to mitigate the potential negative impacts of the new WHTI travel document requirements, the CBSA's WHTI activities aligned with the federal government's priority of supporting Canada's economic prosperity.

Each year, over 60 million people and close to $400 billion in goods cross the Canada–U.S. border. The Conference Board of Canada estimated that, from 2005 to 2010, the WHTI would result in a cumulative loss of 14.1 million trips from the United States to Canada, and 7.4 million fewer trips from Canada to the United States. Over the same period, the net impact of WHTI on tourism expenditures in Canada was estimated to be a reduction of $3.2 billion.[ 23 ] While the CBSA processed 10.6 million fewer travellers in fiscal year 2009–2010 compared to 2006–2007, the drop was likely a result of numerous factors in addition to the WHTI, including the economic downturn, currency fluctuations, the H1N1 outbreak and higher fuel prices.

The federal government's response to the WHTI was intended to mitigate its potential impact on the economy by making sure that Canadians were aware of the new document requirements; by ensuring that Canadians had timely access to WHTI-compliant documents; and by working with the United States to ensure that timelines were such that both Canadians and Americans had the time needed to acquire compliant documents prior to implementation.

The CBSA's WHTI activities are aligned with federal roles and responsibilities pertaining to citizenship, security, and the establishment of international and intergovernmental agreements.

The federal government played an essential role in the implementation of provincial EDLs and EICs as it is a requirement that these documents denote citizenship.[ 24 ] Through the Citizenship Act, CIC has authority over Canadian citizenship. As part of its WHTI activities, the CBSA collaborated with CIC to ensure that provinces were provided with the tools and support needed for determining EDL/EIC applicant eligibility with respect to citizenship.

The CBSA's WHTI activities also aligned with the federal government's commitment to work with international partners in the implementation of the smart borders model for increased border security.[ 25 ] The CBSA participated in the development of SPP document security standards and ensured that documents developed in response to WHTI were designed to meet these requirements. Through its WHTI activities, the CBSA helped develop the provincial capacity to detect fraud, and CSIS was engaged to conduct security screening of provincial EDL/EIC program delivery personnel.[ 26 ]

The CBSA Act provided the legislative authority for entering into agreements with the United States and the provinces.[ 27 ]  A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with U.S. CBP was required to govern the terms under which EDL/EIC data is disclosed and stored when travellers present their cards for entry to the United States at land or marine ports of entry. MOUs with the provinces established how EDLs and EICs would be produced and issued in compliance with federal standards.

Were the CBSA's WHTI activities responsive to the needs of Canadians and do they continue to address a demonstrable need?

The CBSA's WHTI activities addressed the need to inform Canadians of the new document requirements introduced through the WHTI.

As WHTI introduced new document requirements for Canadians travelling to the United States, Canadians needed to be made aware of these requirements prior to its final implementation. Further, to ensure that the WHTI did not have a negative impact on travel, accepted travel documents needed to be available at a cost that was not prohibitive.

The fact that 98% of travellers are presenting accepted documents when entering the U.S., and that a high proportion of Canadians now possess WHTI-compliant documents indicates that there is no longer an ongoing need for significant outreach activities aimed at informing Canadians of WHTI document requirements.

There is a need to continue with certain WHTI-related activities as WHTI document requirements continue to be in effect.

The CBSA continues to have a role in ensuring that EDLs, EICs and the border-crossing version of the SCIS card are compliant with federal standards. As well, there is an ongoing role for the Agency in maintaining the system for transmitting cardholder information to U.S. CBP when these documents are used to cross the border.

2.2  Performance – Design and Implementation

Were the management and design of the CBSA's WHTI activities effective?

The establishment of a WHTI task force was an effective approach for directing and coordinating the CBSA's WHTI activities.

One of the risks identified in the EDL Risk-Based Audit Framework was that the governance, roles and responsibilities, and communications would be too complex and/or not clear enough for efficient program delivery. Interviewees at CBSA Headquarters indicated that the establishment of a multidisciplinary team comprised of subject matter experts from several branches was an effective approach that facilitated the engagement of key areas when needed. In addition, working groups were used to address specific issues and a dedicated WHTI e-mail account was created to facilitate communications with stakeholders.

Providing effective support for the development of EDLs was challenging due to the number of stakeholders involved, the WHTI timelines and the limited number of CBSA experts available to provide advice and training with respect to document security standards.

The early stages of developing the EDL standards and processes required extensive policy discussion involving numerous stakeholders, each subject to different legislation and regulations. As a result, the policy analysis and EDL design stage took longer than expected and several provinces commented that responses to questions were not always timely. For the province of Quebec, this issue was exacerbated by a lack of French language capacity on the WHTI task force. Internal and external delivery partners also commented that changes in the composition of the task force resulted in discontinuity and some frustration.

Headquarters interviewees indicated that the Document Integrity Unit had to re-direct resources above and beyond the three full-time equivalents that were funded through the WHTI Treasury Board submission to support the CBSA's WHTI activities. This resulted in the unit not being able to meet its service standards for document assessments and the delivery of training not related to WHTI.[ 28 ] Interviewees also stated that the increased workload led to the production of fewer fraud alerts. This assertion is supported by a review of CBSA enforcement bulletins which shows that 10–20 fewer fraud alerts were issued in 2008 and 2009 as compared to 2006 and 2007. However, the evaluation was not able to determine the extent to which the unit's WHTI support contributed to this decline.

Despite these challenges, the CBSA was commended for its work, receiving a Canada's Government Technology Event gold medal[ 29 ] and was the runner-up for the Premier of British Columbia's Innovation and Excellence award in the partnership category.

Effective training, reference materials and performance measurement indicators were developed to support the implementation of EDLs/EICs and the border-crossing version of the SCIS card.

The WHTI task force compiled and documented background information on EDL standards, policies, procedures, plans and processes and incorporated them into a 22-chapter reference manual. The manual also included templates and checklists to guide the implementation of an EDL or EIC program. In addition, an EDL/SCIS systems manual was developed to support the technical implementation of EDL, EIC and SCIS cards and includes detailed descriptions of the business rules, data submission guidelines, and the service level agreement that governs the technical support of the data system.

After assessing the existing capacity of the provinces to detect fraud, the CBSA's Document Integrity Unit designed and delivered train-the-trainer sessions on document examination, fraud detection and interview techniques.[ 30 ] CIC also provided tools and training to ensure the provinces were able to establish whether applicants were providing satisfactory evidence of citizenship to be eligible for an EDL or EIC. In addition, CIC conducts annual quality assurance reviews to ensure that EDLs/EICs are issued only to Canadian citizens.[ 31 ] The ongoing post-implementation support provided by the CBSA and CIC helped keep the tools, training, standards and processes up-to-date. For example, the citizenship questionnaire of the EDL/EIC application was updated to reflect changes to the Citizenship Act.[ 32 ]

Performance information collected through public opinion research, media monitoring, post-implementation reviews and system-generated reports were used to support decisions aimed at the continuous improvement of the CBSA's WHTI-related outreach activities and the EDL implementation. For example, the CBSA commissioned studies to test whether or not proposed advertising materials (print, radio and Internet) would effectively inform Canadians of the WHTI requirements.[ 33 ] Suggested changes to wording and the adoption of different images were considered and incorporated based on these studies. In addition, the CBSA systematically scanned, analyzed and rated media reports as positive, negative or neutral, and used this information to determine whether further communications were required.

The CBSA worked with British Columbia on a pilot project to implement the first EDLs in that province. A post-implementation review (PIR) of the pilot resulted in twelve recommendations that were used to improve the design of the EDL program in B.C. and in the other provinces offering EDLs.[ 34 ] Each subsequent participating province also conducted a PIR to identify areas for improvement. Finally, the CBSA conducted PIRs of its own WHTI outreach activities and EDL support, which concluded that they were conducted in accordance with the CBSA project management principles and accomplished their objectives.[ 35 ] 

Reports generated through the EDL/EIC/SCIS database and CBSA's Consolidated Management Reporting System (CMRS) are used by the CBSA, provinces and INAC to confirm the successful transmission of cardholder data to CBSA (Data Acquisition Report), to validate the accuracy of cardholder records (Data Integrity Report), to track the number of active and inactive cardholders (Total Records Report) and to track the number of U.S. CBP requests for the data (Passages Report). Cardholders who have lost or had a card stolen or damaged are required to report this fact to the issuing authority. Lost, stolen, fraudulent or cancelled cards are tracked through a separate module within the Field Operation Support System.[ 36 ]

Did EDLs, EICs and SCIS cards comply with federal requirements?

The CBSA identified areas in the EDL, EIC and SCIS card production and issuance processes that did not fully comply with SPP standards. The Agency has not established an oversight and monitoring process to ensure that identified deficiencies are addressed.[ 37 ]

At the time of their implementation, EDL, EIC and SCIS document production and issuance processes did not meet all SPP standards. As many of these deficiencies fell within the “best practices” category of the SPP standards,[ 38 ] or were partially addressed, the task force, in consultation with CBSA document experts, information technology and physical security, determined that they presented low levels of risk to the overall document integrity. As such, temporary exemptions from meeting the standards were granted until full solutions could be implemented. However, no timelines were established.

The EDL application process includes some measures to mitigate the risk of EDLs being issued to persons with travel restrictions.

Under Canadian legislation, travel restrictions are imposed on individuals facing criminal charges for an indictable offence in Canada, who are subject to conditions imposed by a Canadian court or parole board, or a sentence of imprisonment in Canada. The Canadian Passport Order provides the authority for Passport Canada to deny or revoke a passport to those who are not allowed to travel outside of Canada.[ 39 ] Passport Canada has agreements in place with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Correctional Services which enables it to identify cases where passports should be denied to persons prohibited from leaving Canada. In 2008–2009, there were 8,716 federal offenders conditionally released on parole or supervision and Passport Canada refused or revoked 240 passports.[ 40 ]

Although the process for determining eligibility for an EDL/EIC was modeled against the Canadian passport application process, due to the timelines surrounding WHTI implementation and anticipated systems costs and privacy issues related to the sharing of information, it was not possible to establish an automated process to enable the provinces to check for travel restrictions of EDL/EIC applicants. However, the CBSA determined that the risk of and EDL/EIC being successfully used by a cardholder subject to travel restrictions would be minimal, since they would likely be denied entry to the US when their identity was checked against law enforcement data bases at the U.S. ports of entry. In order to mitigate the risk of an EDL/EIC being issued to an individual subject to travel restrictions, an “Entitlement-to-Travel” questionnaire was developed that includes a declaration by the applicant that she/he is not subject to travel restrictions. Since the effectiveness of this strategy relies on the honesty of the applicant, provincial staff was trained by the CBSA in interview techniques to detect misrepresentation.[ 41 ] The evaluation did not find any reports of applicants subject to travel restrictions having been issued an EDL/EIC.

With respect to the border-crossing version of the SCIS, INAC has a letter of agreement with Passport Canada to check for travel restrictions prior to the issuance of a SCIS.

Are measures in place to safeguard the privacy of Canadians?

Privacy safeguards were put in place which included document security features, secure storage and transmission of data, and agreements stipulating the acceptable use of personal information.

There are distinct federal and provincial privacy legislations and, as a result, multiple privacy impact assessments with respect to EDLs and EICs were conducted. Privacy officials were concerned about where the database containing cardholder personal information would be located (United States or Canada); the circumstances under which the personal information would be accessed and used; ensuring the informed consent of applicants; and the risks associated with using vicinity RFID (e.g. the possibility of data being skimmed by third parties). As a result, security features and processes and procedures were established to address each area of concern.
 
The database containing all cardholder personal information is housed in Canada and is maintained by the CBSA.[ 42 ] Cardholder data is transmitted from the CBSA to U.S. CBP through a secure connection only when the card is presented at a U.S. land or marine portof entry. Although the CBSA houses the data, the database was designed to prevent the CBSA from accessing or viewing the cardholder records as the CBSA does not have a legislated use for the data.

The application process was developed to ensure that applicants are advised that EDLs/EICs are voluntary, and requires that they complete a consent form indicating that they fully understand how their personal information will be used. A Participant Guide is given to all applicants and provides information on the collection, use and storage of personal information. Furthermore, the federal government, U.S. CBP and participating provinces have legislation and procedures in place to allow participants to review their personal records.

To address concerns over the use of RFID, the RFID chip does not include personal information. Instead, it contains two sets of unique numbers. The first is a tag identification number installed by the manufacturer to prevent cloning of the card and the second is a reference number which is used to retrieve designated information from the CBSA database. The chip itself is passive[ 43 ] and can only be read at a maximum distance of 4.5 metres. EDLs and EICs are also issued with a protective sleeve to further protect the card from third parties accessing the RFID. There have been no reported instances of unauthorized access to information contained on EDL or EIC cards.

Is the data transmission functioning as intended?

The system for transmitting data between the provinces, INAC, CBSA and U.S. CBP is functioning well.

Prior to EDL and EIC implementation, testing was done to ensure that data transmission met U.S. CBP's required response times for passage data and that the data were in the correct format. According to stakeholders and the CBSA post-implementation review, the project has met all of its objectives from a technical standpoint and there have been no significant problems with the data transmission.

Data transmission has not been an issue; however, U.S. CBP has experienced technical issues with card readers, but less than 10% of the time. If there is a problem with the RFID, the MRZ can be used; if there is a problem with the RFID and the MRZ, the card can be accepted at face value. The RFID will not be read if cardholders forget to remove the EDL from the protective sleeve. In a study at two ports of entry, U.S. CBP found that only 18.6% of travellers with RFID-enabled documents are properly presenting them at the RFID reader which indicates that cardholders likely require additional information on how to use their cards.

How satisfied were key stakeholders with the CBSA's WHTI activities?

Aside from some concerns over timeliness of responses to their questions, partners were satisfied with the support they received from the CBSA.

CIC interviewees commented that the challenging process of negotiating the provincial MOUs was made much easier because “rules of engagement” were established and the lead CBSA representative was a calm, rational and effective negotiator.

Provincial EDL directors and management staff interviewed were highly satisfied with the quality of training and support provided by the CBSA. In surveys of EDL staff satisfaction conducted for the provincial post-implementation reviews, 90–94% gave a good to excellent rating for training on the EDL system, fraud identification and use of scanners; and 82% indicated they were well or very well prepared to process EDL applications.[ 44 ] 

U.S. CBP staff interviewed credited the CBSA for the successful implementation of the EDLs and commented that they could not have asked for a better partner. INAC interviewees described the CBSA's assistance with the SCIS as being above expectations and were pleased with the continuity of support that was maintained after the re‑organization of the CBSA in April 2010.

Overall, CBSA Regions indicated that they were well informed of the WHTI implementation and the implications it might have on their ports of entry.

Twenty-seven out of thirty (90%) CBSA regional interviewees expressed satisfaction with WHTI-related communications from Headquarters. There were regular updates and e-mail exchanges concerning WHTI travel document requirements, and the task force maintained and updated the CBSA Internet and intranet with WHTI information, including information on all WHTI-compliant documents. This helped to ensure that CBSA personnel and the public had access to accurate, up-to-date information. As well, every second issue of the Border Points newsletter contained WHTI information for CBSA staff, including a special dedicated issue in the spring of 2009.[ 45 ] The CBSA People Processing Manual was also updated to include EDLs and EICs in the list of acceptable documents for establishing citizenship and identity, and SCIS for establishing Registered Indian Status and identity. [ 46 ]

Nevertheless, with the initial introduction of EDLs, there were isolated incidences of border services officers not recognizing the documents. These were quickly rectified through the issuance of Document Information Bulletins (field notices) by the CBSA's then Enforcement Branch. These bulletins notified border services officers of the new documents, providing them with informative details such as when issuance began, security features, sample pictures, and how they should be used.

In May 2008, the outreach team of the WHTI task force conducted information sessions on WHTI for regional client and program services officers. The information sessions took place in various locations in the Pacific, Prairie, Northern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic regions. While CBSA interviewees from the Niagara–Fort Erie and Windsor–St. Clair regions noted that no information sessions were held in their regions, they also stated that they were provided with sufficient information on the WHTI through other means as described above.

Industry stakeholders were satisfied with the CBSA's consultation activities and valued the frequent WHTI informational bulletins that they received.

Several industry interviewees expressed disappointment with the fact that the WHTI outreach, communications, and informative bulletins were discontinued after the final implementation of WHTI in June 2009, and indicated that they would find it useful to receive further information on travel document uptake.

2.3 Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes

Did the CBSA's activities contribute to U.S. flexibility in the implementation of WHTI?

The CBSA contributed to securing a postponement of the WHTI implementation for land and marine modes of transportation, exemptions for children and special groups, and ongoing leniency at U.S. ports of entry.

By working closely with U.S. CBP to implement EDLs, the CBSA demonstrated Canada's commitment to working with the United States on the successful implementation of the WHTI. This helped to secure a postponement of the implementation date for land and marine modes of transportation from the initially planned date of January 2008 to June 2009. The postponement provided more time for Canadians and Americans to obtain accepted travel documents, and for provinces and states to implement and issue EDLs/EICs. The United States also agreed to WHTI exemptions for children in the land and marine transportation modes. As a result, for those 15 years and under, or for those 18 years and under who are travelling with a school or other organized group under adult supervision, documents such as a birth certificates and citizenship cards are accepted.

U.S. CBP has also adopted a flexible approach to the enforcement of WHTI requirements at land and marine ports of entry. Rather than automatically denying entry to those without accepted documents, U.S. CBP may chose instead to issue a warning to the traveller. However, travellers may be turned away or sent to secondary inspection after repeated attempts to cross without proper documentation. U.S. CBP has indicated that this flexibility will likely continue as long as overall compliance rates remain high.

To what extent did the CBSA raise awareness of the WHTI requirements and travel document alternatives?

The CBSA's communications and outreach activities helped raise awareness of the WHTI document requirements. However, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the increase in awareness was attributable to the Agency's activities alone, as Passport Canada and the United States conducted WHTI-related advertising over the same period.

The CBSA ran two separate advertising campaigns.[ 47 ] The first campaign ran from November 2007 to January 2008 to inform Canadians that oral declarations would no longer be accepted for travel to the United States, and another from May to June 2009 to inform of the specific document requirements for the final implementation of WHTI on June 1, 2009. In addition to its advertising campaigns, the CBSA also held 49 WHTI information sessions and attended 40 tradeshows (see Appendix B) to deliver information to stakeholders concerning the implications of the WHTI.

After each advertising campaign, the CBSA commissioned research to assess its effectiveness.[ 48 ] The July 2009 study, which was conducted after the second campaign, found that on an unprompted basis, just over 50% of respondents correctly recalled the advertisements, an increase of approximately 30 percentage points over levels recorded after the first campaign. When prompted, the percentage increased to 58%. In border communities, the corresponding figure was much higher, at 71%. In addition, 12% of respondents in the general public and 24% in border communities said they took action as a result of the advertisements. Overall, the research indicated that by July 2009, over 90% of those surveyed were aware of the requirement to present a passport or other secure document for travel to the United States.[ 49 ] 

Increased awareness is also reflected in an increase in the number of passports issued. Passport Canada's Annual Report for 2009–2010 showed that 60% of Canadians (over 19 million) possessed a passport. This proportion is up significantly compared to the 36% who had passports in fiscal year 2005–2006, before the initial WHTI requirements were implemented in the air transportation mode.

Figures 1 and 2: Canadian Passports Issued and Percentage of Canadians Holding Passports

Despite outreach and advertising activities, many Canadians are not aware that there are WHTI compliant documents other than the passport.

There is a perception amongst private sector stakeholders interviewed that Canadians may not be aware of document options, or that birth certificates are still accepted for children for travel by land and marine. This perception is supported by a 2007 study of document options which found that 69% of respondents had never heard of the NEXUS card.[ 50 ] A study conducted in 2009 found that only 21% of those surveyed were aware that documents other than passports, such as NEXUS were acceptable.[ 51 ]

In its report Finding the Balance: Shared Border of the Future, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce recommended marketing the different types of documents to specific target groups as a means to improve border efficiency. The study suggested marketing passports for people with extensive international travel interests; EDLs, EICs and passport cards for casual travellers to the United States with limited international travel interest; NEXUS cards for frequent travellers and business users; and FAST cards for truck drivers.

Did the CBSA contribute to the availability of WHTI-compliant document alternatives?

The CBSA's WHTI activities have led to the availability and issuance of EDLs, EICs and SCIS cards as alternative WHTI-compliant documents.

EDLs and EICs contributed to the increase in WHTI-compliant documents issued. As of July 2010, 112,134 EDLs and 13,573 EICs had been issued in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. EICs for non-drivers are available in Manitoba and British Columbia and Ontario expects to make its equivalent, the Enhanced Photo Card (EPC), available at a later date. Ontario estimates there are four million residents without a valid driver's licence that could be eligible to apply for an EPC.[ 52 ] 

In December 2009, INAC deployed mobile units to 24 border communities to process SCIS applications, which resulted in the issuance of over 6,000 border-crossing versions of the SCIS. Based on the take-up rate of the pilot, INAC expects to eventually issue over 200,000 border-crossing SCIS cards and is currently developing a national SCIS deployment strategy.

The CBSA reached its target of ensuring that EDLs would be available to more than 75% of Canadian drivers prior the final implementation of WHTI.

At the time of the final implementation of WHTI in June 2009, the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario had implemented EDLs as an alternative to the standard driver's licence. Together, these provinces account for three quarters of the drivers in Canada and just over 72% of Canadian citizens.[ 53 ] During the same time period, the province of Manitoba had started issuing EICs, some of them as part of Manitoba's former two-piece driver's licence, which could be traded-in for a one-piece EDL once they became available in February 2010.

Table 4: Drivers in EDL provinces as of June 2009

Province	Number and Proportion (%) of Drivers in Canada[ 54 ]
Quebec	5,027,848 (22.2%)
Ontario	8,945,397 (39.6%)
British Columbia	3,007,702 (13.3%)
Sub-Total	16,980,947 (75.1%)
Total Drivers in Canada	22,606,138

Note: based on 2007 data for ON and BC and 2009 data for QC

With Manitoba, which has 776,000 drivers and 3.9% of the Canadian population, over 76% of Canadian citizens now have the option of applying for an EDL.[ 55 ]

Despite their availability, EDLs and EICs comprise only a small proportion of total driver's licences and of travel documents issued.

As shown in Table 5, EDLs represent between 0.3–1.3% of the provincial driver's licences in the four provinces in which they are available. Although the SAAQ had expected that EDLs would represent 10% of driver's licence renewals, this rate has not been achieved and EDLs currently represent about 1% of licences in the province. Similarly, the 38,145 EDLs that have been issued in British Columbia is significantly less than the estimated annual issuance of 120,000.[ 56 ] By way of comparison, the proportion of U.S. drivers in states that offer EDLs, while still relatively small, is more than twice the Canadian rate. It is important to note, however, that the state of Washington started issuing EDLs in January 2008, over a year before Canadian provinces offered them, and New York started issuing EDLs in September 2008, 7 to 9 months prior to Canadian provinces.[ 57 ]

Table 5: Canada and U.S. EDL/EIC Issuance (as of July 2010) [ 58 ]

Province	Issued	Proportion (%) of Provincial Drivers	State	Issued	Proportion (%) of State Drivers
Manitoba	2,063	0.3%	Washington	193,708	4.4%
Quebec	43,069	0.9%	Michigan	201,806	2.9%
Ontario	28,857	0.3%	Vermont	21,279	3.9%
British Columbia	38,145	1.3%	New York	351,176	3.1%
Total	125,707	0.6%	Total	767,969	3.3%

EDLs represented 1.4% of the documents presented to U.S. CBP upon entry to the United States between July and December 2009 (see Table 6).[ 59 ]  

Table 6: U.S. CBP Document Presentation Rates (%)

Documents Presented	Baseline (March to November 2008)	Post-Implementation (July to December 2009)
Passport	72.9	89.4
Passport Card	---	1.9
EDL	0.0	1.4
Permanent Resident Card	1.9	2.3
Trusted Traveller Card	0.0	1.0
Birth Certificate	4.7	2.3 (children only)
Birth Certificate (BC)	---	0.1 (adults only)
Driver's Licence (DL)	7.5	0.5
DL and BC	11.2	0.3
*Other documents	1.7	0.3
Verbal declaration	0.1	0.0

*“Other” includes merchant marine cards, Native American tribal cards, and citizen cards.

In a study conducted between June and August 2009, the CBSA found that EDLs represented 2.2% of the documents presented by highway travellers at eight ports of entry (see Table 7). Both CBSA and U.S. CBP statistics indicate that, despite the availability of other options, passports are the most preferred form of travel document. In Canada, the total number EDLs/EICs issued as of July 2010 is only about 2.6% of total number of passports issued in 2009 alone. In comparison, in the United States the proportion of EDLs/EICs issued compared to passports in 2009 was about 5.7%.[ 60 ]  

Table 7: CBSA Highway-Traveller Document Presentation Rates[ 61 ]

Documents Presented (percentages)	Jan-Apr 2007	June-Aug 2007	June-Aug 2008	Oct-Dec 2008	Jan-Apr 2009	June-Aug 2009
Number of travellers	5,511	5,513	5,592	2,048	1,591	3,450
Number of POEs	9	11	11	6	5	8
Passport	59.1	55.7	68.5	74.8	77.7	87.4
Driver's Licence and Birth Certificate	17.2	12.2	16.5	13.4	9.6	1
Driver's Licence	11.3	17.8	4.6	4.7	2.5	1.1
Birth Certificate	5.9	9.5	6.8	3.3	2.5	3.6
EDL	---	---	0.1	0.5	0.6	2.2
Other*	6.6	4.1	3.5	3.8	7.1	4.7

*“Other” includes NEXUS, Permanent Resident Cards, and Certificates of Indian Status.

Low uptake of EDLs in Canada can be attributed to many factors, including the higher versatility of passports, the process to apply for an EDL, and negative media attention.

The Harris/Decima poll commissioned by the CBSA and Passport Canada in 2007 found that the most commonly cited essential feature of a travel document was that it be accepted for land, sea or air travel.[ 62 ] The same study found that a validity period of at least five years was the second most essential feature and an easy application process ranked third. Provincial and private sector interviewees believed that the primary reason for the low uptake of EDLs was that they can only be used for travel by land and marine transportation modes.[ 63 ] Other factors cited include concerns with respect to the sharing of personal information, the limited number of EDL service locations and the application process which is more time consuming than that of a standard driver's licence renewal and requires a face-to-face interview.

Plans to introduce EDLs and EICs received considerable media attention, much of it focused on concerns that had been raised by federal and provincial privacy officials concerning the use of RFID technology. In 182 print media articles from November 2007 to March 2010, 62 focussed on concerns related to RFID chips and most of these were negative in tone.

The cost of obtaining travel documents may be a barrier to some travellers. For these individuals, EDLs/EICs facilitate travel by providing a lower-cost option to passports.

According to a study conducted by the Bi-national Tourism Alliance, 31% of Canadians indicated that the new document requirements associated with the WHTI were the primary reason for not crossing the border, with 27% citing this as a secondary reason.[ 64 ] Of those that did not possess acceptable documentation, over half indicated that this was due to cost. As the cost of travel documents is an issue for some of the population, EDLs and EICs mitigated this negative impact by providing individuals with lower-priced alternatives to the passport in a document which they already need.

Table 8: Cost of Travel Documents

Travel Document	Cost
Adult / minor passport	$87 / $37
NEXUS or FAST card	$50
EDL/EIC (where available) Costs are in addition to regular driver's licence fees	British Columbia	$35
	Manitoba	$30-$50
	Ontario	$40
	Quebec	$52

To what extent has the CBSA helped mitigate the economic impacts of the WHTI and maintained timely access to travel to the United States?

The evaluation could not determine the extent to which the CBSA contributed to the mitigation of any negative economic effects that may have occurred as a result of the WHTI, since declines in travel over the implementation period were the result of numerous factors.

Travel volumes from the United States to Canada have declined over the period of WHTI implementation. The CBSA processed 10.6 million fewer travellers in fiscal year 2009–2010, when WHTI full implementation took effect. Compared to fiscal year 2006–2007, this is a decline of over 11%. The bulk of this decline was in highway transportation mode. In fact, air travel to the United States has remained constant and actually increased after the implementation of WHTI document requirements for air travel.

The drop in highway travel from the United States, particularly in fiscal 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 was likely a result of several factors, including the economy and the appreciation of the Canadian dollar against its U.S. counterpart, which has made travel to Canada more expensive for Americans. Supporting this conclusion, a study by the Border Policy Research Institute found that WHTI caused roughly a 7% decline in overall Canadian border traffic in the period of May 2009 to June 2009, and that the reductions in subsequent months were a result of the recession.[ 65 ]

Figure 4:  CBSA Traveller Volumes by Mode of Transportation (thousands)[ 66 ]

EDLs and EICs facilitate timely access to the United States by reducing U.S. CBP inspection times.

U.S. CBP has found that the use of vicinity RFID technology, such as that in EDLs and EICs, results in an average reduction of 75 seconds in inspections compared to those where the information is manually keyed, and a reduction of 14 seconds compared to scanning the document using the MRZ. While these gains may seem small, they are cumulative and when coupled with other measures, have the potential to significantly reduce border wait times.

In order to realize maximum efficiencies, sufficient infrastructure must also be in place. To encourage the use of RFID documents, U.S. CBP is considering adding dedicated lanes for travellers using RFID-enabled documents such as EDLs, EICs, and U.S. passport cards.

Figure 3 – U.S. CBP Average Inspection Time by Query Type (General Lanes)[ 67 ]

The CBSA only uses RFID in lanes dedicated to NEXUS and FAST and only has access to basic cardholder information on EDLs and EICs via the MRZ.[ 68 ] The evaluation noted that the CBSA's Border Management Action Plan includes an initiative for increased use of RFID technology for land border travellers.[ 69 ]

To what extent have the CBSA's activities contributed to increased traveller satisfaction?

Information from provincial post-implementation reviews indicate that EDL and EIC cardholders are satisfied with the travel documents and find them convenient for crossing the border.

In British Columbia, 103 of 127 EDL holders surveyed after the phase 1 pilot had used their EDL to cross the border. Of these, 94% were satisfied with using them to enter the United States and 46% said they spent less time at the primary inspection line because they had an EDL. Of the 53% of Manitoba EIC holders who had used their cards for crossing the border, 67% agreed that using them to cross the border was convenient. Only 1% reported challenges and 5% were asked for additional identification at the border.

Were there any positive or negative unexpected or unintended impacts of the CBSA's WHTI activities?

Although not a requirement for entry into Canada, the presentation of WHTI-compliant documents at Canadian ports of entry has made it easier for border services officers to establish traveller identity, right of entry[ 70 ] and citizenship.

Regional CBSA interviewees noted that since the WHTI implementation, travellers arriving at Canadian ports of entry are more likely to present recognized travel documents. The CBSA's surveys of document presentation rates noted earlier support this finding. As of August 2009, almost 90% of travellers were presenting passports or EDLs. According to one CBSA regional interview, the increased presentation of passports has resulted in more secondary referrals as the documents are queried against enforcement databases. This observation is supported by the CBSA's quarterly operational statistics, which show an increase of 12% in the rate of secondary examinations in the highway transportation mode for the first three months after final implementation. U.S. CBP has also reported that mandatory document presentation has resulted in more secondary referrals since full implementation.[ 71 ]  

Interviewees from the CBSA and the provinces also commented that the working relationships established as a result of the CBSA's WHTI activities have facilitated cooperation in the authentication of documents and the investigation of fraud.

2.4 Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

Have the CBSA WHTI activities been implemented in an efficient and cost effective manner?

Since fiscal year 2006–2007, the CBSA has spent $14.8 million on its WHTI activities.

The CBSA's WHTI activities have cost $14.8 million, including $8 million in salaries and benefits (at one point the task force had close to 40 people), $1.8 million in operating and maintenance expenses, and $5 million for the WHTI advertising campaigns.

In fiscal year 2008–2009, the CBSA received $6.8 million in new funding over 5 years to support the provinces with the implementation of EDLs/EICs, as well as $670,000 in ongoing funding. This new funding covered 70% of the CBSA's expenditures for fiscal years 2008–2009 and 2009–2010.

Table 9: Treasury Board Funding for the CBSA Support of EDLs

New Treasury Board Funding	2008–2009	2009–2010	2010–2011	2011–2012	2012–2013	Total
Salary and Benefits	742,511	375,480	375,480	325,056	325,056	2,143,583
Operating & Maintenance and Accommodation	687,568	500,484	500,484	344,944	344,944	2,378,424
Capital	2,275,700	-	-	-	-	2,275,700
Total	3,705,779	875,964	875,964	670,000	670,000	6,797,707

Table 10: CBSA's WHTI Expenditures

CBSA WHTI Expenditures	2006–2007	2007–2008	2008–2009	2009–2010	Total
Salary and Benefits	1,792,009	1,833,584	2,510,967	1,861,962	7,998,522
Operating & Maintenance and Accommodation	452,086	431,116	619,878	307,367	1,810,447
Advertising and Communications		3,574,522	571,748	858,110	5,004,380
Total Expenditures	2,244,095	5,839,222	3,702,593	3,027,439	14,813,349

The CBSA built on existing systems, used efficient communication strategies, and leveraged in-house and partner expertise in order to minimize costs.

By using the CBSA's existing secure connection with U.S. CBP for the transmission of EDL data, and ensuring that the system was designed to meet basic requirements only, the CBSA was able to develop the system without incurring any capital costs. To minimize communications costs, outreach activities were conducted in partnership with the CBSA's NEXUS outreach team and regional client services. As well, the use of a dedicated e-mail account facilitated the efficient flow of information between the CBSA, stakeholders and partners. Finally, the use of train-the-trainer sessions leveraged CBSA's and CIC's in-house expertise to complement the provincial training efforts and created the capacity for future training to be delivered entirely by the provinces.

Were other more efficient and effective alternatives than EDLs/EICs available for achieving the objectives of the CBSA's WHTI activities?

Of options considered, EDLs/EICs were the only low-cost passport alternative that could be developed and implemented within the WHTI imposed time frames.

Before the federal government made the decision to support EDLs, the CBSA and Passport Canada jointly commissioned research[ 72 ] to solicit public opinions on four options: EDLs, Passport Cards[ 73 ], Passport Booklets with RFID[ 74 ], and NEXUS cards.[ 75 ] Results of this research are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Alternative Documents and Likelihood of Use

Very/Somewhat Likely to Use	Overall %
Enhanced Driver's Licence	48%
Passport Card	38%
Passport Booklet with RFID	29%
NEXUS Card	18%

Source: Research on Alternative Documentation for Land and Sea Travel, Harris/Decima September 2007.

While EDLs were the most popular alternative to a passport, 60% of respondents said they would more likely use the current passport than any of the other options. Given Canadians' preference for passports, Passport Cards may have proven to be a more popular card format alternative to the passport booklet than either the EDL or EIC. However, due to the surging demand for passports as a result of the WHTI, Passport Canada did not have the capacity to develop and deliver a Passport Card within the time frames imposed by the WHTI implementation schedule.

3.  Conclusions, Recommendations and Management Response

Overall, the evaluation found that the CBSA's WHTI activities were well managed and that they achieved their intended outcomes. Activities undertaken by the CBSA were consistent with the priorities, roles and responsibilities of the federal government. Given the over 190,000 people and almost $2 billion in goods crossing the border every day, there was a need to make Canadians aware of new WHTI travel document requirements in order to minimize any negative impact on travel and trade.

The CBSA's task force approach to managing its activities proved to be effective. Through working closely with U.S. CBP to implement EDLs, the CBSA demonstrated Canada's commitment to working on the successful implementation of the WHTI. This helped to secure a postponement of the implementation for land and marine modes of transportation from January 2008 to June 2009. The Agency also met its target of ensuring that EDLs were available to more than 75% of Canadian drivers. However, uptake of EDLs was lower than anticipated due to factors that included the higher versatility of passports, the EDL/EIC application process, and negative media attention.

CBSA's outreach activities helped raise awareness of WHTI document requirements, although it is not possible to determine the exact extent since Passport Canada and the United States also conducted WHTI-related advertising. Overall, the CBSA's research indicated that by July 2009, over 90% of Canadians surveyed were aware of the requirement to present a passport or other secure document to travel to the United States.[ 76 ] Increased awareness was also reflected in the number of passports issued. Around 60% of Canadians possessed a passport in 2009–2010, up significantly from the 36% who had passports prior to the WHTI in fiscal year 2005–2006. The 98% rate of presentation of WHTI-compliant documents at the U.S. border indicates that the need for significant WHTI-related outreach activities no longer exists.

The evaluation was not able to determine the extent to which the CBSA's WHTI activities contributed to the mitigation of any negative economic effects of the WHTI. While the CBSA processed 10.6 million fewer travellers in fiscal year 2009–2010 compared to 2005–2006, the drop was likely a result of numerous factors in addition to the WHTI including the economic downturn, currency fluctuations, the H1N1 outbreak and higher fuel prices.

There is evidence to suggest that the use of RFID-enabled documents such as the EDLs and EICs can help reduce border wait times. U.S. CBP experience shows that the use of vicinity RFID technology results in an average reduction of a full minute and 15 seconds in primary inspections compared to those where the information is manually keyed, and that they save on average 14 seconds compared to documents scanned in a MRZ. The CBSA currently uses RFID technology in NEXUS and FAST lanes and does not use it to scan EDLs and EICs. The evaluation noted that the CBSA's Border Management Action Plan includes an initiative for increased use of RFID technology for land border travellers.[ 77 ]

Although not a requirement for entry into Canada, the presentation of WHTI-compliant documents at Canadian ports of entry has made it easier for border services officers to establish traveller identity, right of entry[ 78 ] and citizenship. CBSA interviewees noted that since WHTI implementation, travellers arriving at Canadian land ports of entry are more likely to show one of the more secure, integrity-based documents. The CBSA's surveys of document presentation rates at land border ports of entry support this finding. As of April 2009, almost 90% of travellers were presenting passports or EDLs.

The Agency built on existing systems, used efficient communication strategies, and leveraged in-house and partner expertise in order to minimize costs. By using the CBSA's existing secure connection with U.S. CBP for the transmission of EDL data, and ensuring that the system was designed to meet basic requirements only, the CBSA was able to develop the system without incurring any capital costs. Since 2006–2007, the CBSA has spent $14.8 million, including $8 million in salaries and benefits for the WHTI task force, $5 million in advertising, and $1.8 million in operating and maintenance costs.

The CBSA continues to support the provinces in the ongoing administration of EDLs/EICs. As well, there is an ongoing need to support INAC as it further implements the border-crossing version of the SCIS and Ontario when it rolls out its version of the EIC, the EPC.

Under Canadian legislation, travel restrictions are imposed on individuals facing criminal charges for an indictable offence in Canada, who are subject to conditions imposed by a Canadian court or parole board, or a sentence of imprisonment in Canada. The risk of EDLs/EICs being used by persons subject to travel restrictions was estimated to be small, since these individuals would likely be denied entry at a U.S. port of entry based on checks against law enforcement data bases. Nevertheless, to mitigate this risk, all EDL applicants are required to sign a declaration stating that they are not subject to travel restrictions. Since the effectiveness of this strategy relies on the honesty of the applicant, provincial staff was trained by the CBSA in interview techniques to detect misrepresentation.[ 79 ]

The evaluation noted some non-critical deficiencies in the provincial and INAC document production and issuance processes. However, as the CBSA has not yet developed an oversight and monitoring process for reviewing ongoing compliance with federal requirements as specified in its MOUs with the provinces, the degree of progress towards addressing these deficiencies is not known.

In light of these findings, the evaluation recommends that:

Recommendation:

The CBSA Programs Branch develop and implement a process for ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies with respect to travel restrictions and provincial and INAC compliance with federal standards, including fulfillment of outstanding compliance deficiencies with SPP standards and the Government Security Policy.

Management Response:

The CBSA Programs Branch concurs with this recommendation. The Traveller Border Programs Division of the Programs Branch will lead the development of the framework and action plan and monitor its completion (in consultation with other Agency branches, directorates, portfolio agencies and other government departments).

Proposed Action/Background	Completion dates
The CBSA Programs Branch concurs with this recommendation.
1. As a first step in establishing a monitoring framework, the Programs Branch will review WHTI documentation and processes, and consult with relevant areas within the CBSA, and provincial and federal government departments to identify the risks and effectiveness of the existing risk mitigation options with regard to: travel restrictions as related to EDLs/EICs; and provincial and INAC compliance with federal standards.	June 30, 2011
2. The Traveller Border Programs Division will identify gaps (if any), recommend a strategy to address deficiencies (if/where applicable) and develop a framework for ongoing monitoring of provincial and INAC compliance for Senior Management approval. External resources to assist with the development of the monitoring framework will be considered.	September 30, 2011
3. Following Senior Management approval of the monitoring framework and the allocation of applicable resources, the Traveller Border Programs Division will create an action plan for implementing the chosen mitigation option.	December 31, 2011

 

Appendices

Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation/Acronym	Description
CBP	Customs and Border Protection (U.S.)
CBSA	Canada Border Services Agency
CIC	Citizenship and Immigration Canada
CMRS	CBSA Consolidated Management Reporting System
EDL	Enhanced Driver's Licence
EIC	Enhanced Identification Card (Manitoba/British Columbia)
EPC	Enhanced Photo Card (Ontario)
FAST	Free and Secure Trade (program for commercial drivers)
INAC	Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
IRPA	Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
IRTPA	Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
MOU	Memorandum of Understanding
MRZ	Machine Readable Zone
NEXUS	Joint Canada-U.S. Customs and Immigration Program
RFID	Radio Frequency Identification
SAAQ	Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec
SCIS	Secure Certificate of Indian Status
SPP	Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
U.S.	United States
WHTI	Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (U.S.)

 

Appendix B: CBSA WHTI Presentations, Tradeshows and Site Visits

Table B1: Presentations by Region and Audience (April 2007-May 2009)[ 80 ]

Region	First Responders	Municipal Council or Town Hall	Chamber of Commerce	CBSA or OGD	External Stakeholders	Subtotal Events (Region)
Pacific		1	1	1	2	5
Prairie			3	4	1	8
Windsor /   Ft. Erie / GTA	3	2	2	2	3	12
Northern Ontario	1	2	3	4	1	11
Quebec				3	2	5
Atlantic			2	5	1	8
Subtotal Events	4	5	11	19	10
Total Presentations	49
Total Participants	1,225

Table B2: Tradeshows Attended and Participants by Region (April 2007-May 2009)

Region	Total Events	Participants
Pacific	5	1,500
Prairie	8	2,400
Windsor / Ft. Erie /GTA	7	2,100
Northern Ontario	3	900
Quebec	4	1,200
Atlantic	8	2,400
United States	5	1,500
Totals	40	12,000

Table B3: CBSA Site Visits for Training and Facility Assessments

Province	Training Visits	Facility Assessments
Quebec	2	2
Ontario	2	36[ 81 ]
British Columbia	1	4
Manitoba	(came to Ottawa or Saskatchewan)	10
Saskatchewan	1	1
Number of INAC Staff Trained
INAC headquarters		15
INAC registration officers (across Canada)		104

---

Notes

1. Source: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Documents Required for Travel within the Western Hemisphere”, Proposed Rules, Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 169 September 2005 – IRTPA section 7209. [Return to text]
2. CBSA Report on Plans and Priorities 2010–11. [Return to text]
3. Those concerned included several U.S. senators, State governors, provincial premiers, industry groups and associations, and think tanks. [Return to text]
4. Marine ports of entry are alternatively referred to as water or sea Ports of Entry (POEs) in the U.S. WHTI legislation. [Return to text]
5. Only U.S. and Canadian citizens are eligible for EDLs/EICs. [Return to text]
6. Source: Testing of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative Advertising Campaign – Final Rule, August 2009 – EKOS Research (1,307 survey respondents). Estimates are considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. [Return to text]
7. CBSA Border Management Action Plan, August 5, 2010 [Return to text]
8. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Canadian citizens, registered Indians and permanent residents have a right of entry to Canada, although they must demonstrate their status to the satisfaction of the border services officer. WHTI travel documents help establish a traveller's right of entry as they denote the bearer's citizenship or registered Indian status. [Return to text]
9. It is a prosecutable offense to supply misleading information on an EDL or EIC application. Provisions to this effect are included in the Drivers and Vehicles Act (Manitoba), the 2008 Photo Card Act (Ontario), the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, and the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information (Quebec). [Return to text]
10. Source: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Documents Required for Travel within the Western Hemisphere”, Proposed Rules, Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 169 September 2005 – IRTPA section 7209. [Return to text]
11. Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) http://www.getyouhome.gov/html/eng_map.html and Department of Homeland Security http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1200693579776.shtm  [Return to text]
12. When implementing a new law, the United States issues Notices, Proposed Rules, and Final Rules through the U.S. Federal Register (www.federalregister.gov) which typically provides for a 60-day period for the public to submit comments for consideration. [Return to text]
13. Source: www.getyouhome.gov. U.S. and Canadian citizen children under age 16 arriving by land or water from contiguous territory may also present an original or copy of his or her birth certificate, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a Naturalization Certificate, or a Canadian Citizenship Card. The same applies for U.S. and Canadian citizen children under age 19 who are traveling with a school group, religious group, social or cultural organization, or sports team. [Return to text]
14. Source: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom
    /congressional_test/agency_goals.xml. The United States spent over $350 million to install RFID and licence plate readers at 39 POEs. [Return to text]
15. NEXUS is a joint Canada–U.S. program that expedites border clearance for pre-approved travellers. FAST is a similar program, but for commercial drivers. [Return to text]
16. An MRZ contains the information that is visible on the card, coded into three lines that can be read by a document reader. [Return to text]
17. Those concerned included several U.S. senators, State governors, Provincial premiers, industry groups and associations, and think-tanks. [Return to text]
18. Source: Finding the Balance: Shared Border of the Future, Canadian Chamber of Commerce. 2009: A “thick” border is caused by increasing fees, inspections, wait times, rules and regulations, stringent requirements and infrastructure impediments. [Return to text]
19. Initially, financial support to the provinces in the form of a $40-million federal contribution program was considered, but was later rejected as driver's licences are administered as a cost-recovery program and the provinces had already committed to improving the security of driver's licences through the Canadian Driver's Licence Agreement (CDLA). The CDLA is a cross-provincial agreement to implement the North American security framework developed by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and its U.S. sister organization, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. The framework incorporates the requirements imposed by the U.S. Real ID Act. [Return to text]
20. Security and Prosperity Partnership deliverable 1.1.3 (SPP 1.1.3), based on the International Civil Aviation Organization 9303 standards for official travel documents. [Return to text]
21. The Policy on Government Security covers physical and electronic data storage, including access and information system security (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=16578) [Return to text]
22. One of five documents may be presented (provincial or territorial birth certificate, citizenship certificate, retention certificate, naturalization certificate, registration of birth abroad certificate). The validity of the last three is subject to particular issuance dates. [Return to text]
23. Source: An Update on the Potential Impact of the WHTI on Canada's Tourism Industry. Prepared by the Conference Board of Canada for Industry Canada, August 2006. [Return to text]
24. Although EDLs/EICs denote citizenship, they do not constitute a citizenship document. Only CIC can validate citizenship, a process which can take up to 10 months. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information
    /times/canada/certif-processing.asp [Return to text]
25. Source: National Security Policy and Smart Border Declaration and Action Plan  [Return to text]
26. CSIS screened an average of 300 staff per EDL province. [Return to text]
27. Paragraph 5(1)c) of the CBSA Act provides the legislative authority for the CBSA to implement agreements with provinces to provide a service that facilitates the free flow of people and goods. Section 13 provides the legislative authority for CBSA to enter into agreements with international organizations. [Return to text]
28. Document assessments services include consular services to support the proper issuance of emergency travel documents, and assessments to provide court evidence. [Return to text]
29. Qualifying criteria to be nominated for the Government Technology Event award – Innovation: a creative approach, using IM/IT applications and/or technology, to advance government (may include, but is not limited to: policy frameworks, service delivery, organizational transformation, use of customer-centered services, public consultation and participation, competition in the global economy) http://www.gtec.ca/downloads/medalists-archive/gtec-2009-medalists.pdf. [Return to text]
30. Approximately 12-24 training binders with the training development units were provided to each province. [Return to text]
31. To date, although CIC found several cases of administrative errors where copies of documents were unclear, incomplete or missing from the files, it did not find that any cards had been issued to ineligible applicants. [Return to text]
32. Source: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules-citizenship.asp – the amendments to the Citizenship Act restored Canadian citizenship to certain persons who previously lost it or were ineligible and limits Canadian citizenship to the first generation born to Canadian parents outside of Canada. [Return to text]
33. Source: WHTI Creative Pretest – Antima Group – November 2007; Testing of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative Advertising Campaign – Final Rule Phase I – Pre-test of advertising material – EKOS Research Associates – May 2009 [Return to text]
34. Improvements included refinements to the EDL/EIC Participant guide and training programs to reduce administrative errors; a reduction in the time allotted for applicant pre-screening; a review of the policies and practices with respect to personnel security screening, document scanning, and retention of hard copies of applications; and suggestions for ensuring the successful timing and content of announcements and communications.[Return to text]
35. For technical projects, the CBSA uses an established Major Project Governance Framework as the basis for guiding project management throughout the project life cycle. [Return to text]
36. The Lost, Stolen, and Fraudulent Document module in the Field Operation Support System is an electronic database on documents that have been reported lost, stolen, cancelled, or fraudulently issued or obtained. One of its purposes is to assist border services officers (BSOs) in detecting the attempted use of fraudulent documents.[Return to text]
37. Chapter 21 of the EDL reference manual contains an empty place holder for both the oversight and monitoring and the EDL/EIC revocation processes. Oversight and monitoring were identified by the task force as two of the 88 outstanding action items of ongoing WHTI responsibilities. [Return to text]
38. SPP standards include both minimum standards and best practices. [Return to text]
39. Source: Sections 9 and 10. Backgrounder http://www.ppt.gc.ca/articles/20080213a.aspx?lang=eng. [Return to text]
40. Source: National Parole Board http://pbc-clcc.gc.ca/infocntr/factsh/parole_stats-eng.shtml#2 and Passport Canada http://www.ppt.gc.ca/publications
    /pdfs/ar_08_eng.pdf [Return to text]
41. It is a prosecutable offense to supply misleading information on an EDL/EIC application. Provisions to this effect are included in the Drivers and Vehicles Act (Manitoba), the 2008 Photo Card Act (Ontario), the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, and The Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information (Quebec). [Return to text]
42. CBSA personnel do not have access to the information stored on the database. [Return to text]
43. Passive RFID tags do not have their own power source and can only transmit data after receiving power from the external RFID reader. [Return to text]
44. The data available did not clearly distinguish between the training provided by the CBSA, CIC and the provinces. [Return to text]
45. Border Points is a bulletin for border services officers published by the Operations Branch. Issues 2,4,6 and 8 featured WHTI information. [Return to text]
46. Sections 32 to 40 of the CBSA People Processing Manual, Part 2 – Primary Processing, Chapter 1, “Primary Questioning and Immigration Referrals.” Version with amendment dated March 16, 2010. [Return to text]
47. The campaigns consisted of print, radio, direct mail, billboard and Internet advertisements as well as tear away sheets for distribution at POEs with the date of the WHTI implementation, a list of valid documents for air, land and marine modes, exemptions for children and the CBSA Web site address for additional information. [Return to text]
48. A survey of 1,307 Canadians (with 100 cases of over-sampling in three major border communities across Canada) was used to gauge recall of advertising, actions taken as a result of advertisements, media coverage and travel-related behaviours and perceptions of Federal Government performance. Testing of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative Advertising Campaign – Final Rule, August 2009 – EKOS Research. [Return to text]
49. Source: Testing of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative Advertising Campaign – Final Rule, August 2009 – EKOS Research (1,307 survey respondents) Estimates are considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.[Return to text]
50. Source: Research on Alternative Documentation for Land and Sea Travel, September 2007 - Harris/Decima (prepared for CBSA and Passport Canada). [Return to text]
51. Source: Testing of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative Advertising Campaign – Final Rule, August 2009 – EKOS Research. [Return to text]
52. Source: Ontario to join B.C. in offering high-tech driver's licences to cross border - The Canadian Press, November 2008. [Return to text]
53. Source: Statistics Canada, non-immigrant population from January 2010 postcensal estimates based on the 2006 Census. [Return to text]
54. Sources: Transport Canada http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety
    /tp-tp3322-2007-1039.htm#t11; BC Collision report 2007, http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/publications
    /dossiers_etudes/bilan2009_accidents.pdf. [Return to text]
55. Source: Manitoba Public Insurance Annual Report 2009; http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/orsar/orsar07/orsar-2007.pdf; based on data from 2009. [Return to text]
56. Source: B.C. EDL Phase 2 Business Plan, April 2009. [Return to text]
57. Quebec started issuing EDLs in mid-March 2009, while the other three provinces started issuing by the end of May 2009 [Return to text]
58. Sources: see references in footnote 54, plus CBSA CMRS report and U.S. CBP Document Saturation Status, http://www.statemaster.com/graph
    /trn_lic_dri_tot_num-transportation-licensed-drivers-total-number. [Return to text]
59. CBP surveys were conducted at 10 POEs prior to and after the final implementation of WHTI. [Return to text]
60. Sources: http://www.ppt.gc.ca/publications/pdfs/ar_09_eng.pdf, http://www.us-passport-service-guide.com/passport-statistics.html. In 2009, there were 4.82 million passports issued in Canada and 13.5 million in the United States (including passport cards). [Return to text]
61. Source: The CBSA Transborder Usage Study. Surveys of 23,750 (an average of 3,951 per phase) highway non-commercial travellers were conducted in regular (non-NEXUS) lanes at between 5 and 11 of the busiest POEs. Commercial travellers were also surveyed but are not included in this table. [Return to text]
62. Source: Research on Alternative Documentation for Land and Sea Travel, September 2007 – Harris/Decima (prepared for the CBSA and Passport Canada). [Return to text]
63. Provincial and private sector interviewees strongly advocated for expansion to air mode and suggested that other provinces would consider offering EDLs if this were so. [Return to text]
64. Source: 2010 Border Travel Study. Telephone survey conducted between February and March 2010 of 400 U.S. and 400 Canadian citizens in the Erie Niagara region who had not crossed the border since June 1, 2009. Marketing Decisions Group Inc. for the Bi‑national Tourism Alliance. Similar results were also obtained in a 2009 IPSOS Reid Poll commissioned by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. [Return to text]
65. Source: Border Policy Research Institute, Western Washington University, Border Policy Brief, Vol. 5, #3, Summer 2010. [Return to text]
66. Source: CBSA Facts and Figures and CMRS (CMRS used for fiscal year 2009–2010, report run July 20, 2010). [Return to text]
67. Source: U.S. CBP WHTI Post-Implementation Primary Inspection Process Study Interim Report Aug-Dec 2009. [Return to text]
68. The CBSA can read 5 data elements off the MRZ, whereas when the CBP swipes the MRZ, it has a pointer to the CBSA database which gives them access to 13 data elements, the same data that is retrieved through the RFID. [Return to text]
69. Source: CBSA Border Management Action Plan, March 26, 2010. [Return to text]
70. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Canadian citizens, registered Indians and permanent residents have a right of entry to Canada, although they must demonstrate their status to the satisfaction of the border services officer. WHTI travel documents help establish a traveller's right of entry as they denote the bearer's citizenship or registered Indian status. [Return to text]
71. Source: U.S. CBP WHTI Post Implementation Primary Inspection Process Study Interim Report, August 2009-December 2009. [Return to text]
72. Source: Research on Alternative Documentation for Land and Sea Travel, September 2007 - Harris/Decima (prepared for CBSA and Passport Canada). [Return to text]
73. A card issued by Passport Canada with RFID technology for use by land or marine.[Return to text]
74. A version of the traditional passport booklet, but with RFID technology and for use by land or marine only. [Return to text]
75. NEXUS can be used for travel to the United States by air, land, or sea. NEXUS members are pre-screened as being low-risk travellers in order to benefit from expedited border processing through dedicated lanes. [Return to text]
76. Source: Testing of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative Advertising Campaign – Final Rule, August 2009 – EKOS Research (1,307 survey respondents) Estimates are considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. [Return to text]
77. CBSA Border Management Action Plan, August 5, 2010.[Return to text]
78. Under IRPA, Canadian citizens, registered Indians and permanent residents have a right of entry to Canada, although they must demonstrate their status to the satisfaction of the BSO. WHTI travel documents help establish a traveller's right of entry as they denote the bearer's citizenship or registered Indian status. [Return to text]
79. It is a prosecutable offense to supply misleading information on an EDL/EIC application. Provisions to this effect are included in the Drivers and Vehicles Act (Manitoba), the Photo Card Act, 2008 (Ontario), the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, and The Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information (Quebec). [Return to text]
80. Source: CBSA WHTI Outreach Post Implementation Review, pp. 7-8. [Return to text]
81. Included 20 potential EDL issuance sites and 16 storage or production facilities. [Return to text]