Passports and PASS Cards, Identity and Citizenship: Implementing the WHTI
Interim Report of the
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce
The Honourable
Senator Jerahmiel S. (Jerry) Grafstein, Q.C., Chair
The Honourable
Senator W. David Angus, Q.C., Deputy
Chair
and The Honourable Senators:
Michel Biron |
Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C. |
J. Trevor Eyton, Q.C. |
Paul J. Massicotte |
D. Ross Fitzpatrick |
Michael A. Meighen, Q.C. |
Yoine Goldstein |
Wilfred P. Moore, Q.C. |
Mac Harb |
David Tkachuk |
October 2006
MEMBERSHIP
The Honourable
Senator Jerahmiel S. (Jerry) Grafstein, Q.C., Chair
The Honourable
Senator W. David Angus, Q.C., Deputy
Chair
and
The Honourable Senators:
Michel Biron |
Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C. |
J. Trevor Eyton, Q.C. |
* Marjory LeBreton, P.C. (or Gerald J. |
D. Ross Fitzpatrick |
Comeau) |
Yoine Goldstein |
Paul J. Massicotte |
Mac Harb |
Michael A. Meighen, Q.C. |
* Daniel P. Hays (or Joan Fraser) |
Wilfred P. Moore, Q.C. |
|
David Tkachuk |
* Ex Officio Members of the Committee
Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament:
June M. Dewetering, Acting Principal
Philippe Bergevin, Analyst
Sheena Starky, Analyst
Senate Committees
Directorate:
Clerk of the Committee:
Dr Line Gravel
ORDER OF REFERENCE
Extract from the Journals of the Senate of Tuesday, May 2, 2006:
The Honourable Senator Grafstein moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C.:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report upon the present state of the domestic and international financial system; and
That the Committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2007.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Paul C. Bélisle
Clerk of the Senate
CHAPTER ONE: THE RIGHT DOCUMENT
CHAPTER TWO: THE RIGHT DOCUMENT FOR THE RIGHT PEOPLE
CHAPTER THREE: THE RIGHT DOCUMENT FOR THE RIGHT PEOPLE AT THE RIGHT TIME
A. What the Witnesses Said
1. Pilot Projects
2. Travellers without Documents
3. Awareness and Outreach CampaignsB. What the Committee Believes
1. Pilot Projects
2. Travellers without Documents
3. Awareness and Outreach Campaigns
4. Staged Implementation
CHAPTER FOUR: THE RIGHT APPROACH TO BORDER SECURITY
A. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative as a Border Security Measure
B. Support for a Secure Border
C. Tourism Declines and the Canadian Tourism Commission
CHAPTER FIVE: RECENT BORDER-RELATED ANNOUNCEMENTS
________________________________________________________________________
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which was announced by the United States Departments of Homeland Security and State in April 2005, emerged from Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (the “9/11 Intelligence Bill”):
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall develop and implement a plan as expeditiously as possible to require a passport or other document, or combination of documents, deemed by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be sufficient to denote identity and citizenship, for all travel into the United States by United States citizens and by categories of individuals for whom documentation requirements have previously been waived under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)(B)). This plan shall be implemented not later than January 1, 2008, and shall seek to expedite the travel of frequent travelers, including those who reside in border communities, and in doing so, shall make readily available a registered travel program (as described in section 7208(k)).
Currently, Canadian residents travelling from anywhere in the Western
Hemisphere, other than
Under the WHTI, all travellers to the
When the WHTI was announced in April 2005, negative consequences began
to be felt immediately. Because of uncertainty about the document(s) required
to enter and re-enter the
Ø travel was reduced;
Ø commerce was affected;
Ø convention destinations were altered; and
Ø investments were deferred.
Many believed that the WHTI requirements were in effect then, rather
than at the implementation date specified in the 9/11 Intelligence Bill. With
these adverse effects, scepticism about the ability to meet the tight
implementation timelines, and concerns regarding the impact of the WHTI on
Canadian residents and the Canadian economy, the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce held hearings in June 2006 on the economic
consequences of the WHTI for
In July 2005, the Canadian Tourism Commission published a report,
prepared by the Conference Board of Canada, that assessed the impact of a WHTI
passport requirement on the Canadian tourism industry. More recently, in
October 2006, Industry
The Committee cannot stress strongly enough the importance of ensuring that the WHTI is implemented in a manner that minimizes disruptions to the legitimate movement of people and goods across the shared border. We are aware of the significant negative impacts that have already been – and will continue to be – felt. Fortunately, as a consequence of our hearings and lobbying efforts by Canadian Parliamentarians, including the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, American legislators and other stakeholders in both countries, the delay that was being sought for the land implementation date has potentially been gained. The time afforded by this potential delay must be used wisely. We will continue to monitor the situation on both sides of the border with due diligence, but are hopeful that the implementation of the WHTI requirement for all modes of travel will proceed smoothly.
________________________________________________________________________
A number of the Committee’s witnesses spoke about the documents that might be acceptable in meeting the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) requirements. Ambassador Michael Wilson, Canada’s Ambassador to the United States, commented on existing passports, arguing that “[t]he passport of today is not the answer because, first, it is expensive and some people will simply refuse to buy one. Second, it is not always a highly efficient process. A card with the proper technology contains a chip of information that a reader, which might be 10 feet away, will scan and then … a real-time database (will be accessed). It can be a faster way of getting across the border.”
While she does not support all of the WHTI requirements, Representative Louise Slaughter – who represents a New York border district in the U.S. House of Representatives – highlighted the importance of approved documents when she told the Committee that “[i]n the post-9/11 world it is indeed imperative that we know that those who enter our countries are who they say they are, mean us no harm and have the secure documents to prove it.” Having co-sponsored legislation that would make the NEXUS program more accessible, affordable and timely, she suggested that “NEXUS and (Free and Secure Trade) FAST provide a model whereby we can work together to achieve stronger security while also facilitating low-risk trade and travel. ... [B]oth governments should use these programs as a blueprint for the future.”
Representative Slaughter supported alternatives to a passport and indicated that “Americans will not pay $100 for a passport. We have to ensure these alternatives are secure, low cost and easily obtainable ... . ... We should avoid at all costs creating new cards and more bureaucracy.” Commenting on the proposed PASS (People Access Security Service) card, which was announced in January 2006 as an inexpensive, secure, biometric card that would be limited to U.S. residents entering or re-entering the United States by land, she observed that “[t]he simple truth of the matter is that most travellers will not go to the extra expense and time of acquiring such a card. ... Almost 50 per cent of border crossings are made by only 400,000 people ... . We must enrol them in programs that make it easy to cross the border and allow inspectors to focus their limited resources on the high-risk traveller.”
Passport alternatives were also supported by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, which informed the Committee that it “want(s) accessible and affordable passport substitutes, like the PASS card ... to be allowed.” As well, it wants “expansion of the NEXUS and FAST programs and for those to be allowable cards.” The NEXUS and FAST programs were also supported by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, which recommended “continued and expanded use of (these) programs and that (their) cards continue to be accepted as secure documentation for cross-border travel.”
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce noted that “fewer than 25 per cent of Americans and fewer than 40 per cent of Canadians (hold) passports.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that “[o]nly 20 per cent of the overall American population (has a) passport record. That does not even mean passports; at least at some point in their lives, they had a passport.”
In the view of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, “[a]s a general principle, any document or combination of documents deemed to be acceptable for presenting proof of identity and citizenship should be readily available in terms of accessibility and cost to both Canadians and Americans. Existing programs such as FAST and NEXUS must be maintained – in fact, must be enhanced – and the capacity for enrolment in and use of these programs must be widespread.”
The
Binational Tourism Alliance argued for improvements to “the security components
of all the existing and new documents – driver’s licence(s), birth
certificates, passports and the NEXUS/FAST programs are all part of this – and (that
none of these should be eliminated) … from acceptance as valid ID. ...
Taxpayers would not have to pay for an additional type of identification, but
the cost of enhancement could be included in the updated versions of any of
these options that the consumer then has the choice to use.” The
Similarly,
the Canada Border Services Agency indicated that “in the context of the unique
Canada-U.S. border relationship, a passport or a passport-like document should
not be the only basis for legal travel across our shared border. While
exploring acceptable alternative document options, we continue to press the
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed the Committee that “it can be reasonably estimated that if the document requirements are too strict, the impact on our economies will be severe. ... It is more difficult to obtain a NEXUS card than to obtain a passport.” The Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance also did not support a passport as the document to be used to meet WHTI requirements, and told us that “[t]he bottom line is that a passport is not the document to use. It is the last one you want to use at the border. ... The key is to keep your mind on the objective … . (A passport) does not identify (the bearer as) low-risk … . ... A passport does confirm identity and nationality. Neither confirms low-risk status. ... If we end up with a free passport with which we are all happy, it will not do a darn thing for the border.”
While most witnesses focused on the cost of a passport or another approved document, and the ease and timeliness with which it could be obtained, a number mentioned the substantial economic costs associated with the WHTI, which have yet to be quantified in any precise or comprehensive manner. The Binational Tourism Alliance also identified another cost that must be considered, noting that “[a]nything that impacts job market and tax-base issues ... will cause a need for increased federal and provincial assistance for our regions.”
The Committee agrees that a passport must not be the only document that meets WHTI requirements, and believes that there are a number of programs, such as NEXUS and FAST, that identify travellers as low risk and that – consequently – enhance border security while expediting the movement of legitimate travellers and goods. We agree that it is unlikely that all travellers would incur the expense or time involved in obtaining a passport, particularly if their travel tends to be spontaneous and/or they have a family with whom they travel across the border. We believe that in addition to denoting identity and citizenship, as required by the 9/11 Intelligence Bill, the accepted document(s) must be relatively low cost and easy to obtain from the perspectives of both location and time, which requires multiple locations at which applications could be made and adequate personnel to process these applications in a timely manner.
Ideally, approved documents would also be consistent with anticipated technological innovations at the border, and would indicate that the traveller has been assessed as low risk. In this regard, the Committee notes comments by witnesses about the NEXUS program and its more rigorous requirements when compared with a passport. We are also reminded of section 7209 of the 9/11 Intelligence Bill, which indicates that the plan “shall seek to expedite the travel of frequent travelers.”
The cost of approved documents is a particular concern for the Committee when one considers families – particularly those who reside in border communities – who would normally cross the border to work, to attend and participate in amateur or professional sports events, to go to school or the library, to enjoy cultural events, or to visit friends and families. Accessibility and cost are particular priorities as we seek not to constrain same-day, spontaneous travellers who may be unwilling to apply for a passport or other approved document unless it is affordable, easily obtained and available within a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, implementing the WHTI requirements is likely to involve investments in new technology and employee training to support the use of at least some of the approved documents and may result in costs for travellers and businesses should there be any delays at the border.
Since our
hearings in June 2006, the Committee has learned that the U.S. Department of
State, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has
submitted for public comment a federal rule proposing the development of a
card-format passport for international land and sea travel under the WHTI. The
wallet-sized, limited-use passport card would be adjudicated to the same
standards as a traditional passport book, and would cost $10 for children and
$20 for adults, plus a $25 execution fee. The proposed card would use vicinity
radio frequency identification technology to link to a
For these reasons, the Committee recommends that:
1. The federal government work with the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and State to ensure that the documents approved as meeting the requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative – including, but not limited to, a passport – are easily obtained and at a reasonable cost.
Moreover, the
government should aggressively pursue the identification of NEXUS and Free and
Secure Trade (FAST) cards as approved documents by the
Finally, recognizing
that
CHAPTER TWO:
THE RIGHT DOCUMENT FOR THE RIGHT PEOPLE
________________________________________________________________________
As noted earlier, witnesses were
concerned about the cost of documents that will meet Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI) requirements. The Committee noted that affordability may be a
particular imperative for families who live in border communities and who cross
the border on a daily basis. Representative Slaughter stressed the integrated
nature of these communities when she informed us that her Congressional
district views itself as “one united, binational community with a river running
through it” and that “25 per cent of the people who attend the games of the
Buffalo Bills and the Buffalo Sabres are Canadians ... . ... [O]
York
The Binational Tourism Alliance made
a similar point when it said that “if you can imagine a need for a passport to
cross from
Representative Slaughter also told the Committee that the 9/11 Commission realized the importance of keeping the shared border open to legitimate travellers, since – according to the Commission’s report – “[o]ur border screening system should check people efficiently and welcome friends. Admitting large numbers of students, scholars, businesspeople and tourists fuels our economy, cultural vitality, and political reach.”
The Tourism Industry Association of Canada addressed the issue of adults with children crossing the border, and argued for “an exemption for people aged 16 and under when they are travelling with adults who have proper documentation.” An exemption for children under 17 was also advocated by such witnesses as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Binational Tourism Alliance.
In the Committee’s view, a secure
border that facilitates the movement of identified low-risk travellers and
goods is a goal that is shared in both countries. Moreover, we support the
risk-based approach to border management that has characterized our joint
efforts since the Smart Border Action Plan was announced. We believe that, in
all probability, children under the age of 17 do not pose a risk to the
security of either the
The Committee is aware that the 9/11 Intelligence Bill has been amended to require the development of an alternative procedure for groups of children travelling across the border under adult supervision with parental consent. While we support this provision, the number of children that would constitute a “group” is unclear at this time, and we continue to believe that an exemption from the WHTI requirements should exist for children travelling alone with one or more adults who have WHTI-approved documents.
From this perspective, the Committee recommends that:
2. The
federal government urge the
CHAPTER THREE:
THE RIGHT DOCUMENT FOR THE RIGHT PEOPLE
AT THE RIGHT TIME
________________________________________________________________________
Some of the Committee’s witnesses advocated the implementation of pilot projects before Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)-related requirements, processes and technology are deployed to all border points. According to Ambassador Wilson, “we should start with a couple of crossing points to see how it works and get the bugs out of the system before proceeding with broad implementation.” Similarly, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce advocated “a voluntary pilot (project) at a border crossing prior to full implementation to work out the kinks. No large technology project ... has been implemented without some challenges. We need to work these things through.” The Canadian-American Business Council also argued for “pilot projects ... before full-scale implementation, so that technological and practical challenges can be addressed before rolling out the program at all border crossings” and supported “requisite resources, staffing, infrastructure and technology to each border crossing when fully executing the WHTI.”
The
potential for border delays – which might occur, for example, if requirements,
processes and technology are broadly implemented without adequate pre-testing –
were identified by a number of the Committee’s witnesses. The Canadian
Manufacturers and Exporters told us that “[t]he success of ... integrated
manufacturing network(s) depends on the timely movement of goods and people
across the border. ... Even relatively short delays ... can cause costly
disruptions in production schedules. ... For companies that manufacture in
Delays at
the border were also a concern for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which
indicated that its members have expressed “real concerns about border
slowdowns, as long lines of occasional travellers start fishing around for
their passports, causing delays.” According to the Canada Border Services
Agency, “the potential economic impact on trade could be significant through (the)
creation of backlogs at the border and reductions in
In the view
of Industry
2. Travellers without Documents
The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters also addressed the notion of delays when it argued that “people who come to the border without documents (should be) facilitated and (should not) impede the flow of legitimate trade and travellers.” It advocated “a reasonable grace period ... during which the people lacking documents are educated about their options and allowed to pass.”
3. Awareness and Outreach Campaigns
A number of
the Committee’s witnesses – including the Tourism Industry Association of
Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce – requested that governments in
The Committee supports those who believe that delays at the border must be minimized, since delays have economic, health, environmental and security implications. Like some of our witnesses, we feel that delays lead to increased costs for manufacturers – and, ultimately, prices for consumers – as well as greater frustration for individuals. Moreover, we note that the Canadian government has suggested that idling vehicles could become targets for tampering by terrorists and can have adverse environmental consequences.
Since new requirements, methods of operating and technology are seldom implemented without flaws or setbacks, the Committee supports those witnesses who urged pilot projects at high-volume land border crossings prior to broad implementation. In our view, targeted pilot projects are an important means by which the WHTI-related requirements, processes and technology can be tested. Consequently, the Committee recommends that:
3. The federal government and
the
2. Travellers without Documents
The
Committee believes that, to date, governments have not made adequate efforts to
inform residents in
4. The federal government and
the
3. Awareness and Outreach Campaigns
The Committee agrees that one means by which the right people will have the right document(s) to present at the right time is through an awareness and outreach campaign. In our view, such a campaign is long overdue, and should be developed and implemented immediately with the involvement of relevant stakeholders. Therefore, the Committee recommends that:
5. The federal government and
the
Although it is too late to delay the implementation date of the WHTI requirement for air travel, the Committee would be remiss if we did not point out that staged implementation – rather than a single implementation date for all modes of travel – has perhaps unnecessarily complicated the situation. Although a two-stage structure is preferred to the three-stage structure that was initially proposed, a number of our witnesses advocated a single implementation date, and we support their position.
CHAPTER FOUR:
THE RIGHT APPROACH TO BORDER SECURITY
________________________________________________________________________
A number of
the Committee’s witnesses questioned the extent to which the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative (WHTI) will meet the goal of improved security at the border.
Ambassador Wilson shared his view that the “WHTI is intended to improve
security at the border. It would be wrong to set up (the) WHTI as the only
solution to the threat of home-grown terrorism. It may be part of the solution.
... [I]t is more important to have a solid intelligence and policing capacity,
to have seamless cooperation among enforcement agencies and to continue to
engage in cooperation with our allies, especially the
Similarly, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters indicated that its members “have questions and concerns about whether the WHTI, as proposed, will improve security and at what cost.” The members “are concerned that the WHTI as currently proposed, falls short in advancing the Security and Prosperity Partnership goal of further streamlining the movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic of goods and people across the border, and that the introduction of these document requirements has the potential to disrupt border flows.”
The
Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance argued that, “done right, (the WHTI)
could facilitate seamless travel for the first time.” The
Witnesses supported a secure border, arguing that such a border is good for the economies in both countries. Some noted, however, what they consider to be the inevitable outcome of the WHTI: reduced travel. According to the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, “we will have less freedom than before, and there will be more costs and more bureaucracy involved in travel between our two countries.” Similarly, the Canada Border Services Agency noted that “the documentary requirements will reduce the ease with which Canadian residents can travel to the U.S., but of equal if not greater concern to Canada is the large number of U.S. residents who will be deterred from travelling to Canada ... due to the cost, time and inconveniences involved in getting the necessary documents to return to their own country.”
The
Committee was told about how the tourism industry, in particular, has been
affected by such factors as the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, tighter
border security and associated delays, the rise in the relative value of the
Canadian dollar, the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS),
rising gasoline prices and the WHTI requirements. In noting its request for an
additional $100 million in federal funding for the Canadian Tourism Commission,
which would be leveraged by the private sector, the Tourism Industry
Association of Canada noted that
The figures
provided by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada were confirmed by the
Canadian Tourism Commission, which also spoke about the leveraging of federal
funding and informed the Committee that research conducted in 2005 “assessed
the potential impact of (the) WHTI alone at $1.7 billion for 2006-08.” Industry
The
Committee believes that
6. The federal government allocate additional funds to the Canadian Tourism Commission, which would then be leveraged to enable the Commission to fulfill better its mandate. The amount of the increased funding should be determined after consultation with relevant stakeholders and in the context of the government’s expenditure review exercise.
Although
the focus of the Committee’s current study is the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative, we wish to comment on two additional issues that could harm the
historic relationship that
In August
2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture announced that inspection exemptions for Canadian-grown fruits and
vegetables imported from
In September 2006, the Canadian government announced its intention to amend the Excise Tax Act in order to eliminate the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax Visitor Rebate Program effective 1 April 2007. Although the amending legislation has not yet been examined by Parliament, the Committee urges the federal government to re-examine this proposal and to weigh the tax revenue benefits against the potential loss of foreign visitors and the associated economic activity.
________________________________________________________________________
While the
Committee supports the recent amendments to the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, we continue to have concerns about the
document(s) that will be approved by the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security
and State for purposes of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), the
technology that will be used and the processes that will be adopted. Like all
Canadians, we share with the
The
Committee joins others in stressing that – while both borders must be secure –
the border shared between
With the potential
for delayed implementation of the WHTI requirement for land and sea travel, the
Committee believes that residents in both
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Canadian Embassy in
Hon. Michael Wilson, Ambassador.
Representative Louise McIntosh
Slaughter (
Tourism Industry Association of
Randy Williams, President and CEO.
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters:
Gordon Cherry, Director, Trade and Commercial Policy.
Canadian Chamber of Commerce:
Shirley-Ann George, Vice President, International Policy;
Robert McKinstry, Senior Policy Analyst.
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Binational Tourism
Arlene White, Executive Director.
Canadian Tourism Commission:
Michele McKenzie, President and CEO.
Canada Border Services Agency:
Andrea Spry, Director General.
Department of Industry
Alain Beaudoin, Director General.
Angelo I. Amador, Director, Immigration Policy.
Canadian-American Business Council:
Charles A. Tievsky, Lawyer.
Canadian/American Border Trade
Jim Phillips, President and CEO.
The Committee report is available in PDF format (Portable Document Format). These type of electronic documents retain the original look and feel -- complete with text, graphics, photos and colour -- of their printed versions, and can be disseminated independently of computer platform or distribution media.
Acrobat Readers are freely available and enable Windows, Macintosh, DOS and UNIX users to view, navigate through and print any PDF document.
If you need more information on how to use this format or require a reader for your platform, you may wish to visit Adobe Systems Incorporated.