Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of June 8, 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 8, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met this day at 10:55 a.m. to examine and report upon the present state of the domestic and international financial system; and to study issues associated with potential economic consequences, on both sides of the border, of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for being late. Ottawa is a busy place these days. I want to welcome you all. Today, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce is examining a subject that is important to Canadians all along the border. We are exploring issues associated with the potential economic consequences in both Canada and the United States of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative flowing from section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, passed by the United States Congress.
This banking study is critically important to the economic health of both our countries. It is timely and highlights how important it is that our nations work together to ensure security without hampering the free movement of goods and people. We are pleased today to have before us, on our second day of hearings, Arlene White, of the Binational Tourism Alliance; Michele McKenzie, of the Canadian Tourism Commission; Andrea Spry, of the Canada Border Services Agency; and Mr. Alain Beaudoin, from Industry Canada.
The floor is yours. Please give us three or four minutes because senators will be anxious to cross-examine you to get at the heart of the evidence that we hope you will present. Thank you very much for attending this morning. This meeting will be seen on television from coast to coast to coast and worldwide on the Internet.
A special welcome to Ms. White, with whom we have worked on many of these issues. Welcome to Ottawa and to this committee.
Arlene White, Executive Director, Binational Tourism Alliance: Thank you, Senator Grafstein and Senator Angus, for inviting me to testify before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce.
Please accept my report for the record, along with background on the Binational Tourism Alliance and our board members, and a package containing letters of support and resolutions that BTA has gathered from 63 U.S. and Canadian tourism and trade industry stakeholders to date with regard to the WHTI issue. I will explain more about these letters in a moment.
I am also pleased to represent our colleagues from the BESTT coalition. Ken Oplinger, from Washington State, is here in the audience with us today.
I was able to sit in on yesterday's hearings and will therefore focus my comments today on three specific areas: the economic impacts of WHTI, what the BTA is doing and what you can do to help us.
By way of background, the Binational Tourism Alliance is a tourism industry trade organization. Our mandate is to improve the profile of the tourism industry in both the U.S. and Canada, as well as to educate the public about the importance of cross-border regions to the North American economy. Our U.S. and Canadian board members come from private, not-for-profit and public sectors and represent all components of the Golden Horseshoe — Rochester to Toronto — tourism industry and the organizations that serve them. They are intimately familiar with the impact of WHTI on all of their businesses to date.
We were incorporated in 2004 and have almost 100 members. We deliver advocacy, communications and training. Binational research and demonstration projects are part of this. We have been working on the WHTI issue since it was announced in April 2005. In a presentation to DHS in October 2005, we made our position clear. I would like to read this for you. We believe that the best approach to the recommended secure identification is using "the least invasive, most economical and practical approach to security improvements by using existing forms of identification." This translates to no new pass card, no insistence upon one form of identification. We want to improve the security components of all the existing and new documents — driver's licence, birth certificates, passports and the NEXUS/ FAST programs are all part of this — and not eliminate any of these from acceptance as valid ID. We feel that this would best serve the majority of business and leisure travellers and residents of cross-border regions of all ages. 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. Since these are all recognized and existing documents, we feel there would be little resistance to this approach.
We have worked closely with Louise Slaughter's Washington office, as well as Congressman Reynolds, Senator Schumer and other U.S. legislators and our BESTT coalition partners. I and two other board members have made several presentations to and attended meetings with DHS, Department of State and U.S. Senate committees in Canada and Washington regarding WHTI and the impact on small business over the past year. Our message is clear. We require a solution that satisfies the economic, social and security issues of our countries.
Since 2005, our industry has experienced a reduction in business and fewer U.S. visitors to Canada, but our Western New York partners are feeling this same impact, as are other U.S. communities along the forty-ninth parallel. The impact of this legislation on the economy in Canada is said to be $1.7 billion, but that does not take into account the loss of investment in both of our countries and the ripple effect on several sectors beyond tourism. That includes the job market and tax base in our cross-border regions.
If I can direct you to the information that I provided, for example, in the Canadian Niagara region alone, $1 billion has been invested in the new Niagara Fallsview Casino; the two bridge projects alone, $51 million and $42 million; Shaw Festival, $50 million; recently, and very topical, the Great Wolf Lodge/Ripley's Aquarium project in Niagara Falls, $200 million. Jim Pattison has stated publicly that he will not proceed with the aquarium until this issue is resolved. That does not take into account the millions of dollars of investment in Buffalo and Niagara Falls, New York, as well as the Rochester area.
When one looks at the millions of dollars that have been invested, this is a serious issue for all of us on both sides of the border.
Anything that impacts job market and tax-base issues in our area will cause a need for increased federal and provincial assistance for our regions. This takes us back to where we both were in 1996, when we saw double-digit unemployment and inflation problems, so this is a huge concern for us.
Following a March visit to Washington, when the proposed amendments from Stevens/Leahy and Senator Coleman were announced, we undertook a serious WHTI action plan initiative. We have already had an industry meeting on May 12 in Niagara-on-the-Lake. We have begun a letter-writing campaign, and I have letters to provide to you that we have received to date from partners on both sides of the border. Next week we will release an industry tool kit that clearly states that no passport is required, that our borders are open, and which all of our tourism industry and trade partners can put on their own websites and use to help train their staff. That is a big issue, getting this information out to all the businesses that are impacted by these questions.
The fourth part of this is a public awareness campaign. We are currently pulling together information so that we can make an announcement at the end of June. This campaign will run through October, and our goal is to finally bring the public up to date on what is happening. Unfortunately, most of the public believes that a passport is needed now to travel across the border, and as a result, there have been business and tourism cancellations across the board.
The other key component is that we have already met with CBSA staff in the Niagara cross-border region to discuss a proposal to help them with outreach on the NEXUS program so that the public can be better informed on that.
We have received 63 letters to date from U.S. and Canadian stakeholders. We are not satisfied with the Canadian government response to date and we would like more action to ensure binational cooperation and that the solutions are developed with industry stakeholders involved.
We would specifically like your assistance with our lobbying on behalf of our U.S. colleagues for the existing and newly proposed amendments that will be coming out or that have already come out from Slaughter/McEwen/ Reynolds. We would like to see improved political awareness of the importance of this issue. We would like an increased focus on cross-border regions and forty-ninth parallel requirements. We would like assistance with funding for the public awareness campaign that we are proposing to launch at the end of June.
The terrorist arrests this past week reinforce our need to develop more innovative approaches to working with our colleagues in the States.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am happy to take your questions in this regard.
The Chairman: We intend to hear from all of our witnesses first, and then we will ask questions, because there will be a lot of overlap.
Michele McKenzie, President and CEO, Canadian Tourism Commission: The Canadian Tourism Commission is a Crown corporation mandated to market Canada as a tourism destination to maximize benefits for the Canadian economy. Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world, with an increasing number of countries recognizing the power of tourism as an efficient way to earn foreign exchange and government revenues.
The Canadian Tourism Commission operates with private- and public-sector partners, leveraging every dollar invested at a minimum ratio of 1:1, in other words, doubling the federal government investment. The commission focuses on international markets, with the highest return on investment in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The most important international market for Canada, of course, is the United States, representing about 70 per cent of international tourism receipts. While performance from all other international markets, and indeed within the domestic market, has been strong, performance from the U.S. is in decline. In 2005 alone, tourism receipts from the U.S. market were down 8.6 per cent over 2004.
Compared to other countries, the overall impact of this decline has seen Canada's tourism rank drop from seventh to twelfth in terms of international arrivals and from tenth to twelfth in terms of international receipts since 2002. During that same time frame, Canada's investment in tourism marketing has also been in decline.
The situation in the U.S. market is not expected to improve soon. In February of this year, research confirmed that the percentage of Americans planning to take a vacation outside of the U.S. had increased compared to February 2005.
However, the number intending to travel to Canada has decreased.
Many factors are contributing to the decline of the U.S. market. In February 2006, the Canadian Tourism Commission completed its largest ever study of U.S. consumers to better understand the factors causing this decline. The study confirmed that fierce competition, lack of consumer awareness, border-crossing difficulties, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, higher gas prices and the declining purchasing power of the U.S. dollar in Canada were all contributing factors.
CTC research conducted in 2005 assessed the potential impact of WHTI alone at $1.7 billion for 2006-08. The Tourism Industry Association of Canada has advocated for increased marketing investment to fight the competitive battle, as well as the following actions relative to WHTI: a single implementation date for air, sea and land travel; accessible, affordable passport substitutes; an exemption for travellers 16 and under; a U.S. awareness campaign; and the expansion of NEXUS and FAST programs.
Andrea Spry, Director General, Canada Border Services Agency: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today. I thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee.
On behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency, I would like to take the opportunity to talk to you about what we are doing about the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
As many of you know, the American initiative is based on the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and will require all travellers entering the United States commencing January 1, 2008 to have a passport or other document deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Homeland Security to denote citizenship and identity.
The Government of Canada recognizes and shares the U.S. commitment to a secure border and both countries are working collaboratively to develop a plan to implement the WHTI in a manner that addresses the threat of terrorism while facilitating the flow of legitimate travellers and goods across our shared border. The Canadian government considers WHTI one of the most important bilateral border issues facing Canada and the United States today.
CBSA has recently been designated the WHTI lead for the Government of Canada. As such, CBSA will be responsible for coordinating the delivery of the Canadian government's WHTI solution.
The government is committed to protecting Canada's economic prosperity, its travel and tourism industries and Canadian trade and investment. It is anticipated that WHTI will have a major impact on border operations and Canadian businesses. There have been ongoing discussions with the U.S. regarding WHTI as Canadians are concerned about the impact it could have on the economies and border communities of both countries.
In fact, the potential economic impact on trade could be significant through creation of backlogs at the border and reductions in Canada's ability to attract investments, and losses for Canadian business could be in the billions of dollars. With almost $2 billion worth of goods and services passing across our borders every day, it is in neither country's interest to have confusion and congestion at the border.
We also know it is critically important that we get it right. WHTI will affect the flow of legitimate people in both directions.
Specifically, the documentary requirements will reduce the ease with which Canadians can travel to the U.S., but of equal if not greater concern to Canada is the large number of U.S. citizens who will be deterred from travelling to Canada, especially via the land border, due to the cost, time and inconveniences involved in getting the necessary documents to return to their own country.
As has already been mentioned by Ms. McKenzie and Ms. White, the U.S. Senate recently passed two amendments by Senators Leahey and Coleman that propose a variety of changes to the WHTI legislation, including delaying implementation until June 1, 2009. Both these amendments are part of the Senate's version of an immigration reform bill.
In our discussions with American officials, they have made it clear that the outcome of both the immigration bill and the WHTI amendments is far from certain. However, the Canadian government is pleased that the Senate has recognized the importance of getting WHTI right and is proposing solutions that Canada has been advocating for some time.
Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters at the provincial premiers' conference in Gimli that his government is urging the U.S. government to delay enacting the law, but added that Ottawa would be ready if it does not. However, he expressed concern that all agencies and businesses on both sides of the border might not be prepared for WHTI and that a lack of preparedness could severely impact tourism and trade. As a result, he said, Canada was following a two-track process of trying to persuade American politicians of the economic damage the law will cause and, at the same time, preparing to respond to the requirement. He went on to say, "We may find others unprepared. The Government of Canada will be prepared."
We are working closely with our Government of Canada partners, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, on advocacy and outreach activities designed to keep the public and industry informed, as well as Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Passport Canada with respect to document standards and technology options. We will also call upon the expertise of Industry Canada and Transport Canada when looking at economic and infrastructure implications of WHTI and will continue to work cooperatively with the Government of Canada's central agencies and the Department of Public Safety to manage a coordinated Government of Canada response to this important priority.
We are also working collaboratively with the U.S. in identifying and assessing the best options for alternative documents to be used in the land border context. Canada believes 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 U.S. to recognize the NEXUS and FAST programs as meeting WHTI requirements. Even without WHTI, the CBSA continuously strives to implement new and innovative technology and infrastructure support to reduce border wait times.
As well, we plan to put in place a communications strategy to ensure that the Government of Canada's position and views on WHTI are communicated to the public as well as to partners and stakeholders.
As we move forward with WHTI, our goal to maintain an efficient and secure border will remain. We are working to adjust to the new reality posed by WHTI. CBSA will continue to work hard to preserve our historic, unique cross- border relationship with the U.S. Our shared border is a key to the economic well-being of both countries.
[Translation]
Alain Beaudoin, Director General, Industry Canada: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today on behalf of Industry Canada to discuss the potential impacts of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
As you know, Industry Canada's mandate is to promote a growing, knowledge-based Canadian economy. We do this by working with Canadians throughout the economy and across the country to improve conditions for investment, improve Canada's innovation performance, to increase Canada's share of global trade and build a fair, efficient, and competitive marketplace.
While the Canadian Tourism Commission is responsible for tourism marketing and research, reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Industry, Industry Canada has the lead for federal tourism policy.
This means that Industry Canada is bringing provincial, territorial and industry stakeholders to help address the issues facing the industry, including WHTI.
[English]
The fluidity of major border crossings is crucial not only to the tourism industry but to the economy as a whole. Delays at the border can be detrimental to the economic vitality of both Canada and the United States. Longer wait times at the border and higher uncertainty around those wait times would lead to negative economic impacts on merchandise trade flows. Slowdowns at the land border are particularly problematic for industries that depend upon just-in-time delivery.
The auto assembly and auto-part makers are prime examples. Others sectors, such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, communication and computer equipment manufacturing could also be vulnerable, given the highly integrated, time- sensitive nature of these industries.
Border backlogs and uncertainty could lower Canada's competitive advantage and be detrimental to direct foreign investment in Canada. Foreign investors from Europe and Asia often view Canada as an attractive investment- gateway destination from which to access the North American marketplace. While direct foreign investment in Canada has been increasing, our share of North American investment has fallen. Delays at the border could exacerbate this trend.
We have heard from our tourism stakeholders that confusion regarding border requirements is already impacting tourism in Canada. Many tourism stakeholders are concerned about the impact of WHTI. This is a problem, as the United States is Canada's principal international tourism market, with visitors from the United States making up 87 per cent of all international arrivals in Canada. Travel from the United States benefits all provinces and territories, but most notably the Province of Ontario, which received 58 per cent of all visitors from the United States in 2004. British Columbia received 17 per cent and Quebec received 10 per cent.
Many factors, including a strong Canadian dollar, stricter security, border delays and rising gasoline prices have contributed to the decline in American visitors to Canada. Overall, this decline has been more than offset by strong domestic tourism. As a result, overall tourism spending in Canada increased 3.8 per cent last year, after a 5.1 per cent gain in 2004. However, while domestic tourism is important, the ability to attract international visitors is a key generator of export revenues for the industry.
As Ms. McKenzie mentioned earlier, overall arrivals from the United States decreased by 8.6 per cent in 2005 to the lowest level since 1979. American residents took only 15.7 million same-day car trips to Canada in 2005, the lowest annual figure on record, and a decline of almost 12 per cent compared to 2004.
It will take a coordinated and cooperative approach to face the challenges posed by WHTI and the other issues confronting the tourism industry. Minister Bernier recently wrote to his tourism counterparts in the provinces and territories emphasizing the need to maximize collaboration among governments and optimize current resources to address key issues that will impact the competitiveness of the tourism industry in Canada.
[Translation]
Industry Canada will continue to work closely with the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Tourism Commission and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on a coordinated approach to this issue.
We will also work with our provincial, territorial and industry counterparts to ensure that the tourism industry is prepared for WHTI, and its potential consequences.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Beaudoin; all senators wish to ask questions.
Senator Angus: Good morning. Thank you for coming. I assume that you followed our hearing yesterday on this subject. In like fashion, I will assume that you know what Ambassador Wilson and Representative Slaughter said to us.
Three of you are from federal government organizations. I must confess that I was not aware that the Canadian Tourism Commission existed. Which department does it fall under, Ms. McKenzie?
Ms. McKenzie: The Canadian Tourism Commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of Industry Canada, Maxime Bernier.
Senator Angus: The Canada Border Services Agency reports to Parliament through whom?
Ms. Spry: Through the Department of Public Safety and Minister Day.
Senator Angus: The Canadian Tourism Commission is responsible for marketing and research in the tourism area. Could you expand on what "marketing and research" means with regard to tourism? What do you folks do and how are you funded?
Ms. McKenzie: We market Canada as a tourism destination in international markets — North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Our mandate is to help grow the Canadian economy through the generation of export revenues from tourism sources. Those are our highest potential source markets in terms of return on investment.
We are funded through a federal government appropriation, which this year is $78 million. We are mandated to try to match that investment with other public- and private-sector partners. We partner on investments from other provinces, from tourism agencies at the city level, and from private-sector operators from across the country, from large to very small businesses.
The tourism industry has businesses from coast to coast to coast, primarily small and medium-sized enterprises.
Senator Angus: How many employees do you have? Did you say that you are a separate Crown corporation?
Ms. McKenzie: That is correct. We have 90 employees located in Canada and 65 located in a total of nine other countries.
Senator Angus: Your head office is in Ottawa?
Ms. McKenzie: Our head office is in Vancouver.
Senator Angus: I would now like to focus on numbers. Ms. Spry, you said that your organization has been mandated to find what you termed "Canada's WHTI solution," and you emphasized how important it is to get it right. I want to know what you mean by "getting it right." Getting what right? Are you referring to the document the United States will require? That phrase was used a lot yesterday.
Ms. Spry: We have all talked of our concern about wait times and the importance of people knowing what documentation they need. We are moving along two tracks in the government. First, we are continuing with the advocacy that the ambassador spoke about yesterday. We also have an outreach program to ensure that both Canadian and U.S. citizens know what documents they will require to come to Canada and to go to the U.S. There is confusion about that, and as a consequence, I have heard that people are not planning conferences in Canada because they think their participants would need a passport to return to the U.S. In order to get it right, we want to ensure that people know what the requirements are.
I mentioned that CBSA tries to use innovative technology at the border. One of our concerns is that if the passport is the only document that can be used, it could cause congestion at the border. We are hoping to be able to use cutting- edge technology for documentation to facilitate the entry and exit of people both in Canada and the U.S.
Senator Angus: Several of you spoke of this new technology in your remarks this morning. Is that the key element? What is this technology? Is it American or Canadian technology?
Ms. Spry: I do not know if that is the key. We are looking at a number of issues. We are trying to be inside the tent with the U.S., to work closely with them. As we develop technology, perhaps it can be the same kind.
We are looking at documentation. Recently, we had a working group looking at standards for documentation. As we develop and agree to secure documents for crossing the border, they could be used as travel documents and meet the same standards for security.
We are just beginning to look at the technology, and we must look at a number of options. We are certainly not there yet. As you probably know, we use licence plate readers at the land border today. We need to move forward from that and look at other kinds of technology.
Senator Angus: In conclusion, I want to leave with an understanding of what "it" is in terms of getting it right. That is still not clear to me.
Would anyone else like to make a comment? That phrase was used yesterday by the witnesses as well: getting it right. This is legislation introduced by the United States. The WHTI is an American term. This issue came upon us as a result of an initiative clearly driven by security trumping everything else.
We are here to make a statement that will be useful on both sides of the border, in particular on the other side. There is a huge negative economic impact in Canada. The Americans, through people like Representative Slaughter, are making a statement that can be used by senators and congressmen in the United States to help get it right.
From a Canadian perspective, when I hear Ambassador Wilson say "We have to get it right," and I hear you repeat that, is "it" the document? Is "it" the technology? Is "it" the timing? What is "it?" There is evidence on the record that this document, whatever it may be, will not stop bad people from crossing the border.
Ms. Spry: I believe it is all those things: technology, documentation and taking time to ensure we have agreement on what those documents should be. The challenge is also to influence the U.S. to use NEXUS, for example. We are hoping we will be able to expand NEXUS both to air and land mode and that the program will be accepted as meeting WHTI requirements.
Senator Angus: Is NEXUS a Canadian government initiative or a private-sector initiative?
Ms. Spry: It is a joint initiative with the U.S. People become participants in the program. We do a risk assessment of them. For example, with respect to air NEXUS, you may have heard of iris biometrics. We use that technology on people entering Canada.
Ms. White: In terms of getting it right, the "it" that we do not understand and that WHTI relates to specifically is a form of secure identification satisfying the requirements that arose from all of the issues raised after September 11 and prior. At the time, terrorism was seen as a different situation in terms of people crossing the border and what they were up to.
As we have stated clearly and you have heard from everyone, we are hoping they look at existing forms of identification. Right now, from our perspective, to introduce something that potentially will not satisfy that secure ID requirement is a foolish waste of time and money.
As you heard clearly from the ambassador and Congresswoman Slaughter, we still do not know anything more about what is being recommended by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of State than we did in April 2005. That is the biggest problem. There is nothing to comment on. That is where the confusion lies.
The media picked up the message last April that there is a need for a passport, and that is the line that most consumers have been reacting to. Right now, there is no change to the status quo on documentation required to cross the border. There is a maybe, if and when, that you will need something new.
That is where we have asked specifically to look at the existing forms of identification. That is the "it" we need to start with. Those things need to be improved. We know right now that talking about a passport is a foolish discussion. The documents you use to obtain a passport in both Canada and the United States are drivers' licences and birth certificates, and the U.S. has already acknowledged those are not secure forms of documentation. We get into an endless cycle of using something that is not perfect to start with.
We know NEXUS is currently the most secure form of documentation. It is a joint program. Infrastructure exists on both sides of the border, and there are 100,000 people using it. That is not the uptake we were expecting by this time, but there are chances to improve upon this. We firmly support doing all of those things.
At the same time, Real ID has been legislated in the States in exactly the same way as WHTI. That must be dealt with. Implementation of Real ID, which is the improvement to drivers' licences to clearly indicate citizenship, is supposed to be enacted in, I believe, May 2008, which is within months of when the implementation of WHTI was initially expected to happen.
We are asking to return to a logical discussion and delay this until Canada and the U.S. can discuss it together. This is a North American issue. We need to collaborate on it and improve the system collectively. That includes helping our border services agencies in terms of their personnel training and pushing back the requirement for a North American perimeter discussion on defence. There are other issues we need to collaborate on that our defence departments are already working on.
Hopefully, that provides a little more perspective on what "it" means.
The Chairman: There are other witnesses who might answer this question later today. While Senator Angus is confused about what "it" is, I am confused about the American process.
What I heard from the ambassador and from Representative Slaughter is that in the American process, when a law is passed, there is a rule-making procedure so one can comment on the regulations under the law.
In my understanding, after listening to Representative Slaughter and now to you, Ms. White, you do not know what to comment on; therefore, you cannot comment on the substance of a regulation without knowing what that is.
Is there a process in the United States whereby this legislation is essentially functus until they provide a regulatory mechanism that is understandable and allows you to comment and have due process? Are you being denied due process under the American regulatory process?
Ms. White: I do not claim to be an expert on American politics.
The Chairman: Nor are we.
Ms. White: The rule-making process provides for time for public commentary. We were all part of the first public commentary period that ended October 31 of last year. We are still waiting for the second component of that. That gave the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State their first chance to look at public comments on what they were recommending. We have not yet heard their reaction to those comments.
We understand there should be some type of second phase in September, when we will hear their reaction. There are two components to this. The air and sea components are expected to be implemented in 2007 and land crossings in 2008.
It took us by surprise in January when Chertoff and Rice made the announcement about a solution using the PASS card. From our perspective, it did not follow the process we were anticipating would result.
For clarification, the Stevens/Leahy and Coleman amendments that have been passed, and the ones being proposed by Slaughter, McHugh and Tom Reynolds are reinforcing the need to rethink the deadline. There is not sufficient information available to make recommendations.
We are looking at reaching that point. The GAO report basically stated there was nothing in place to make anything happen in 2007.
The Chairman: We saw that yesterday in the evidence that Representative Slaughter presented to us.
I leave you with a thought, and it is a subject we may explore with other witnesses. That is, the Americans are concerned, as you know, with due process. We understand that. It is a domestic issue and not an international one.
I would have assumed that if the government cannot respond fairly and openly to enable people to determine the nature and the contours of the problem, then Americans who will be directly and detrimentally affected by this measure are really losing due process, their legal rights under the American Constitution.
Ms. White: It is important to clarify for this committee that from the American perspective, WHTI is a very small component of the overall immigration bill. That is one thing that Canadians are having a difficult time understanding.
If you read the U.S. newspapers, the immigration issue is much bigger because that concerns employment issues on both borders and a variety of regulations around that. Even our northern border tourism employers and trade employers look to immigration to serve their needs.
The WHTI is but a small piece of it. It is big for us, but not for them. It is only those people who are waking up to the reality of that small piece of legislation that was put into that immigration bill who are realizing, "I should have been more concerned about that."
We have similar situations on the Canadian side with legislation. What Representative Slaughter tried to say yesterday is that you cannot blame the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security. They have been told to basically figure out how to implement a law that has been decided on. It is no different from us making a decision and telling Industry Canada to figure it out because we want to do it. We have examples in our own legislation that we deal with here in that same regard.
The Chairman: Again, there is a secondary impact of the regulations and the specifics, and the beauty of the American system is that individuals are entitled to due process if their rights to work or travel freely are affected.
Senator Moore: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Ms. White, in the notes that you circulated, you set out figures with regard to Canadians who visited the United States in 2003 and 2004 and the dollar amounts realized from those visits. Do you have figures for Americans visiting Canada?
Ms. White: Yes.
Senator Moore: How many were there in 2003 and do you have the dollar number realized from that?
Ms. White: I specifically addressed Ontario in that document. Once again, I am not claiming to be an expert in terms of overall Canadian visits. I am sure Ms. McKenzie has those statistics. In Ontario alone, there were 22 million U.S. visits with expenditures of $4 billion.
Senator Moore: I saw that, but above that, you had the national figures.
Ms. White: Perhaps I can defer to CTC.
Ms. McKenzie: Mr. Beaudoin had quoted figures for 2005.
Senator Moore: He said we were 8.6 per cent below, but he supplied no numbers.
Ms. McKenzie: There were 15 million visitors.
Senator Moore: Yes, those were day trips, but what is the total number of tourism visits to Canada from the United States in 2003, 2004 and 2005?
Ms. McKenzie: We can provide those numbers to you in detail. The number of overnight visitors and the number of day-trip visitors are about the same. The numbers I was quoting were revenue, and Mr. Beaudoin quoted an overall number for visitors, which included both day and overnight trips.
Senator Moore: It would be helpful to have the totals, as we have for the Canadian visits to the U.S.
Ms. Spry, you mentioned the incorrect information about the need for visitors to Canada from the United States to show passports. Where did that come from? We heard from Representative Slaughter yesterday that she had to show her passport to a Canada Border Services Agency employee to enter Canada. Where is that coming from?
Ms. Spry: I am not certain, but there does seem to be confusion about what the document requirements presently are when visiting both countries. We are in the process of establishing a website that clearly defines what an American needs today to travel from the United States to Canada and what a Canadian will need today to travel to the United States.
Senator Moore: Would an authority in Canada tell border crossing personnel, "You have to ensure that whoever comes through shows you a passport"? This is Canadians asking visitors from the United States to show a passport.
How are we fixing that? What are we doing about that? That seems to be something we could take action on, because we know what the situation is and what we are dealing with. How are we telling our American friends that all they have to have is photo identification? How are we telling our visitors that a passport is not required if they are citizens of the United States?
Ms. Spry: You raise a good point. It is important that we get the message out to our border officers so they too understand that today people do not have to have a passport. They need ID that proves identification and citizenship, but it does not necessarily have to be a passport.
Senator Moore: Do we convey that information to tourism groups in the U.S. who are taking advantage of the Canadian market?
Ms. Spry: We are planning an outreach program that will put this information out there, but we are also putting the information on our website.
Senator Moore: Which agency among the four is ultimately responsible for advising tourism operators in Canada of the dates of the proposed coming into force of WHTI and what they should be doing about it? You said, Ms. Spry, that you were the lead for the Canadian government. Is that in the entire program, or is it Industry Canada, or who is it?
Ms. Spry: We are the lead for the Canadian government, but we have a number of partners. Industry Canada is one of them. We have to ensure that we make a coordinated effort to get the information out there. We are currently in the process of putting together that kind of information.
Ms. White: There are several of us responsible for getting that message out to both industry partners and consumers. For example, we too have a website.
As I mentioned, we are planning to roll out an industry training component next week where everyone can include on their website the simple message, "No passport required. Our borders are open." Then people can click on what they need to cross the border today, and if they need additional information, it will take them through to Canada Border Services Agency website or the U.S. counterpart website.
Senator Moore: It would also be useful to notify particularly the representatives and senators from the border states and their tourism businesses from whom we like to draw visitors and dollars.
Ms. White: That is exactly what is planned.
Senator Moore: Mr. Beaudoin, on pages 4 and 5 of your presentation, you say that:
Minister Bernier wrote to his tourism counterparts in provinces and territories emphasizing the need to maximize collaboration among governments and optimize current resources to address key issues that will impact the competitiveness of the tourism industry in Canada.
We will also work with provincial, territorial and industry counterparts to ensure that the tourism industry is prepared for WHTI, and its potential impacts.
What are you doing about it?
Mr. Beaudoin: Thank you for your question, senator.
We have been working with the provinces and territories as well as stakeholders and within the federal family, with regard to the CTC, in trying to identify the key elements that the tourism industry as a whole needs to identify for future competitiveness.
WHTI is one of many challenges that the industry is facing. We discussed the rising currency, increased competition from emerging destinations and rising fuel prices. However, the industry is facing other issues, such as availability of labour.
They have issues with regard to getting the proper information, analysis and statistics, and the CTC is working closely with the provinces, the territories, and the industry to ensure that we have many players around the table. There are many stakeholders.
One of the things that we did not mention is that the tourism industry is made up of five different sectors, so there are many people involved. We are talking about 160,000 businesses in Canada and more than 600,000 jobs. We are trying to ensure that we have a coordinated approach so we can maximize and capitalize on the opportunities that the tourism industry has.
Senator Moore: That concerns the industry as a whole. I thought we were talking about the WHTI here. I want to know what your department and the minister are doing with regard to preparing for it or notifying people about it. Ms. White said they are looking for more action from Canadian government counterparts. I would like to know what, in response to Ms. White's urging, your department is doing.
Mr. Beaudoin: We are working closely with CBSA and other partners within the federal family. With regard to the economic impacts, to touch on the main topic the committee is studying, we have asked the Conference Board of Canada to do a study for us to identify the impacts of WHTI on tourism for the period 2005-10. We expect the results of this study in the coming weeks.
Senator Moore: It would be useful if we could get a copy of that report when it is finished.
The Chairman: As soon as possible. When would it be available?
Mr. Beaudoin: I cannot give you an exact date, but as soon as it is finalized, it will be our pleasure to send you a copy.
The Chairman: A rough date, please? We are planning to move forward on this.
Mr. Beaudoin: It comes from another organization, and we have to validate the results.
The Chairman: The next couple of weeks?
Mr. Beaudoin: Early in the summer.
The Chairman: That may be too late. We are planning to move on this as smartly as possible, because this will be a busy summer for meetings across America with respect to this issue. We intend to follow this up with our American counterparts all along the border.
When you get it, please send it to us, because this might be an ongoing saga. It smells to me as if it will be.
Mr. Beaudoin: We will do our best.
Senator Moore: Ms. MacKenzie, do you see your mandate as including getting information out to your members about WHTI? Do you have to wait for instruction from somebody else, or are you doing that now?
Ms. McKenzie: We do that regularly. Our website for consumers has a link to Canada Border Services Agency for the requirements for travel to Canada, and we do that all around the world.
Senator Moore: Are you letting potential visitors from the United States know that a passport is not required as long as they have other photo ID and proof of citizenship?
Ms. McKenzie: That is correct. We are hearing stories of people being asked for passports at the borders.
Senator Moore: We had Representative Slaughter here yesterday, and she said she was required to show hers. Not that a congresswoman should get special treatment, but the fact is that yesterday when she entered Canada somebody enforced that rule on her, and probably the people with her.
Ms. McKenzie: One of the strategies we are using is to try to get the accurate information out to industry and to consumers who would potentially travel to Canada. For consumers, we do it primarily through the website. For Canadian industry, we do it through a number of vehicles, including a business-to-business website, as well as an electronic and hard-copy newsletter. We have many products through which we disseminate information, and in this case, the information source is CBSA.
Senator Moore: Your total budget is $156 million, if you get the contributions from the private sector.
Ms. McKenzie: Our total spending, yes.
Senator Moore: What percentage is administration?
Ms. McKenzie: It runs at about 17 per cent.
Senator Meighen: Yesterday, we heard reference to a working group. Is that what Mr. Alain Jolicoeur has been designated by the government to lead, and what is it?
Ms. Spry: Yes, we have a joint working group with the U.S., and Mr. Alain Jolicoeur is the lead for Canada. Until now, Acting Commissioner Spiro has been his opposite number in the U.S., but I believe that Commissioner Basham was recently appointed as Commissioner of CBP in the U.S. and will be taking over.
Senator Meighen: How long has this working group been in existence?
Ms. Spry: It was set up in April of this year.
Senator Meighen: Do we know what its mandate is? Does it have a written mandate?
Ms. Spry: Its mandate is to work cooperatively with the United States to see what we can do about establishing standards for secure travel documents, as well as exploring opportunities for using technology to facilitate travel.
Senator Meighen: We have heard a fair amount of evidence that it is difficult to move forward until the Americans are more precise as to what they require; is that a fair statement?
Ms. Spry: As has been mentioned, the U.S. is currently going through the rule-making process. There are certain constraints on them in sharing information with us until that rule-making process is complete. We do have meetings with them. We are exploring documents. We are talking about ensuring that the travel documents meet the standards that we have established.
Senator Meighen: I missed that one. Documents we have now meet today's standards?
Ms. Spry: We have established standards.
Senator Meighen: Are they new?
Ms. Spry: New standards, yes, that meet ICAO standards for secure documents, and we have been working with the U.S. to agree on such standards.
Senator Meighen: I do not understand.
The Chairman: Talk about the document. What is acceptable?
Ms. Spry: Right now, a passport is accepted. The U.S. is saying they accept a passport, and they are looking at a PASS card. We have been talking to the U.S. about other possible documents that could be accepted as travel documents. We want to explore the possibility of using drivers' licences. We want to look at other federal documents.
The Chairman: Such as? We are looking for specificity here. Our problem is that there is a lot of confusion about what is required so we are asking what you are proposing.
Senator Meighen: Gun possession card?
Ms. Spry: People currently use a proliferation of cards when crossing the border. It is difficult for the customs inspectors to know whether they are valid documents or not. We are trying to establish a regime in which we would know what documents are acceptable and whether or not they are secure. We have already talked about the fact that all a driver's licence proves is that somebody knows how to drive. It does not prove who you are.
Senator Meighen: There is a photograph on it.
Ms. Spry: However, we want to ensure that the issuing process for any document that is used as an identity document to cross the border is secure.
Senator Meighen: Is it not possible that you could meet to work on this and come to an agreement, and then when the American regulations come out, it will no longer meet the criteria? Why are we doing all this now when we do not know the objective we have to reach?
Ms. Spry: I did not understand that question. I may have confused you, but you have confused me.
The Chairman: When I look at your document, you are talking about the same thing. You are talking about a proliferation of documents. We had a hearing dealing with consumers where we concluded that there is too much confusion for consumers to exercise their rights.
Now, we are confronted with confusion about a number of documents, some of which may or may not be satisfactory.
As I understand it, two documents are mostly satisfactory. Forgive me for intervening. We want to cut to the chase on this. Both our Canadian passport and the NEXUS pass seem to be satisfactory. Is anything else satisfactory at this juncture, based on your exploration of these issues?
Ms. Spry: In the future or today?
The Chairman: As we speak. We are trying to find out what is acceptable today.
Senator Meighen: My point is what is acceptable today may not be tomorrow.
The Chairman: Bear with me. What about today? We want to tell the Canadian public watching this, what they have that will give them some degree of confidence until the law changes. My understanding is that our Canadian passport is not bad; the NEXUS card. I know Senator Fitzpatrick is now a NEXUS cardholder; after that, possibly, a driver's licence and a birth certificate.
Ms. Spry: It is the two together because one proves citizenship and one proves identity.
The Chairman: Perhaps Ms. White can shed some light on this issue. We are trying to avoid confusion in the interim.
Ms. White: Some of that confusion cannot be avoided because there are several documents involved. What we might all find acceptable for ourselves as — and pardon the expression — WASP-looking Canadians who are not considered threats because of our appearance, are not necessarily the appropriate documents to cross that border.
We had a discussion last night after yesterday's presentations. There are approximately 13 acceptable documents now, depending on where you come from. Do not forget, we have foreign exchange students coming to Canada. We have people with green cards. We have a variety of acceptable forms of identification. We are trying to keep this simple.
You are correct. Today, nine times out of ten, if you have a passport, a NEXUS card or FAST card, a birth certificate or driver's licence, you are fine. CBSA and our counterparts in the U.S. are trying to deal with all possible exceptions. With all due respect, they need to be looking at common standards. Canada must be part of this discussion, because many times, we come up with great solutions to North American issues and problems. They need to be discussing the options, because we know the Americans do not yet have the answer to what that secure ID will be.
Senator Angus: What about coming to Canada? We are talking about going to the U.S., where there may be up to 13 acceptable documents; certainly there are four. What do we require for people coming into our country?
Ms. Spry: This may be a surprise, but today there is no documentary requirement for either Americans or Canadians.
Senator Angus: That is not a surprise.
Ms. Spry: You have to be able to satisfy the officer at the border as to your identity and nationality, but no document is stated as the required document. That is why we have gotten into the habit of accepting a driver's licence or a birth certificate. The best one is your passport.
The Chairman: So two credit cards can get you into Canada?
Ms. Spry: Doubtful. You need picture ID, government-issued ID. However, you cannot look in any act and see where it says you need certain documents.
Senator Meighen: I take your point. To paraphrase, you said we have gotten into the habit of accepting a driver's licence or a birth certificate. I think the word "or" is perhaps doubtful.
Ms. Spry: It is "and."
Senator Meighen: Senator Tkachuk told us last night during our hearing that he could not board a plane to return to Canada with his driver's licence and had to get his birth certificate faxed from his office in Ottawa down to the U.S. for them to let him on.
I am still confused. We have dealt today with Canadians going to the U.S. and U.S. citizens coming to Canada. When this WHTI legislation and its regulations are all in their final form, is it not only then that we, together with the Americans, can determine the type of document, other than a passport, that will be satisfactory under the law?
Ms. Spry: Yes.
Senator Meighen: Right now, the negotiations you are carrying on are essentially dealing with the present situation and trying to regulate that a little, because nobody knows what the situation will be once the full legislation, with regulations, has been adopted.
Ms. Spry: You are right. We are having exploratory discussions with the U.S. and trying to influence what they ultimately come up with. We do not know what they will decide.
Senator Meighen: That is very helpful. In conclusion, the working group chaired by Mr. Jolicoeur — perhaps we should have him appear before us at some point — how often does it meet?
Ms. Spry: Approximately once a month.
The Chairman: I think the steering committee will decide after we hear all the evidence. We are anxious to hear from Ambassador Wilkins at a more convenient time for him. Ambassador Wilson may want to come back again, as well as Representative Slaughter. We are trying to deal with this as an emergency, but we want to ensure we have a clear and balanced understanding of the facts. As they roll out, they become more confusing to all of us — obviously to you as well.
Senator Meighen: Ms. Spry has helped me very much. I am clearer than I was. I thank her for that.
In terms of American tourism, total tourism numbers seem to be going up, but not to Canada. The other disturbing point I note in your presentation, Ms. McKenzie, is that the overall marketing budget — and I assume marking and advertising are synonymous — is down.
Ms. McKenzie: Yes.
Senator Meighen: Is that part of the general cuts that government departments have suffered in the past few years?
Ms. McKenzie: Part of the general cut. We had a $5 million cut the last year and a $3 million cut this year.
Senator Meighen: What do you expect for next year?
Ms. McKenzie: We do not know. The budget has been in decline.
Senator Meighen: Would you all agree that at this juncture, given the facts, now is not the time to cut advertising and marketing, but rather to expand it if we hope to lure back more American visitors?
Ms. McKenzie: That is the position that the Tourism Association of Canada presented yesterday in terms of Canada's overall investment. Our competition is outspending us dramatically in the U.S.
Senator Meighen: Our competition being? The European Union?
Ms. McKenzie: Europe is the primary outbound destination that we compete against in the U.S. Other than domestic destinations in the U.S., Europe is Canada's largest competitor.
Senator Di Nino: I will follow up on Senator Meighen's question. Obviously, this entire issue is being described as having a huge impact on economic benefits to Canada. Tourism is one area where there has been an outcry about the devastating effects these new restrictions will have.
As background, I will tell you that in the mid-1980s, I was chairman of Harbourfront Corporation for five years. About a year and a half ago, I completed 11 years of service on the board of Roy Thomson Hall, so I am somewhat familiar with these issues.
To go back to what Senator Meighen was saying, you provided us with evidence that suggests that in the past 10 years, the number of Americans taking vacations outside the U.S. has gone up some 5.5 per cent, while the number of those coming to Canada has gone down 1.1 per cent. Am I seeing that correctly, Ms. McKenzie?
Ms. McKenzie: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: You have also said, on page 5, that world demand is strong and Canada is a dream destination — something with which I happen to agree. Is that your opinion, or is it a generally accepted fact in the world or to the people around you?
Ms. McKenzie: It is both my opinion and a fact. Especially outside of North America, the world aspires to visit Canada. The research will tell you that if you ask people what their dream destination for outbound travel is, Canada is in the top three consistently in every country except the U.S.
Senator Di Nino: I happen to agree with that; as I said, I know a little about that.
You also said, on page 10 of your statement, that the lack of U.S. consumer awareness about Canada as a travel destination is one of the factors contributing to the decline of the U.S. market.
Ms. McKenzie: That relates to the level of competition we are facing in the U.S. market. There is a lot more promotion and advertising; therefore, the level of awareness of what there is to see and do in other countries is higher than for the neighbouring country of Canada.
Senator Di Nino: You are familiar with the effects of SARS in Toronto during that one year — how it devastated the tourist industry, including cancellations by artists who would not come to Toronto for fear of dying. It has picked up again. Can you tell me what you think we did right?
Ms. McKenzie: It picked up because we became as aggressive as we could be in the U.S. market. However, we are still suffering from 2003 in the meetings market because we lost a year of bookings. Those bookings happen anywhere from three to eight years out. We are still suffering either because of business that was cancelled or bids that we could not close in 2003, which we lost to other destinations.
Senator Di Nino: We are hearing too often that the travel requirements and the different methods of solving that are having a huge impact on the tourism industry. Are we using this as a crutch? When we see what you have told us yourself, and the criticism that I know has been directed at the tourism industry — not just the Canadian Tourism Commission — that we have not done enough to promote ourselves or to tell the world who we are, notwithstanding that we know Canada is a desired destination, we are letting our competitors beat us to the punch, not because of travel document requirements, but because we have not addressed the issue in a businesslike manner.
Ms. McKenzie: On page 10, I outline our belief that the decline in the U.S. market is due to a number of factors. That is based on research we completed in February, the largest-ever research project we have done in the U.S. market. I would be happy to provide that to your committee.
I will say that our performance in other international markets is strong.
The Chairman: We are trying to focus on one aspect in this hearing. We know there are problems, but they are not macro-problems. The problem we are focusing on now is the WHTI program.
Senator Di Nino: I do not think that particular industry should use WHTI as a crutch. There are other problems, and I wanted to put that on the record.
Senator Fitzpatrick: I think we are all frustrated with the situation we find ourselves in.
There are a couple of things I do not understand. This deals somewhat with the future. What does the U.S. administration or U.S. Congress see wrong with NEXUS, and what do we see wrong with the PASS card that they are proposing? Have we sat down and negotiated these two forms of identification to go back and forth across the border?
Second, I do not understand, when we are facing a decline in tourism, why we are not spending more money to improve it. I realize you are asking for that. My question is, because the decline in tourism is coming from the United States, is the $156 million that you receive being redirected so more is being spent to invite people from the United States to Canada?
Ms. McKenzie: About 50 per cent of our expenditure is directed to the U.S. market and 50 per cent to other international markets. Many provinces, cities and businesses in Canada rely on the federal government to take the lead in the other international markets, where the Canada message is needed as an umbrella under which to market.
In times of crisis, we try to focus more effort on the U.S. market. However, as I say, our overall budget is in decline.
Senator Fitzpatrick: So we have not increased it proportionately in the United States?
Ms. McKenzie: We have maintained it at 50 per cent.
Senator Fitzpatrick: But you have not realigned your total spending to encourage U.S. travel?
Ms. McKenzie: In fact, we have had a lot of pressure to start directing monies at emerging markets to try to make up some of that loss — there is a big debate about that — and China would be an example. What do you do with a declining budget? Do you put more money in the U.S., where we are fighting such a strong competitive battle, or do you put more money where there is strong growth?
Senator Fitzpatrick: What is your opinion?
Ms. McKenzie: We try to strike a balance. Our board made a decision last week to try to invest more in emerging markets next year. We have a bit of a cushion, given what we expect the exchange rates to be next year.
Senator Fitzpatrick: What is wrong with NEXUS and what is wrong with the PASS card, from our respective points of view?
Ms. Spry: I do not think there is anything wrong with either. We have been pressing the U.S. to accept NEXUS as meeting WHTI requirements. However, we will not know until the rule-making process has been completed whether they will.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Who makes the rules?
Ms. Spry: The U.S. Congress; it is their rule-making process. It is like regulations.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Is the U.S. administration pressuring them to speed up that process?
Ms. Spry: My understanding is that the rule-making process will be completed in two to three months. They are now saying by September for air and sea travel. We are hopeful that NEXUS is in, and that is our expectation.
I do not think we have any problem with the PASS card. There is some discussion going on in the U.S. between the State Department and DHS about the technology that would be used in the PASS card. That has not been finalized yet, as I understand it.
Senator Fitzpatrick: I have difficulty in understanding how either of those cards would work for automobile passengers, for example. The iris is scanned for the NEXUS card.
Ms. Spry: We have NEXUS working at the land border. It uses RFI technology, which is similar to a transponder.
The Chairman: Does that work for an entire family?
Ms. Spry: I am not sure.
The Chairman: If Senator Fitzpatrick decides to take his grandchildren across the border, would the NEXUS card work for the family?
Ms. Spry: Today, if you are a NEXUS air travel participant, it does not give you NEXUS land travel privileges. We are looking at expanding it to what we call global enrolment, which would be a database. Once you are enrolled in one program, you would be in all programs. That is in the future.
Senator Fitzpatrick: That is helpful. Our respective governments have to get on with this because it is a serious issue for both countries.
Ms. White: There is nothing wrong with NEXUS, but currently, it cannot be used as a form of identification at all customs lanes. The NEXUS cardholder must use a designated lane and whoever else is in the car must have a NEXUS card as well. It is free for youth under 18. I have one and have found it extremely easy to use as a frequent traveller. I understand that at the outset, there was no marketing budget, and that is why there has not been the expected uptake. The point of the enhancements that Ms. Slaughter has proposed is to expand it to a broader level so that it is accepted as a piece of ID. No one claims that there is anything wrong with it, but why create a PASS card when the existing forms of identification DHS has tried to roll out have been unsuccessful historically? Why should anyone believe that they can roll out something new, especially given the time constraints? It is important that Canada be part of the discussion and say that we all need to be realistic and make the existing forms of identification work.
Two research projects have been done that clearly indicate neither Canadians nor Americans will buy additional forms of identification, so it will hamper travel. We are seeing people stay away from cross-border regions and going back to internal travel, which will not sustain any of us. We have to get back to free motion and ensure that people can travel securely.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Do you have a budget to travel to Washington to lobby?
Ms. White: It is minimal. That is why we have asked for any help that you can provide in raising public awareness to ensure that the people working on our behalf can get this message through. Again, they have only begun this process. We have to get this law passed because it is critical.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Can you tell us where we can get a NEXUS card in Canada?
Ms. White: I can mail you an application tomorrow. You can get them now through CBSA, but you have to travel to Fort Erie to go through the interview process. There are only certain points where that can be done.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, our time is too short. I thank the witnesses. Ms. White, could you get back to the committee with the number of congressmen that would be supportive of a delay of the bill in Congress? At this juncture they have a delay in the Senate, but not a delay process or a precise number. I am not talking about the conference, but rather a resolution to delay the matter. It would be helpful for us to have a list of those congressmen because we need 51 per cent of the House of Representatives to support a delay. I would like to know where we are on that, because everyone talks about a delay, but in the end, it will be our colleagues in the House of Representatives who grant us that delay.
Ms. White: I would be happy to do that. I have a number for Senator Moore. In 2004, 34.3 million Americans visited Canada and spent $10 million in the country. To reinforce what has been said at U.S. committees, if you can imagine a need for a passport to cross from Ottawa to Hull, that is what we are talking about and how ludicrous this all is.
The Chairman: On that realistic note, I thank the witnesses.
It is my pleasure to welcome the second group of witnesses: Mr. Angelo Amador, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Charles Tievsky, from the Canadian-American Business Council; and Mr. Jim Phillips, from the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance.
Angelo I. Amador, Director, Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Before I begin, I would like to know if it is possible to quickly address two of the questions answered in the previous package.
The Chairman: After your presentation.
Mr. Amador: Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on such an important issue. My written statement is quite long and covers specifics relating to WHTI law and recommendations for proper implementation of this initiative. I will not try to go through all of it.
The Chairman: We have a grasp of the issue and need to know what value-added information you can give us that we have not heard before.
Mr. Amador: It is impossible to quantify with any precision, as shown by previous presenters, the commercial impact of WHTI without knowing what the specific documents will be. However, it can be reasonably estimated that if the document requirements are too strict, the impact on our economies will be severe.
One of the problems that someone mentioned earlier was with NEXUS and PASS cards. It is more difficult to obtain a NEXUS card than to obtain a passport.
We are trying to get a non-discretionary document. We are asking for passports, but we need a non-discretionary document, which will tend to be a driver's licence, birth certificate, or something of that nature.
One requirement of the rule-making process, and I will address this at the end, is that Congress is out of the picture now when it comes to regulations. The regulations are made by the administration. That is why it is so important that your government is involved, because if you wait for the final regulations to come out, it will be too late. When the final regulations are released for comment, they have made up their minds. That is why it is important to do that earlier.
One requirement of the rule-making process in the United States is that any final decision or regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more in any single year must be preceded by a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Department of Homeland Security is still in the early stages of such cost-benefit assessment, which makes it even more puzzling that they are moving forward with this before they meet that requirement.
The U.S. government needs to take this seriously. One of my complaints is that they say that they cannot tell us what the cost-benefit will be because they do not know what the regulations will be. In that case, they should look at the different options and then come up with an answer as to the cost of all of them.
Due to the uncertainty with regard to the ultimate WHTI documentation requirements and the lack of nationwide research on this issue, we are left with independent studies and anecdotes from the business community. Again, my presentation has more specifics as to how it affects different areas of the country.
I wish to make clear that even though WHTI covers air and seaports, our main concentration is land borders because that is where most of these crossings are taking place.
Also, the great majority of persons arriving at land borders and ferry terminal ports of entry are residents of the border area who cross frequently and their inspection may or may not include data system checks, which are required for airports and sea travel.
Over 358 million inspections are conducted annually at land borders, compared with 78 million at airports and 12 million at seaports. The land borders also see the crossing of approximately $5 billion in surface trade between the United States and Canada and Mexico. I mention Mexico because if you are to get any low pass, we will need the assistance of the border representatives in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico, which are also affected by WHTI.
We are concerned that the proposed implementation plan for WHTI for land borders and ferry terminals as outlined in the departments' proposed rules — Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State have both come up with regulations — while it takes into account some of the expressed concerns of the business community, such as, accept NEXUS, come up with a cheaper card, when you ask what will be the requirement for a PASS card, how do you apply for one, the answer has been: The same way you apply for a passport. That does not advance anything if they are just planning to make it $10 or $20 cheaper. That is why Representative Slaughter's bill tries to put on a cap of $20.
It is commonly understood in the United States that Canadian visitation to the U.S. alone is far greater than from any other foreign nation. There were 34.5 million visits by Canadians to the United States in 2003, which had a $10.9 billion impact on our national economy. At the same time, fewer than 40 per cent of Canadians hold passports and an even smaller percentage of your children do. If you are concerned about Americans coming to Canada and then not being able to go back, the statistics are even more dismal. Only 20 per cent of the overall American population have passport records. That does not even mean passports; at least at some point in their lives, they had a passport.
Ironically, the closest thing we have today to an economic impact study of the effect of WHTI on the American economy is the research from your tourism company. We are looking forward to the one that will come out this summer.
Finally, we have a lobbying budget, as you may know. It is large. We are working with our members of Congress to seek legislative relief where our administration seems unwilling or unable to assist. Again, the administration is responsible for the rule-making, not Congress.
As to WHTI, the law has already passed. We are trying to amend it. Getting an extension will take legislative action. As you have heard, we have already had some success in our Senate, with legislation passed that extends WHTI implementation. More importantly, it forces the federal government to work with the states in coming up with pilot programs and standards for these non-discretionary identification cards that would allow crossing back into the United States.
You heard from Congresswoman Slaughter as to her efforts in the House. We continue to believe that taking reliable documents off the table, as our federal administration started to do, without a substantial and formalized discussion with all affected stakeholders could lead to a program that unduly penalizes our businesses and economies.
I wish to thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to answering your questions.
Charles A. Tievsky, Lawyer, Canadian-American Business Council: Honourable senators, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today.
I am here today from Washington representing the Canadian-American Business Council. I chair the CABC's WHTI task force.
For those not familiar with the CABC, allow me to describe the organization. CABC is the voice of business in the world's most prosperous relationship. Established in 1987, the council is a non-profit, issues-oriented organization dedicated to elevating the private-sector perspective on issues that affect our two nations. Our members are key business leaders and stakeholders from both sides of the border. The council's activities include high-level briefings on issues of current concern, assistance with practical trade and policy challenges, and providing significant networking opportunities and informative seminars.
Implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative has been a top priority for the CABC since the legislation was initially passed into law two years ago. We have been working actively on the file with members of Congress, as well as the relevant agencies and other interested groups.
We are pleased that the issue is gaining needed attention on both sides of the border, but hasten to add that there is a great deal of work to be done before all the challenges to commerce and travel across our common border are addressed. Because we represent companies large and small throughout the North American supply chain, we have a slightly different point of view than some of the people you have heard from who live along the border. The concerns of the border communities are valid. They want to ensure that they can live and work seamlessly on both sides of the border. Our constituency, on the other hand, is constituted of users of the border, but expands throughout the U.S. For example, Wal-Mart, with its hub in Bentonville, Arkansas, is concerned about the implementation of the WHTI, as is UPS, with its world port facility in Louisville, Kentucky. These companies, and many more, rely on the smooth functioning of the Canada-U.S. border crossings so that they can transport their goods in the efficient manner upon which citizens have become reliant in their everyday lives. This is not simply a Detroit-Windsor challenge.
It is important to note that the Canadian-American Business Council supports the goal of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to enhance screening of travellers to the U.S. and to facilitate low-risk traffic. We believe it is of paramount importance for North American prosperity that economic commerce considerations are balanced with security concerns in a risk-based approach to border management. We recognize that WHTI is intended to deal with the flow of people, but we are concerned that its implementation will have unintended consequences for the flow of cross-border commerce. We want to ensure the efficient and productive flow of commercial goods and services. The commercial traffic that crosses the Canada-U.S. border on a daily basis is vital to the United States economy and the strength of North American competitiveness in the global market.
We have concerns specifically about the timing and implementation of the program and believe that pilot projects should be undertaken before full-scale implementation, so that technological and practical challenges can be addressed before rolling out the program at all border crossings.
We also believe that it is critically important to assign the requisite resources, staffing, infrastructure and technology to each border crossing when fully executing the WHTI. This is the only way to ensure that the new security requirements actually do enhance security without hampering our economic prosperity.
It is clear from the recent GAO report on Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative implementation that the U.S. government is not in a position to meet the January 1, 2008 deadline for implementation of WHTI at the land border. We are hopeful, but not certain, that the U.S. Congress will see its way clear to extending the deadline by at least a year. This would be a positive step, but it cannot be delay for delay's sake. We must use the intervening year or longer to get the details right on how the WHTI will be implemented.
It is our view that even if there were an extension of the implementation deadline, it would be critical to continue to work closely with the relevant agencies in the U.S. to proceed quickly with the regulatory process so that the program can be tested and improved before the full rollout.
It is also important that, when making border policy, U.S. lawmakers keep in mind the unique relationship enjoyed by the U.S. and Canada. The immigration reform debate currently driving border policy in Washington must take into account the differences between our northern and southern borders. The Canadian-American Business Council takes every opportunity to remind policy-makers of the unique nature of the U.S.-Canada relationship, from defence and intelligence cooperation to the integrated nature of our economies. This special relationship must be kept in mind as U.S. policy-makers determine how best to manage our common border.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today.
The Chairman: Thank you for being so brief.
Jim Phillips, President and CEO, Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance: As quick background information, CanAm BTA was formed in 1992. We are active in 27 states in the United States and all Canadian provinces participate; 60,000 companies and organizations are in our network, and we are about 45 per cent Canadian and 55 per cent American. I am in Canada about as much as I am in the U.S.
Numerous groups that are allied with CanAm BTA are active on every track, from rescinding the law to extending the date, to those who suggested alternate documents like drivers' licences and so on, to those who believe, if done right, we can deliver true economic security and heightened public security at the same time through almost seamless travel between the U.S. and Canada. This is an aspect that you have not heard much about in the last couple of days, but I want to dwell on it a little.
I have a copy of an average day in the lives of the customs and border protection service for all the senators.
The Chairman: May I get agreement to append that to our proceedings today?
Mr. Phillips: About 317 inadmissible people present themselves at the U.S. border every year; 17,000 criminals or aliens were identified at our ports and arrested; 77,000 people presented fraudulent documents to gain access to the United States; 13,000 people presented documents showing they were U.S. citizens who were not; and 360 terrorism or serious security risks were interdicted at the border last year. I might point out that, in the previous two years, there were 650,000 inadmissible people and the US-VISIT program that was put into effect for all travellers except U.S. and Canadian —
Senator Angus: You are talking about the Canada-U.S. border when you say "at the border," are you?
Mr. Phillips: No, all borders.
Senator Angus: The 360 terrorists may not have been at a Canada-U.S. entry point.
Mr. Phillips: Essentially, they were not from Canada. I do not have those statistics. We must keep in mind the balance and the reality of economic security at the same time. You have heard from many people yesterday. I work closely with Representative Slaughter, with Michael Wilson and Mr. Wilkins, and so on. You heard about what could be the true impacts if it is done wrongly. All those are true. It will be an absolute disaster if it is not done properly.
When we talk about "properly," we mean, know what you will do, be able to do it, be able to fund it, and be able to deliver it on a timetable. That is when the data ought to be in effect, whether it is 2009 or 2010, or whatever the date is. We must have those other elements before we even begin the process.
I would like to talk to you about the side that has been lost. I participated in the April 5, 2005 press conference when the State and Department of Homeland Security announced this. In fact, I knew it was coming and had advised some people. At that meeting, they indicated that FAST and NEXUS would be acceptable. The problem here is that under the rule-making provisions, they cannot comment on what is acceptable until they put it on the record. My information is that we are to have air and sea regulations in the next month or two; those for land borders are not likely to be available until March or April of 2007, when the actual rule-making is made for 2008, if it holds.
I want to comment on your question, senator. FAST and NEXUS are both okay and Mr. Chertoff indicated in his speech in Washington two or three weeks ago that those participating in FAST and NEXUS will continue to enjoy their privileges. NEXUS is a higher level, as Mr. Amador said, than a passport. FAST and NEXUS are available as joint programs, U.S. and Canada, there is a card for Canadians if you join, and so on.
The point here is that, done right, this could facilitate seamless travel for the first time. The objective here was not to identify the bad guy; it was to identify low-risk people. Give them a special identity document and access to crossing the border so that to go from Pennsylvania to New York would be like going from Quebec to Ontario, with one difference, namely, that those who are no and low risk would be recorded electronically as they come and go. Essentially, they are not queried by an officer; they do not have to be. I will not explain NEXUS to you, but every 24 hours, for anyone who gets a warrant on their record and has been clear for 20 years, it catches up; they are gone. Much has been done to identify low-risk people.
We will not achieve economic security for our countries until we deliver a seamless ability to move goods and people. We have been active on the security side. We have put in place a lot of new processes and they have been costly. However, we have not delivered the benefits promised to both individuals and to companies. CBP is aware of it and working on it, but the green light for cargo and other things has not occurred; nor is NEXUS working properly. It is too expensive, at $50 to $80 for five years; it should be free. It was a cost-recovery problem with Canada because it was done for frequent travellers originally. The idea of NEXUS was if you go a lot, you get a special deal, but 9/11 changed that. Security is now the key. If you are a NEXUS participant, you are no and low risk. That is good for the government and for everybody. There should not be a fee. It is about $4.5 million to $5 million of revenue over five years, which is about half a million dollars per country. We should make that free. There are not enough places to sign up, and Representative Slaughter and Mr. McHugh's bill discussed yesterday will ease that. CBP has committed to doing this by the end of the year; CBSA is working on it. NEXUS and FAST are hopeful.
The bottom line is that a passport is not the document to use. It is the last one you want to use at the border. I will not explain what you have to go through to use it, but it was never intended to be the document. The press picked it up from that press conference. If it bleeds, it leads. Therefore, other things were not mentioned. The key is to keep your mind on the objective, namely, it does not identify low-risk people. There are two steps at the border crossing: identity and nationality. Presently, a driver's licence with a picture identifies you, but does not confirm nationality. A passport does confirm identity and nationality. Neither confirms low-risk status. When we all get our passports come January 2009, or whenever it happens, we will be in line like everybody else because we have to be queried as to what we are doing and who we are. They will know we are either American or Canadian, but they will not know why we are coming into the country or what we are doing. NEXUS is the second phase of identifying low risk and is the real key to economic security.
Mr. Chertoff has announced the Trusted Traveler Initiative. Keep your eye on that. Weeding out is not about security; it should be about facilitation of travel of no- and low-risk people.
In closing, the key here is security. It is dependent upon incredible intelligence and cooperation between the U.S. and Canada and joint approaches like the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams. It is not about documentation at the border for security. Facilitation of low-risk, seamless travel is about a document at the border that lets you move almost without anything.
My view of how it might work and exactly how it could be done has been submitted to you in writing. Lastly and most importantly, for you and for all of us, are our very jobs and the quality of life and the freedom that we enjoy in both countries. They depend on both the U.S. and Canada not messing up the border, doing it right and getting the seamless economic security we need. That is my closing statement.
The Chairman: Very comprehensive, as always.
Senator Angus: Did you know that the cost for the NEXUS card in Canada has gone up from $50 to $100? Does that surprise you?
Mr. Phillips: Yes, it does. It is the wrong direction. I know it is difficult to take a revenue stream away from a government. However, the reality here is if you want people to sign up and participate, there are not five or six places to do so. For instance, iris scanning is only for air NEXUS, which I heard Senator Fitzpatrick mention; requirements for land border crossing right now are two fingerprints and a picture. The point is that when air NEXUS is rolled out at all the airports that have U.S. pre-clearance, people in Winnipeg do not have to drive down to North Dakota to sign up; they can go to the airport in Winnipeg. Similarly, people in Vancouver do not have to drive anywhere to sign up either. NEXUS has only 100,000 participants.
I think you have seen State Department's number, that 400,000 people — 2 per cent of the crossers — make 48 per cent of visits. If we could get those other 300,000 people into NEXUS, 50 per cent of our problem at the border would be solved and it would make all kinds of difference. While we are arguing about the kind of document, where and when to do it, the real key is getting a formula for seamless economic security.
Senator Moore: Mr. Phillips, could you repeat that last statement about 2 per cent of the crossers?
Mr. Phillips: There were 129 million crossings made by 23 million people a year ago, and the State Department said in its profile that 400,000 of those 23 million made 48 per cent of the trips. Of those 400,000, 100,000, including me and some others at the table, are already in NEXUS.
The Chairman: That number of 123 million is down from somewhere around 175 million. At one time, it was 175 million-plus and growing, and now it has gone down to 123 million.
Mr. Phillips: It is serious for both of us. It is not a Canadian or a U.S. problem. It is a joint problem. If we shoot ourselves in the foot over people, as we have over goods, we will have more security on the forty-ninth parallel than we have on importing materials into our country.
You have to go with perimeter clearance. You hide your light under a bushel here; there are 39 foreign locations where Canadian border service agents are interdicting inadmissible people into Canada today. You have been doing it for five years. It is a tremendous effort. If we could stop the inadmissible people before they get on planes and trains, we would not have to worry too much about the forty-ninth parallel. This is part of the big picture we have to put into this equation.
Senator Moore: Mr. Amador, you said the administration is responsible for the rules, not Congress. Is "administration" made up of the bureaucrats in both the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Amador: That is correct.
Senator Moore: Therefore, is it up to those individuals to draft the rules and come up with the type of card, the infrastructure and all of the rest of it?
Mr. Amador: That is correct. In Congress, you can change the actual law. However, that is difficult to do, except in certain circumstances, when they really feel it is a crisis, and that is what we have been trying to portray. Even though there is a bill in the Senate that includes many of the fixes we have been talking about, if the House passed all of those provisions right now, it would not mean that you have a law. The Senate version of this immigration bill has to be consolidated with a comparable immigration bill from the House, or something that you can negotiate with. Even if it is passed in the House, it will have to go back to the Senate and be passed there again. It is a victory, in that we are able to show this is not a controversial issue that will have senators opposing it. However, it is not a victory in the sense that we are halfway there. We are far from halfway there if we want to change the law.
As Mr. Phillips said, it is important to look at the regulations and how we implement them. We were happy with the announcement that they would probably accept NEXUS. However, in Maine, for example, the last time we checked, there was not even one port of entry that had installed NEXUS, so it is useless there. We need to look at all those steps as well.
Senator Moore: This committee and our Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group have been focusing on senators and House of Representatives people in the U.S.A. to get them to realize that all that is thought of here cannot be implemented within the time frame suggested and should be delayed.
Who else would you recommend that we speak to in order to bring home the message that we are getting here today from yourselves and other witnesses? Who among the rule-makers could we go to?
Mr. Amador: With regard to the delay, you can only go to Congress. Only Congress can extend what it has already written in our law.
Senator Moore: You said we are not halfway there because of the rules people having to do their work.
Mr. Amador: Yes. The law contained the deadline; it was not the rule-making. The rule-making said that the deadline for air travel was last December and that the sea travel was coming up, and they moved that. They can move the one for December 31, 2006, for land and air. That is not in the law, so they can move that by one year, but the 2008 deadline is the law.
In all of the negotiations with the administration, we should continue to talk about proper implementation of WHTI if we are not able to change the law. In one of the conversations we had with the State Department right after the Senate bill passed, they were upset that one of the provisions forced them to allow states to put citizenship on the licences. They say they did not want that. State should do it. We said that we have been asking them to talk to the states — Michigan, for example, has a wonderful plan — and the provinces to come up with an idea. If you do not do it, we will continue putting pressure on the Senate. It sends a message to them, and you can talk with them about proper implementation and making PASS cards cheap and easy to get. You can have that kind of conversation with the administration.
Senator Moore: Is the Department of State or the Department of Homeland Security the lead department?
Mr. Amador: It is Department of Homeland Security.
Senator Tkachuk: I was glad to hear Mr. Phillips say that we should be looking at this as an opportunity to create seamless travel, which is the way I feel as well.
The problem seems to be this 2008 deadline. Is that when the program starts? Do you see any way in which we can meet the 2008 deadline? I do not, but can you see that 2008 deadline being met, and the other two can kick in after?
Mr. Phillips: Technically speaking, I would not recommend it, but there are ways to do this. For instance, the US- VISIT program, which every foreign visitor to the United States now has to participate in, exempts Canadians and Americans. The technology is all there. I have advocated being able to register myself and others at the border — it is in the write-up I gave you — and have explained how to do it starting now, day by day, and by the time 2008 comes, technically, it would work.
The question here is when the Department of Homeland Security and State and the support people will decide what they will do, how they will do it, how they will fund it and when they can do it by. I hope they come out with that so we can then go to Congress and say here is how to do it seamlessly without impacting on people, but, by the way, it will take us until this date. If they come out with that, I say that is the package that goes to our Congress.
Can/Am BTA created a northern border caucus that has 56 members now and there are 20 others if we need them. All the members of the caucus were shocked. They wrote the first letter to Congress asking what is this from the 9/11 commission? It was buried in this law the way section 110 was in 1996. They did not know about it. We are telling them about it. I call it a "stealth issue." It came from 9/11. On the other hand, who put the 2008 date in? It was not 9/11 that did that. Some lawyer on some committee in the Senate — maybe Mr. Amador can find out who — put in this date of 2008. The 2008 date should not be there until we can deliver on what we will do, how we will do it, how we will pay for it and when we can do it by — that is the date we ought to be guided by and that is the noise we ought to be making. Let's have a plan with a date and timeline, and then let's talk about implementation.
The Chairman: It requires a Royal Proclamation for a law to be implemented in Canada. That means a law can be passed for immediate impact, but until the government is in the position of being able to say that the rules and regulations are all prepared and fully vetted, the law cannot come into effect. The Canadian system is somewhat different from the American one. It seems they are putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Amador: Many members of the House of Representatives who are introducing these new laws have a fascination with putting in place deadlines that cannot be met. They say the reason they do that is if you do not put the feet of the federal government to the fire they will not do anything. They think it will force them to come back with a plan and then beg for an extension.
A good example of that is the visa waiver program. We had to fight for an extension with regard to that legislation. In that case, we were able to bring Europeans, Japanese and others forward to say, "This is the plan. This is what we will do to have biometrics." They then extended the deadline. The second time around the deadline was not extended far enough. They came up with some new definition, one which is on shaky legal ground, but they came up with phase 1 and 2 of the implementation. If the federal government gets its act together, they will be able to say, "We are meeting the deadline on phase 1 because we have this plan, but we will not implement it at all crossings."
The Chairman: I understand the complexity. We are trying to get to the narrow issue of what efforts you are making on behalf of your constituent members to do what everybody says is a necessity, that is, to get a delay in the House of Representatives. Where do you stand on that?
We cannot do anything, in light of what we have heard. We have heard that it cannot be implemented. It is not clear. It will not be smooth. The costs have not been determined. We know all that. The key issue is not the Senate, but the House of Representatives.
I am looking at you, Mr. Tievsky and Mr. Amador, when I ask: Where do you stand? We certainly know where Mr. Phillips stands. He has been arduously advocating on the American side of the border for a delay. Where do your organizations stand in terms of convincing members of the House of Representatives to delay this for at least a year?
Mr. Tievsky: One of the issues we are facing is that the critical component of WHTI is part and parcel of a much larger immigration bill that may be the single most controversial piece of legislation to hit Capitol Hill in 20 years. It is divisive and hotly political in an election year, where the House of Representatives is facing stiff choices.
Unless that bill can be acted upon sooner rather than later, or unless the WHTI component is carved out of it, then one must look to work around it. A workaround with phase 1 and 2 might be a reasonable way to do it. January 1, 2008 is a firm date. One of the questions we have is this: If we have a 2008 implementation date, with 100 per cent levels of compliance by CBP officers at the border, how long will the backups be and how long will they be sustained? It is unreasonable to think it will be anything other than catastrophic.
The Chairman: The GAO already says that in no uncertain terms. It is the clearest message I have seen on any American legislation. They say they do not have enough facts to determine the economic impact but they know it is serious.
Mr. Tievsky: When there is a negotiated deal as intricately prepared as the Senate immigration bill, it may bring the entire house down if one piece were to be pulled out of it.
Mr. Amador: We have been pushing for an extension from the beginning. More important, we have been pushing for the inclusion of the states and provinces in these discussions. They hold the key to non-discretionary ID. They are the ones who issue the licences and the birth certificates. They need to be brought into this.
The first step is to continue to ask for the extension and to try to put it into law. For example, the 9/11 commission never talked about nationality. If you look at the report, you will see it says that we need to know not only who is coming in, but we need to know their identity. Many people will talk about Ressam being caught at the border and that he was coming from Canada. He had a Canadian passport and it was irrelevant whether we had WHTI in place or not.
My second point goes back to what Mr. Phillips was saying. We are working with the administration because it is vital that we get information from our federal government showing the economic impact. We need to point out this is not just something that affects the border states. We need to show how Canadians travelling to California and Florida will be affected. That is how you bring in the other members of the House of Representatives who, at the moment, think this is a border issue.
First, we need the cost assessment for which we have been pushing. Representative Slaughter has written several letters about this.
Second, we need them to come up with a plan. With a plan and a cost-benefit analysis, you can go to the House of Representatives and say, "This is how we will implement it. This is the time period. This is what we intend to do."
The Chairman: Mr. Tievsky, could you sum up the position of your organization? Business has an active interest in at least delaying this if they can, or coming up with a mechanism to soften the blow. We know it is an economic blow to the Americans as much as it is to Canadians. How do we soften that blow in light of this time threat?
Mr. Tievsky: At the end of the day it comes back to getting it right. Getting it right means ensuring there is adequate time, training —
The Chairman: The evidence is clear, Mr. Tievsky, that the time is not adequate. The overwhelming evidence we have heard in the last two days from our ambassador, Representative Slaughter and other witnesses today is that the time is not adequate. We all know that. It is a given.
Having been confronted with the pure, unadulterated physical fact that the time is not adequate to deal with all the issues in a way that avoids economic difficulties for Americans and Canadians, how do we deal with this question of a reasonable delay? It is not, as you say, a delay for delay's sake.
I know where Mr. Phillips stands. However, Mr. Tievsky and Mr. Amador, where do you stand on this question of getting congressmen to understand the unintended negative impact of this measure?
Mr. Tievsky: The Senate is on board as well. As you know, in December the House of Representatives passed a stiff border control bill aimed primarily at the border with Mexico. At this point, there has been no strong effort to distinguish between the two.
The Chairman: As was pointed out by Mr. Phillips and others, we were very successful, with our American colleagues, in avoiding the visa issue some years ago. That would have been the same. It would have had a huge economic impact. We were able to differentiate between the two borders.
The question is how do we get at this issue now? We are working hard at it, but we need your advice and assistance on how to deal with our American colleagues on this front. These are self-evident truths to us, as they are to Americans who look at them. How do we get Congress to delay or sideswipe this for a while?
Mr. Phillips: In answer to Senator Angus's question to the first panel, I would define "it." "It" was intended to be — and I quote the American inner circle — "We want to know who is coming to our country. We want to know when they come and when they leave." That is the oversimplified situation. That is the "it."
The second point is that in the first paragraph of this intelligence bill, it states that whatever State and DHS do to make this law a reality, they are not to cause any further delay or congestion at the border.
The biggest problem is between now and 2008. We are suffering economic meltdown right now because people have misconceptions. The press keeps saying you have to have a passport. Every article you read, including the report yesterday in the Globe and Mail on Michael Wilson's appearance here, states that as of 2008, you have to have a passport to go to the United States. That is not true. How do you change that?
The key is to try to get it out of the political process. It must be argued on the basis of what are you trying to do here? What is the objective? The objective was to deliver economic security, to make jobs, travel, tourism and movement of goods and people internally simpler. That has been lost. It is out there in the press. We somehow have to bring it back to reality.
If we end up with a free passport with which we are all happy, it will not do a darn thing for the border.
The Chairman: Senator Harb made an interesting comment. He suggested we have a meeting in Washington, D.C., with all stakeholders, both Canadian and American, to make exactly the point you have just made. We have to reach out to Congress. We have to make them understand that this will hurt the American public and the American economy as much as it will hurt ours. When we have a mutual problem like this, maybe the best thing is to bring it more forcefully to the attention of those in Washington. Perhaps we will have a meeting with these folks this fall. Your organizations can co-host it. We will certainly come down.
Mr. Phillips: The three of us work closely together.
The Chairman: It is important to focus on this narrow issue. I know the attention span of Parliament is limited. The attention span in Congress is limited. Therefore, we must get them to focus on this issue for a moment in time.
Mr. Phillips: Perhaps we should put down in a white paper a plan of how to do it right and what it will take. Maybe that will get somebody's attention.
The Chairman: Thank you all very much. Your testimony had been not only elucidating but illuminating. We all know what the problem is. The question is how to solve it.
The committee adjourned.