|
Canada-U.S. Partnership Forum Report:
Report submitted to President William J. Clinton and Prime Minister Jean Chretien by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Foreign Minister John Manley |
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
The U.S.-Canada Border Today
Meeting Future Challenges on the U.S.-Canada Border
Annex 1 - Binational Cooperation - Federal Agencies
Annex 2 - CUSP Participant Lists
The Canada-U.S. Partnership Forum (CUSP) was launched in October 1999 by Prime Minister Chrétien and President Clinton to promote high-level dialogue among governments, border communities, and stakeholders on border management. The President and the Prime Minister endorsed three guiding principles of border management: streamline, harmonize and collaborate on border policies and management; expand co-operation to increase efficiencies in customs, immigration, law enforcement and environmental protection at and beyond the border; and collaborate on threats outside Canada and the United States.
Not only our border communities, but all of the United States and Canada have much at stake in ensuring that our common border runs smoothly, that the 99% of trade and travelers that are legal can cross the border easily, and that we can focus enforcement instead on the remaining 1% of cross-border activity. With US$1.2 billion in trade crossing the border every day and 200 million travelers (two-way) crossing each year, "getting it right" is critical to both countries. The U.S. and Canadian governments are committed to creating a more open border over the next 10-15 years.
CUSP meetings held on April 11-12, 2000 in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario and in Buffalo, New York, and on June 22-23, 2000 in Vancouver, British Columbia and in Blaine, Washington, provided an opportunity to exchange views and draw upon the expertise of border stakeholders. These border communities were eager to address border challenges, and many of them have a head start on federal governments in developing creative solutions to local problems.
CUSP participants at these meetings wanted consistent, transparent border management by governments on both sides of the border that avoided duplication. They valued the border as a geographic and symbolic line that defined our respective spaces, but wanted it to be "seamless." Harmonization of standards, processes and policies could contribute to this goal of seamlessness. Many participants suggested that more resources applied strategically were needed at the border. Others questioned whether resources would ever be able to keep up with increases in flows, while still others called for a re-thinking of traditional border management.
Risk management was seen as an effective way to expedite low-risk travelers and goods while focusing limited resources on those more apt to pose problems. For example, programs utilizing smart-card technologies or alternative accounting methods could have significant positive impact. "Intelligent Transportation Systems" offer potential for more efficient use of cross-border transportation networks.
A number of CUSP participants recommended looking at ways to move enforcement activities away from the border, thus reducing pressure on the border itself. Suggestions ranged from shifting inland the variety of paperwork currently processed at the border, to moving safety inspections and export controls as far from the border as practicable.
Some CUSP participants suggested that Canada and the United States should be trying to remove controls from the land border and instead move them out to a common perimeter. They urged federal governments to work together at managing flows into the region at this common perimeter and to address the global sources of instability that spawn illegal flows directed at both countries.
Inspection agencies stressed that they still have a mandate from federal governments to enforce our respective laws on the border, while using risk management to minimize congestion. Cooperation between U.S. and Canadian law enforcement agencies at the border continues to be excellent and a necessary component of thwarting cross-border criminal activity. These goals are complementary. We can make our internal border more open as we coordinate more closely on the perimeter.
Governments, communities, the private sector and NGOs must work together to address the challenges before us. These groups are already active in a number of binational fora focused on improving border management. Many CUSP participants asked for greater strategic direction in border management, believing that governments should move boldly in implementing border management principles. Our shared ecological zones also require a cooperative approach. We breathe the same air, drink the same water and share the same species of wildlife along the border.
The management of these cross-cutting international issues demands coordinated and cooperative action by many agencies from both sides of the border up to and including integrated horizontal solutions. The public expects it, and our global competitiveness depends on it. What needs to be done?
- CUSP should continue to meet, primarily but not exclusively in border communities, to solicit the views of stakeholders on how to make our border one which remains a beacon of friendship, mutual respect, and efficiency well-suited to the 21st century. We recommend that the next CUSP meeting be held in 2001 in the Detroit/Windsor area. When appropriate, CUSP should prepare subsequent reports on the state of the border to allow governments and the public to assess what progress we are making in achieving our goal.
- Agency-to-agency cooperation should be deepened to build on the success of the past five years, and best practices in border management should be emulated wherever possible along the border. Some best practices include the Prearrival Processing System and Customs Self-Assessment Program for cargo, NEXUS identification cards for passengers, the Remote Video Inspection System/Remote Ports Program for unstaffed ports, and the Integrated Border Enforcement Team.
- Governments need to undertake a concentrated assessment of what we do at the border. Are there legislation, regulations or policies which might be streamlined, harmonized or consolidated between the two governments? Can new arrangements be put in place away from our internal border and at our external border to reduce "double checking"? Governments need to determine whether these functions could be conducted differently and more cost-effectively.
- Legislators have an essential role in determining how the border serves our national interests, recognizing that two countries working together on a common game plan is far more effective and efficient than working alone. Legislation that improves border facilitation and security and the allocation of sufficient resources for such programs is a priority.
U.S.-Canada Relationship
Among the nations of the world, none enjoy better relations than Canada and the United States of America. For almost two centuries our relationship has been marked by peace and the remarkably free flow of people, goods and ideas. Our countries and cultures are distinct, and citizens of both nations are proud of those distinctions. But we have much in common, including our commitment to democratic values both at home and abroad, our unparalleled trading relationship, our partnership in environmental protection, and the family and professional ties that bind millions of our citizens. Our cooperation is a model to other countries that share borders around the world.
Citizens of both countries have come to take peaceful relations for granted, and the United States and Canada have been able to concentrate instead on threats and crises in third countries. U.S. defense arrangements with Canada, including NATO, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, are more extensive than with any other country. The United States and Canada also work closely together in multilateral fora including the UN, the Organization of American States, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, and the Group of Seven industrialized countries.
There is an inherent imbalance in the U.S.-Canada relationship due to the size of the U.S. population and economy. While Canada has the second largest landmass of any country in the world, its population and gross domestic product are less than one-tenth that of the U.S. Ninety percent of Canada's population -- in eight provinces -- lives within 100 miles of our shared border, while only ten percent of the U.S. population -- in thirteen states -- does so. This represents roughly 30 million people in both cases. Canadians have far greater exposure to the United States than Americans do to Canada, both in terms of travel and in terms of familiarity with the other country's products, media and culture. The result is that the average Canadian is more affected by what happens in the United States than the average American is by what happens in Canada. Still, citizens of the two countries regard their neighbors to the north/south very much as equals, and as being very similar to themselves.
Our Shared Border
The United States-Canada border, established over two centuries ago, is much more than just a geographic line between our two countries. It is the place where our two separate sovereignties meet and work together. While both countries take pride in what makes each of us distinct, the border now unifies more than it separates the destiny of our two great countries. It is, increasingly, a place for achieving the pursuit of shared objectives, such as fostering the movement of goods, people and ideas and protecting our security in a globalized environment. It is a lens through which we perceive ourselves, as well as a membrane for containing our social structures.
At 5,500 miles, the United States and Canada share the world's longest non-militarized border. This border is not a "security fence," a tightly controlled or highly fortified physical barrier, but rather a clearly demarcated legal line. In terms of "people traffic," over 200 million two-way border crossings took place in 1999 at 130 border-crossing points. On the U.S. side of the border, there are approximately 700 U.S. Customs inspectors, 512 Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors and 310 Border Patrol agents. On the Canadian side, there are approximately 350 Citizenship and Immigration Canada agents and 1310 Canada Customs and Revenue Agency inspectors. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (supported by the Canadian Coast Guard) also monitor our maritime border on the Great Lakes and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
The air and sea form part of our shared border. In the air, there are hundreds of flights per day between the United States and Canada. On water, the Great Lakes straddle the industrial heartland of both countries, the St. Lawrence Seaway provides a shared transportation system, and there are numerous border crossings each day by commercial and pleasure craft. Our busiest border crossings traverse water boundaries, by tunnel or bridge, between the province of Ontario and the states of Michigan and New York.
The air and water are also areas of shared environmental concern, as pollution from one country crosses freely into the other. Our shared ecological zones require a cooperative approach to management. Canadians and Americans breath the same air, drink the same water and share the same species of wildlife along the border. Federal, state and provincial agencies share responsibility for the stewardship of regional eco-systems, recognizing that the environment is a key element of our common agenda.
The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 is a model for the world for addressing transboundary water issues. The International Joint Commission, which was created by the Boundary Waters Treaty, regulates water levels and flows, monitors water and air pollution, and helps prevent and resolve disputes.
The border is also defined by the people of both countries who live along it. These border-area residents usually feel a strong kinship to their neighbors to the north or south, a sense of community forged through daily interaction. To these communities, the border is often an impediment to their daily activities, an inconvenience that they would like to see go away. Many of these people cross the border each day to work, shop and visit friends and relatives. For them, and for many businesses that now depend upon just-in-time cross-border deliveries on a daily basis, backups at the border mean more than an occasional delay in vacation travel. They mean countless hours spent in border-crossing lines over the years and significant costs.
Our connections extend well beyond the border, reaching into the heartland of both our countries. Various North-South economic regions straddle the border. Thirty-seven U.S. states have Canada as their primary trading partner; half of U.S. exports to Canada are produced in fourteen states that are not on the border, including California and Texas. State, provincial and municipal authorities are forming North-South corridor regions to improve trade, market tourism, promote foreign investment and exchange best practices. For example, under the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER), provincial and state governments have been cooperating on the creation of a binational transportation network and have made a number of policy proposals to federal governments.
Yet despite these numerous links, and irrespective of the friendship our nations share, Canadians and Americans also place a high value on the geographic and symbolic line which defines our respective spaces. Simply put, we want the geographic border to remain. Wanting a border, but wanting it to be more permeable, is best summed up by the emerging truism that "Canadians and Americans like having a border -- they just don't want it getting in their way."
The border -- but more particularly, the management of the processes which take place at the border -- is thus important to the well-being of our two nations. Getting the border "right" matters in a very tangible way. Americans and Canadians justifiably assume that governments will maintain a regime of border management which is cooperative and efficient.
FTA, NAFTA and Beyond
The border relationship has evolved over two hundred years, with each government developing its own legislation, regulations, and infrastructure. Border inspection services from both countries are mandated to act on behalf of over 50 government agencies. For the private sector, the border is essentially in the middle of the production line, representing a significant transactional factor for just-in-time delivery systems. For local communities along the border, the economic benefits of cross-border trade are obvious. But border congestion has meant that these communities assume a much larger share of the infrastructure, social and environmental costs associated with trans-boundary traffic.
Since the implementation of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1989 and the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, the volume of two-way traffic across the Canada-U.S. border has increased exponentially. Every year, over 200 million individuals cross our shared border. Total two-way trade in goods and services reached US$447 billion in 1999, up from US$174 billion in 1988. In other words, there is now over US$1.2 billion per day in total trade between our two countries, by far the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world. U.S.-Canada trade has more than doubled since the FTA came into effect.
While traffic volumes are projected to increase by 10% annually over the next decade, border infrastructure and inspection resources are currently stretched to the limit at key border crossings. Legal requirements still stipulate that every traveler and truck be checked at the border, despite the fact that 99% of people and goods that cross the border are legitimate. The potential for bottlenecks is significant. Resources for the border are increasing in both Canada and the United States, but these are unlikely to keep up with current or projected flows of people and goods.
According to Statistics Canada, in 1999 the greatest number of crossings (trucks and automobiles combined) between Canada and the United States took place at the Ambassador Bridge (Detroit-Windsor), followed by the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the Peace Bridge (Buffalo-Fort Erie), the Blue Water Bridge (Port Huron, Michigan-Sarnia, Ontario), the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge (NY-ON), the Rainbow Bridge (NY-ON), the Blaine-Douglas crossing (Washington State-British Columbia), the Blaine-Pacific crossing (WA-BC), Sault St. Marie (MI-ON), Champlain-Lacolle (NY-Quebec), Massena-Cornwall (NY-ON) and Calais-St. Stephen (Maine-New Brunswick). The prairie states and provinces see a smaller number of crossings, but are also important trade corridors, especially for grains and livestock.
The majority of vehicle crossings take place in choke points along the Michigan-Ontario, the New York-Ontario, and the Washington-British Columbia borders. These crossings are located on narrow slips of land surrounded by the Great Lakes or between the Pacific Ocean and the Cascade Mountains. There is also substantial traffic in the border crossings between New Brunswick and Maine and between Quebec and northern New York, Maine and Vermont. Each of these congested border areas needs significant infrastructure improvements. Several of the key crossings are bridges or tunnels, which complicates expansion.
Global integration and competition are pushing us toward a seamless border. Yet at the same time, open borders and modern transportation systems provide transnational organized crime organizations reliable and affordable means for conducting illicit activities worldwide. We must be vigilant and cooperate closely to prevent these groups from taking advantage of this openness and playing on the differences between our policies and procedures to move arms, drugs and people to and through our two countries. Improvements in strategic controls away from the border, and cooperation in alleviating the sources of global threats including off our shores, could remove much of this advantage, and decrease pressures on our internal border.
The information revolution and advancements in communication techniques transcend the border. Flows in information and ideas, and the emergence of an electronic economy hold enormous potential and suggest that radical change is upon us and advancing quickly. For example, it is estimated that about a quarter of inter-corporate sales will be done on-line by 2003. As the physical border loses relevance to many, the emerging reality drives us to rethink how to manage the border. The surge in cross-border e-commerce can only be realized if efficient and affordable infrastructure exists to clear and deliver these goods to the customer.
Private and Public Sector Mobilization
During the 1990's, both private and public sector groups have recognized the need for cross-border cooperation to deal with the explosion of trade and the increasing integration of our economies. On the private sector/NGO side, groups such as the Americans for Better Borders coalition, the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance, the Canadian-American Business Council, the Carnegie Endowment, the Cascadia and Discovery Institutes, the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, the Detroit Regional Chamber, the Eastern Border Transportation Coalition, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region, and Trade Corridors have all focused on issues of border facilitation, resources, transportation infrastructure, and cross-border cooperation. Academic institutions along the border have also taken an active role in promoting cross-border cooperation, such as the University of Toronto and the University of Buffalo's joint web site on U.S.-Canada relations. Other private sector and NGO groups too numerous to mention have also contributed to border management efforts.
One example of private sector activism was these groups' work with U.S. and Canadian government agencies on revising Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Private sector and NGO leaders recognized that Section 110 would slow traffic at the border to a crawl, and they lobbied long and hard to avoid such a scenario. The end result was the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (HR4489), legislation which seeks to improve tracking of border-crossings without increasing documentary requirements.
On the government side, the 1990s saw a proliferation of joint initiatives by counterpart U.S. and Canadian agencies. These included the Shared Border Accord (customs and immigration agencies, launched in 1995), Border Vision (immigration agencies, begun in 1997) and the Cross-Border Crime Forum (law enforcement agencies, launched in 1997). These build on the tradition of the International Joint Commission, the Motor Carrier Consultative Mechanism (begun in 1982), under which the transportation agencies collaborate, and the Bilateral Consultative Group on Counter-Terrorism (launched in 1988).
Under the Shared Border Accord, the United States and Canada are working to promote international trade, facilitate the movement of people, provide enhanced protection against drugs, smuggling and the illegal and irregular movement of people, and reduce costs to both governments and the public. Among other accomplishments, the Accord has reduced the number of in-transit highway cargo inspections from 4 to 2, offering substantial savings to Canadian and U.S. trucking operations.
Border Vision's objective is to develop a joint regional approach to migration that uses information and intelligence sharing, policy coordination, joint overseas operations and border cooperation to strengthen both security and facilitation. One of Border Vision's accomplishments has been an information-sharing agreement between U.S. and Canadian immigration agencies to facilitate exchange of intelligence on illegal migration.
The Cross-Border Crime Forum focuses on transnational crime problems such as smuggling, organized crime, telemarketing fraud, money laundering, missing children, and cybercrime. One example of the Crime Forum's work has been the development of binational threat assessments. (Further information on binational organizations is at Annex 1.)
There is growing binational cooperation between state/provincial and local governments, as well. An innovative regional initiative is the B.C.-Washington Corridor Task Force. The Task Force was established by the Premier of British Columbia and the Governor of Washington and given a mandate to enhance state-provincial cooperation with respect to transportation, border issues, tourism and growth management. Although the initial focus of the Corridor Task Force was on the I-5 Corridor connecting Vancouver and Seattle, economic development in the interior of the province and state is a growing priority.
Canada-U.S. Partnership Forum
During their October 8, 1999 meeting in Ottawa, Prime Minister Chrétien and President Clinton congratulated agencies responsible for managing the border for the excellent progress made since the announcement of the Shared Border Accord in 1995. The two leaders reaffirmed the following guiding principles for Canada-U.S. border cooperation:
1. Streamline, harmonize and collaborate on border policies and management;
2. Expand cooperation to increase efficiencies in customs, immigration, law enforcement and environmental protection at and beyond the border; and
3. Collaborate on common threats from outside Canada and the United States.
Prime Minister Chrétien and President Clinton also observed that the Foreign Minister and the Secretary of State play a special role in facilitating the implementation of these principles. Minister Axworthy and Secretary Albright agreed to:
1. Consult with government agencies on progress in cross-border cooperation;
2. Promote high-level dialogue among federal, state/provincial/territorial, and local authorities, border communities and stakeholders toward a common vision for border management; and
3. Identify emerging issues and long-term trends in border collaboration.
In pursuit of these objectives, Secretary Albright and Minister Axworthy agreed to establish the Canada-U.S. Partnership Forum (CUSP) under the direction of their principal deputies for hemispheric relations.
Subsequent to President Clinton's visit to Ottawa, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the U.S. Department of State worked with other federal agencies involved in border management issues to plan CUSP meetings with border communities. Agencies that participated in this effort included the U.S. Customs Service, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Canadian Solicitor General's Office, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Transport Canada, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. While each of these agencies continued to work through their binational groups on operational issues, they agreed to take an integrated look at the various aspects of border management in meetings with local leaders.
The first Canada-U.S. Partnership meetings were held April 11-12 in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario and Buffalo, New York. The second CUSP meetings were held June 22-23 in Vancouver, British Columbia and Blaine, Washington. Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Peter Romero and Assistant Deputy Minister-Americas George Haynal chaired the CUSP meetings. They were joined by senior officials from both countries' customs, immigration, law enforcement, and transportation agencies.
In both sets of meetings, private sector participants included representatives of cross-border companies, the transportation and tourism sectors, NGOs and academic institutions. Public sector participants included Members of Parliament, members of provincial and state legislatures, Canadian and U.S. mayors, representatives from U.S. congressional offices, representatives from U.S. governors' offices, and state and provincial government officials. (See participant lists at Annex 2.) In addition to the discussions with local leaders, federal government officials toured U.S. inspection facilities at the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge and visited the Blaine Peace Arch border crossing.
CUSP Dialogue on the Border
Both sets of CUSP meetings met with an enthusiastic response from local participants. The meetings were unprecedented for the U.S.-Canada border in terms of the number and variety of senior leaders from the public and private sector who participated and the integrated approach taken to border issues.
The most common theme voiced by local leaders at the Vancouver and Niagara-on-the-Lake meetings was a desire for a more open border. Easier passage for individuals and cargo was the stakeholders' primary concern, and they pressed U.S. and Canadian government participants on changing the status quo. A few local participants questioned the need for any border at all, arguing that given the closeness of the relationship, our countries should be able to accept people or goods from each other without inspections. Other local participants and federal government representatives countered that for reasons of sovereignty and differing laws, U.S. and Canadian inspectors and law enforcement personnel had to remain on the border. Still, many private and public sector leaders voiced support for a perimeter approach to the border, whereby the United States and Canada would concentrate more on stopping criminals and illegal shipments from third countries entering either country and thus be able to make the "internal" U.S.-Canada border more open.
Some local CUSP participants cited Western Europe as a model to be emulated, including the European Union's customs union and Schengen regime (whereby members have eliminated border controls on people travelling between participating states). These stakeholders felt that given our close relations, crossing the U.S.-Canada border should be no more difficult than crossing EU border, but argued that, in fact, it is. They urged that U.S. and Canadian customs and immigration rules be harmonized to the greatest extent possible. Some also warned that after a decade of the United States leading the world in economic growth, European and Asian economies are rebounding and will provide tougher competition for North American companies, reinforcing the need for an efficient U.S.-Canada border.
While pushing for fewer required inspections, many CUSP participants recognized that resources were needed to expedite border processing. As such, these border stakeholders and U.S. government participants argued that many more inspection personnel are needed on the U.S.-Canada border. Several stakeholders expressed frustration over only a fraction of inspection lanes being open at some border crossings despite backups at those crossings. They could not understand how or why the number of U.S. inspectors on the northern border had remained constant over the past ten years, despite the rapid growth in border crossings spurred by the FTA and NAFTA. One cautionary note was that "more inspectors inspect more;" the issue was not just one of resources but how these resources were to be used. Some CUSP participants also called for greater training for inspectors in NAFTA regulations, greater attention to the concerns of business travelers, and greater courtesy by inspectors toward tourists. But most stakeholders felt that inspectors did an excellent job given the resource, legal and policy constraints under which they worked.
Some CUSP participants compared the situation on the U.S.-Canada border with the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border. They noted that while Canada has only one land border, and that its laws and policies are thus geared to that border reality, the United States has two land borders. The situation on the Mexican border has a strong impact on U.S. laws and policies affecting both borders. At the same time, the drastically different situation at the two borders in terms of illegal alien crossings and narcotics smuggling, along with the U.S. visa requirement for Mexicans (there is none for most Canadian visitors) means that there are far fewer U.S. inspection agents on the U.S.-Canada border.
Local CUSP participants stressed that the situation on the two U.S. borders is not the same, and that the United States should avoid treating the borders the same. The last thing these stakeholders wanted was for the United States to institute southern border-style security measures on its northern border. More inspectors to speed processing was one thing; increased documentation and other barriers along the border was quite another.
U.S. Customs argued, however, that the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch, along with U.S. citizens living in the interior of the country, are more interested in border security, relative to border facilitation, than are border-area residents. U.S. Customs stressed that in order to enforce U.S. laws, it will continue to operate on the border, though it is seeking to expedite clearances through use of advanced electronic information.
Physical infrastructure shortcomings were another problem cited by virtually all CUSP participants. Stakeholders called for additional border crossings and more lanes at existing border crossings. They noted the physical constraints imposed by bridges at several major border crossings and competition for land around border crossings. One stakeholder urged the U.S. government to begin advance purchase of land at the border ("banking" land) to accommodate future growth of crossing facilities. Conversely, another stakeholder was concerned about possible expansion of inspection facilities at the Peace Arch Park crossing in Blaine because it could take away from surrounding international park areas.
One of the federal programs praised by local CUSP participants was the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which has aided border infrastructure on the U.S. side of the border. TEA-21 is a nation-wide highway development and maintenance program, a portion of which is devoted to border and trade corridor projects. Both Vancouver and Niagara CUSP participants extolled this program and lamented the absence of such a program in Canada. While funding for Transport Canada did see a slight increase in the 2000 Government of Canada budget, Canadian CUSP participants complained about the relative paucity of funds for new construction and maintenance on the Canadian side of the border. There was some concern about major highways in the United States connecting to older, smaller roads on the Canadian side of the border.
Many Niagara-area leaders cited expansion of the Peace Bridge as an issue needing urgent resolution. As with many bridges across the U.S.-Canada border, the Peace Bridge is old and very heavily used. Everyone agrees that greater capacity is needed, but disagreement over whether to build a second span or a new "signature bridge" has prevented either from happening. While border-area leaders are working well together to solve many problems, this is an important project that has eluded the Niagara area.
At the Vancouver CUSP meeting, local leaders expressed concern that the Blaine-area crossings would be overwhelmed in coming years by expected growth. CUSP participants from the binational Cascadia Project stressed the importance of greater intermodal movement of cargo to relieve pressure on highways. They also proposed a high-speed passenger rail corridor between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver. Other stakeholders are pushing for construction of a new inland highway corridor.
Aside from the New York-Ontario and Washington-British Columbia crossings, federal government participants voiced concerns about Michigan-Ontario crossings. They described lengthy backups at the Ambassador Bridge and elsewhere and were concerned about key crossings reaching complete saturation because of the increasing volume of cargo. Concerns were also expressed over meeting infrastructure needs on the eastern New York-New England border with the eastern provinces (crossings such as Plattsburg, NY), and in the prairie states and provinces.
One of the strategies to reduce border congestion discussed at the CUSP meetings was joint facilities for U.S. and Canadian inspectors. U.S. and Canadian customs and immigration agencies have completed construction at Poker Creek, Alaska-Little Gold Creek, Yukon, and a new joint facility will open there in 2001. U.S. and Canadian agencies are near completion of the design stage for joint facilities at two other crossings: Sweetgrass, Montana-Coutts, Alberta; and Oroville, Washington-Osoyoos, British Columbia. As inspection agency officials at the CUSP meetings discussed, however, progress has been slow due to differences in policy and legislation. One significant difference is that U.S. inspectors carry firearms while Canadian inspectors do not. (Canada does not permit U.S. inspectors to be armed while working in Canada.) One CUSP participant suggested that the two governments should create international zones at the border where U.S. inspectors could be armed. Other problems have included dealing with a mix of U.S. and Canadian contractors, labor laws and taxes, and a fluctuating exchange rate. While recognizing the challenges to making these facilities truly joint, CUSP participants encouraged federal agencies to continue pursuing this model where it would be cost-effective.
Border stakeholders also asked for a risk-management approach to inspections, procedures whereby high-risk travelers and cargo are inspected more closely while lower-risk travelers and cargo are sped on their way. The U.S. Coast Guard was cited as an agency that utilizes risk assessment in determining which ships to inspect for compliance with U.S. law. Border stakeholders also praised programs such as the Canadian CANPASS and PACE and the U.S. INSPASS and Dedicated Commuter Lanes, whereby frequent travelers obtain cards for use in express lanes. CUSP participants requested that such programs be integrated into a single card from both countries that can be used nationwide, rather than only one-way at certain locations and times. CUSP participants also mentioned the disincentive of having such cards when they cannot be used 24 hours per day, especially when they have to pay a fee for such cards. They urged inspection agencies to aggressively promote use of such programs by border-area residents.
Another common theme of the CUSP meetings was doing as much as possible away from the border, what many described as a border-in-depth approach. Many border stakeholders and Canadian government agencies expressed a desire for preclearance of cargo by companies that frequently cross the border. They noted that 100 importers account for 40% of all cross-border trade. Any system that could expedite passage of goods by these companies alone would be extremely beneficial in reducing border delays.
Some stakeholders also mentioned the Commercial Vehicle Processing Center (CVPC) at Ft. Erie, Ontario -- currently a staging area for truckers to assemble necessary paperwork for U.S. Customs prior to arrival at the border -- and expressed the hope that this could become a land border preclearance site. U.S. officials reminded CUSP participants that the existing preclearance program by U.S. inspectors at some Canadian airports is only for passengers, not cargo, and currently is offered only by the United States. A cautionary note about privacy concerns was also raised since preclearance programs may require certain information from citizens and companies.
Inspection agency participants at the CUSP meetings urged private companies to help them reduce border delays by self-policing of cargo and truckers. One example cited was the need for U.S. companies to ensure they do not send truckers with DWI convictions on cross-border routes, since they are ordinarily barred from entering Canada. Another was the need to check on contraband being mixed in with legitimate shipments. U.S. inspection agencies at the CUSP meetings argued that as their confidence about private company commitment to self-policing rises, it will be easier for them to expand risk management programs.
Another frequent theme at the CUSP meetings was the need for coordination with local leaders in the private and public sector. Federal agencies need to be sensitized to local conditions, to get local inputs on feasibility, and to provide guidance on future plans. One local official said that Michigan-New York-Ontario bridge authorities are contemplating over $1 billion in infrastructure outlays, but do not have a good sense of what the inspection agencies are planning in coming years. Federal agencies also have much to learn from border-area NGO groups, some of which are very forward-looking in the area of intelligent transportation systems and environmental protection.
For example, the Cascadia Project, which is managed by the Discovery Institute in Seattle and the Cascadia Institute in Vancouver, is a cutting-edge border management initiative. The Cascadia Project represents a coalition of government, business and non-governmental organizations in British Columbia, Washington State and Oregon dedicated to developing transborder strategies that focus on sustainable communities, cross-border mobility and improved regional transportation, trade and tourism linkages.
Local CUSP participants stressed the importance of tourism in their thinking about the border. While border communities do compete for tourist dollars, they also benefit from the "two nations, one vacation" concept. Many visitors to the Vancouver-Seattle area and the Niagara Falls area visit both countries, and making the border as seamless as possible is vital to further develop the tourist industry on both sides.
A Niagara-area CUSP participant estimated that 2/3 to 3/4 of visitors to the Falls come from third countries. So while local residents want to expedite processing for themselves through express lanes, they also want to minimize delays for visitors from other parts of the United States and Canada or from third countries. One stakeholder even suggested that the Falls be made into a shared international zone that tourists could visit without inspection from either country. Another participant suggested advanced processing of tourists bound for the border. CUSP participants also noted the importance to the tourist industry of environmental protection, as in the case of Great Lakes pollution. (Note: The U.S. and Canada made an historic commitment to restoring and maintaining the integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem in 1978, when they signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.)
As federal agency representatives stressed to local CUSP participants, grassroots lobbying efforts with members of Congress and Parliament are key to increased resources and greater awareness of wider policy issues for the U.S-Canada border. The coalition that worked for revision of Section 110 of the 1996 immigration act should remain united and active in order to increase resources for the U.S.-Canada border. And as in the case of the Section 110 debate, they must reach out to areas further from the border which also depend on U.S.-Canada trade. Thirty-seven U.S. states count Canada as their top export destination, but most Americans further from the border are unaware of how big a role Canada plays in their states' economies.
CUSP participants also discussed the flip side of facilitation, interdiction. Inspection agencies reminded local leaders that this, too is part of their mandate. One border stakeholder compared current border enforcement efforts to "putting a cop on every street corner because eventually someone will run a stop sign." But as one inspection agency representative said, they are bound to execute the laws as they are currently written.
Local U.S. attorneys at both meetings cited increases in cross-border crime as a serious concern. Such crime ranged from narcotics smuggling to illegal alien smuggling to gunrunning. They underscored that such crime moves in both directions, with narcotics trafficking increasing from Canada into the United States, illegal alien crossings going both directions, and gunrunning going more from the United States into Canada. Organized crime, which is involved in each of these areas, was cited as a growing problem. Both countries are also grappling with crimes that do not physically cross the border, such as telemarketing fraud and cybercrime, and Canada has been dealing with welfare fraud by Canadian citizens who have moved to the United States. There is extensive bilateral cooperation to address these issues.
In the context of the openness of our border and of our societies, U.S. and Canadian stakeholders discussed the difficulty of stemming cross-border crime. Criminals take advantage of this openness to move people and goods across the border with greater ease than between many countries. They also take advantage of differing laws in the two countries.
Most local participants at the CUSP meetings did not focus on terrorism as a border issue, but U.S. law enforcement officials noted that the United States is a top target of international terrorists and described the border arrests of suspected terrorists in December 1999 as a close call. U.S. officials said that had Ahmed Ressam not been stopped at Port Angeles, Washington and had he then engaged in a terrorist act against the United States, the damage to U.S. confidence in the security of its northern border would have been great. Bilateral cooperation on the Ressam case has been close. The Bilateral Consultative Group on Counterterrorism is working to improve interdiction of potential terrorists before they reach North America. The December arrests, along with a wave of illegal immigrants from East Asia, were among the reasons that led the Canadian Government to significantly increase funding in its 2000 budget for immigration and law enforcement operations.
The law enforcement and immigration agencies of both countries are working closely together to put the squeeze on cross-border criminals. An outstanding example of such cooperation highlighted at the Blaine CUSP meeting was the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET). This binational, multi-agency effort has dramatically increased contraband seizures on the Washington-British Columbia border, and is now being adopted as a model for law enforcement cooperation border-wide. The success of the IBET concept has also led to establishment of an Integrated Marine Enforcement Team comprised of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies on both sides of the marine border.
The majority of border stakeholders, while applauding the IBET model, urged the federal governments to focus their enforcement activities away from the border, minimizing border inspections and relying more on keeping criminals outside the United States and Canada and away from our shared border. They emphasized intelligence and information sharing as key to this approach. And they noted that while privacy laws restrict information sharing on Canadian and U.S. citizens, more could be done in U.S.-Canadian efforts regarding third country nationals.
MEETING FUTURE CHALLENGES ON THE U.S.-CANADA BORDER
For the foreseeable future, we expect continued rapid growth in both cargo and people crossing the U.S.-Canada border. The expansion of trade spurred by the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement will continue, and a Free Trade Area of the Americas (targeted for completion in 2005) will add to that volume. The U.S. and Canadian economies are becoming ever more integrated, with a large number of products crisscrossing the border in various stages of production. Companies depend on just-in-time deliveries of such inputs (going directly into the assembly process rather than into inventory). Production interrupted when inputs are delayed at the border often means lost business. Meanwhile, business travel and tourism across our shared border also continue to grow.
Most participants at the Canada-U.S. Partnership Forum (CUSP) meetings felt that the current pace of investment and innovation at the U.S.-Canada border is not up to the challenge of the 21st Century, and that both governments need to do more to avoid a breakdown at the border. They argued that we rely too often on band-aid fixes, and that both governments must take bolder, more proactive steps. The Cascadia group in Washington/British Columbia is promoting greater air/land/rail coordination and expedited inspection systems through its Intermodal Transportation System Project. The Eastern Border Transportation Coalition has challenged the U.S. and Canadian governments to create as open a border as possible by 2012, the 200th anniversary of the start of the War of 1812. Greater border openness was the rallying cry of most CUSP participants.
The U.S. and Canadian governments are committed to creating a more open border over the next 10-15 years. We believe this is feasible because of the uniquely close relationship between our nations and the outstanding cooperation among public and private sector groups at the border. But facilitating cross-border movements must also go hand-in-hand with U.S. and Canadian commitment to upholding our laws on movement of people and goods and defending national security at the border. Unfortunately, along with increased trade and tourism, there are increased opportunities for criminal activity in both directions, and we have to adapt in order to counter this threat.
Based on the CUSP meetings and the work of many public and private sector groups concerned with our shared border, our prescription for creating a better border for the 21st Century falls into four broad categories: a risk management approach to clearance of people and goods, greater resources for the border, an external/internal approach to border security, and increased coordination with border-area private and public sector leaders.
Risk Management
More inspectors and physical capacity are needed on the U.S.-Canada border, but those assets alone will not be able to keep pace with the ever-increasing volume of traffic. We also must consider innovation in our processes and in the use of technology and automation at our border crossings. U.S. and Canadian inspection agencies are increasingly moving toward a risk-management approach, whereby they do more prescreening and automated inspection of low-risk people and goods, and focus inspections at the border itself more on high-risk people and goods.
One innovative test program is NEXUS, which was successfully launched at the Sarnia (ON)/Port Huron (MI) crossing in November 2000. Under NEXUS, U.S. and Canadian citizens who do not have criminal convictions can obtain identification cards that allow them to use dedicated lanes that normally will not require routine customs and immigration questioning. A single NEXUS card is valid for travel in both directions, there is only one application process, and there is no fee for the card. U.S. INS and Customs, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency are cooperating in this venture to simplify border crossings for pre-approved, low-risk travelers. The customs and immigration agencies worked closely with local officials in the design, rollout and advertisement of this voluntary program. Following a joint evaluation, a decision will be taken on expansion.
Up to now, fastpass programs have been unilateral, with separate application processes for different identification cards that can only be used on one side of the border. Like NEXUS, they have also been restricted to certain border crossings. Various CUSP participants strongly advocated one fastpass identification card that can be used anywhere along the U.S.-Canada border.
Just as the NEXUS program allows pre-enrolled, low-risk travelers expedited crossing at the border, so too should pre-enrolled, low-risk companies that frequently use the border have programs that would eliminate face-to-face inspections for their truckers. The trucking industry has complained about bureaucratic impediments to further developing trade corridors, such as multiple examinations of trucks. Using Intelligent Transportation Systems, much duplication could be eliminated. Many CUSP stakeholders cited the fact that the technology exists for vehicles to be weighed in motion electronically. By using a transponder, accounts could be set up in each jurisdiction, deducting the necessary permit fees each time a vehicle passed into a new jurisdiction. Similarly, payments for use of a toll highway could be deducted electronically. Currently, pilot programs even have manifests being transferred via transponder at the border.
To eliminate border delays, companies could also enroll in special programs to inform the customs agencies of their cargo and driver prior to arrival at the border. Electronic payment of duties and expedited inspection would help prevent gridlock at our border crossings. Enforcement would depend upon spot checks and hefty fines for companies that abuse such a system, including suspending companies from these special programs.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is already heading in this direction through its Customs Self-Assessment (CSA) program. Through the CSA, Canada Customs and Revenue will be requiring minimal data at the point of entry from pre-approved, low-risk companies. These companies' own business systems will assist in collecting duties, taxes and trade data and in auditing.
So long as the programs are voluntary and clearly expedite border crossings, they should be extremely popular. The one cautionary note raised by CUSP participants about preclearance programs was privacy concerns, as preclearance program enrollment depends upon citizens and companies giving advance information about themselves.
Another way that the customs and immigration agencies of both countries have cooperated to deal with resource constraints on the border is the Remote Video Inspection System (RVIS)/Remote Ports Program. Beginning in 1997, U.S. and Canadian inspection agencies began using video cameras for inspection at certain remote locations during hours when those crossings were not staffed. Inspectors at higher-volume, 24-hour facilities clear vehicles through the remote ports by use of the video cameras. Passengers who are not cleared are instructed to drive to the nearest manned border crossing for further inspection. In the wake of the arrest of terrorist suspect Ahmed Ressam on the U.S.-Canada border in December 1999, U.S. Customs is currently addressing security issues associated with unstaffed ports of entry, and has restricted RVIS use to pre-enrolled passengers.
Given limited resources and the light volume of traffic at many remote border crossings, staffing such crossings 24 hours per day is not feasible. (Even if they were all staffed, there would still be many lightly patrolled areas of the border away from road crossing points with no physical barriers.) RVIS is a good solution to the problem of after-hours crossings for people who otherwise would have to go far out of their way to reach a staffed border crossing, though we must ensure that the responsible 24-hour ports are adequately staffed to monitor the RVIS ports. RVIS also provides a video record of all crossings, and can benefit officer safety at remote ports when those ports are staffed. We believe RVIS makes sense for remote ports and that this program should be expanded.
Risk management is also dependent on sufficient funding, as in the example of U.S. Customs' National Customs Automation Prototype (NCAP). NCAP is the pilot computer system launched by Customs in 1998 as a first step in developing its future integrated computer system, called the Automated Commercial System (ACE). NCAP was begun on a pilot basis in Detroit and Port Huron, Michigan, enabling participating automakers and parts manufacturers to electronically clear cargo. This pilot program, which has been hailed by the auto industry, has been under threat of closure due to lack of funding and its future remains uncertain. This is part of the larger problem of Customs' critical need for ACE to replace its outdated computer system. The price tag for ACE -- over U.S.$1 billion -- and the debate over whether user fees would pay part of the cost has kept it from being funded, but the system is an essential investment on the U.S. side.
Resources
New approaches to how we manage the movement of people and goods will also have resource implications that should be taken into account. We recognize that a larger amount of U.S. funding will continue to be devoted to the U.S.-Mexico border, despite the huge volume of people and goods crossing the U.S.-Canada border. The challenges of combating illegal migration and narcotics trafficking on the U.S.-Mexico border will persist for the foreseeable future. But the number of U.S. inspectors on the Canadian border, which has remained constant over the past ten years in spite of tremendous growth in trade, clearly needs a substantial increase. At some land border crossings we have increased lane capacity over the past ten years but have had to keep those additional lanes closed due to shortages of inspectors. The United States needs to take better advantage of existing infrastructure by increasing staffing.
On the Canadian side, we see a need for greater resources for transportation infrastructure around border crossings. The U.S. TEA-21 program has no equivalent in Canada, and limited funding for highway maintenance in Canada has affected the condition of border crossings and trade corridors. However, in February 2000, the Government of Canada announced that it would allocate US$400 million towards strategic highway infrastructure. The impact would be felt over several years as this funding begins to flow in 2002. The U.S. and Canadian governments also need to coordinate border development projects as much as possible, avoiding disconnects between individual crossings and corridors. U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater and Canadian Transportation Minister David Collenette committed their agencies to enhancing such collaboration in a Memorandum of Cooperation they signed in October 2000.
The U.S. and Canadian governments also need to work with local communities on plans to relieve the strain on existing border crossings. Most of the major border crossings are many decades old and were not designed to handle current volumes. Some along the eastern border are designated historic sites, further complicating renovation/rebuilding. The Peace Bridge debate in the Buffalo-Ft. Erie area urgently needs to be resolved so that traffic capacity can be increased there. Greater capacity is needed between Michigan and Ontario to lessen some of the strain on the Ambassador Bridge. And the rapidly growing Washington-British Columbia region would benefit from an inland corridor, relieving some of the pressure on the Blaine crossings.
A pilot program that has helped reduce congestion at one major crossing is the Commercial Vehicle Processing Center (CVPC) at Ft. Erie, Ontario. The CVPC is a staging facility where truckers can park and assemble necessary paperwork for U.S. Customs without holding up the regular traffic flow at the Peace Bridge. This decreases the number of trucks that need to be referred to secondary inspections, reduces traffic congestion, and improves efficiency for all parties.
Another model program run by U.S. Customs is the Pre-Arrival Processing System (PAPS), which is now in use at the Ambassador Bridge. Using PAPS, carriers without electronic filing access can affix a unique bar code to each commercial invoice and fax them to their U.S. customs broker prior to their arrival at the border. That process enables electronic filing of the information with Customs, and their determination of the need to examine the cargo prior to the truck's arrival, thereby speeding passage for many otherwise unprepared truckers. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has a similar commercial process, Pre-Arrival Review System (PARS), which covers almost 70% of Canadian imports. The CVPC, PAPS and PARS programs have proven to be viable solutions to reduce truck backups and we believe they should be emulated at all major border crossings.
The United States and Canada should continue to pursue development of joint facilities on the border. While getting joint facilities up and running has proven difficult thus far due to legal and policy differences, we should continue to pursue this approach where it is cost-effective. Aside from economies of scale, co-location of inspection agencies should also allow for greater coordination and flexibility for future innovations. Local geography at individual crossings should determine how joint facilities are designed.
Our countries also need intermodal solutions to growing capacity needs. While better highways are needed to meet the rapid growth in truck traffic, use of other transportation modes should be encouraged. In addition to relieving capacity problems on roads, rail transport can help reduce air pollution. Double-stack cars now being used on some freight trains are increasing rail capacity, and ongoing North American rail integration is simplifying connections. Shippers are also making greater use of containers that can be easily transferred between trucks and trains. Movement of goods by water should also be encouraged where possible.
External/Internal Security
In addition to risk management programs and greater resources, the United States and Canada can also improve border management by strengthening external security and making our "internal" border more open. This is not to suggest that United States and Canadian law enforcement agencies stop policing our shared "internal" border, as there is significant cross-border criminal activity that originates in our own countries. But there is also a great deal of criminal activity entering the United States and Canada from third countries, ranging from illegal alien smuggling to heroin trafficking. We should do as much as possible to strengthen cooperation on managing flows at our common perimeter, recognizing that once criminals and contraband enter either of our countries, it may be more difficult to stop movements across our shared border.
A model of such cooperation was "Operation Foursight," in which U.S. and Canadian immigration agencies, along with their U.K. and Australian counterparts, cooperated to intercept illegal immigrants at the source. This November 1999 operation successfully targeted migrant smuggling rings at nine East Asian airports, and is serving as a model for further cooperation. The United States and Canada also recently developed an information-sharing agreement for our embassies overseas, and our governments share intelligence about terrorist activity in third countries. The December 1999 arrest of suspected terrorists on the U.S.-Canada border reminded us of the importance of such intelligence sharing and of the need to keep such threats outside the region. It also reminded us of how well U.S. and Canadian law enforcement agencies cooperate, a fact that is often lost in reports of such incidents.
The perimeter approach faces some serious challenges in terms of differing laws and policies in the United States and Canada. Our immigration, asylum and visa-waiver programs have important differences. Canada generally affords greater rights and protections to illegal aliens and asylum seekers. Canada's visa-waiver program includes 29 countries that the United States does not (including Mexico and South Korea) and the U.S. program includes two countries that Canada's does not (Argentina and Uruguay). It is also important to note that Canada actively promotes immigration, whereas in the United States there is a longstanding debate over whether to restrict immigration.
Under the Border Vision initiative, immigration agencies from both countries are mapping out our legal differences and looking for ways to work better together on the perimeter. Legal changes in one or both countries can be useful in some cases, such as the amendment before the U.S. Congress in 2000 that would allow U.S. consular officers overseas to share visa application information with Canadian consular officials.
For criminals and contraband originating in either of our countries, or that manages to get through our perimeter, U.S. and Canadian law enforcement officials still have to work together effectively at and around the border. A model of such cooperation is the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET), which has been operating on the Washington-British Columbia border since 1997.
IBET is a multi-agency effort including the U.S. Border Patrol, the RCMP, U.S. Customs, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the U.S. Department of Justice, and several local, state, and provincial law enforcement agencies. In 2000, IBET has averaged $1 million per month in seizures of illegal drugs, weapons, liquor, tobacco and vehicles crossing the border. It has effectively disrupted smuggling rings and several criminal networks attempting to smuggle illegal migrants across the border. The success of the IBET concept has also led to establishment of an Integrated Marine Enforcement Team comprised of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies on both sides of the marine border. IBET has been so successful that Attorney General Janet Reno and Solicitor General Lawrence MacAuley announced in June 2000 that they will be using IBET as a model for law enforcement cooperation border-wide.
IBET and other models for cross-border cooperation have several common traits. They are relatively seamless, with a free flow of information and coordination between U.S. and Canadian counterparts. They work in consultation with other border stakeholders. And they maximize scarce resources rather than waiting for their resource base to expand. Nevertheless, making IBET and other programs successful and expanding them border-wide does have important resource implications.
Local Coordination
To maximize the impact of the projects outlined above, and to get further ideas on how to improve border management, U.S. and Canadian federal agencies need to work closely with border-area leaders. Local leaders know the border best, and the CUSP meetings showcased their innovative ideas. One important point made by many CUSP participants is that on the border "one size does not necessarily fit all." In fact, many of these suggestions may only be applicable to one border region, but others will be transferable elsewhere along the border. Many local leaders are also keenly interested in the environmental impact of cross-border traffic and infrastructure, which needs to be carefully considered as we adapt to continued growth.
Inspection agencies operate national systems and stakeholders have an interest in uniform procedures, systems and policies. These needs have to be taken into consideration in designing regional approaches.
An excellent regional model is the International Mobility and Trade Corridor (IMTC) Project being implemented in the Pacific Northwest. The IMTC is a U.S.-Canadian coalition of over 60 business and government entities formed to jointly identify and pursue improvements to cross-border mobility in the Cascade gateway. The IMTC promotes binational efforts to increase capacity, improve safety, and more efficiently use rail and marine options. Efficient enforcement, reduction of wait times, and lower maintenance and operating costs are all benefits that IMTC is seeking through public-private partnerships. All of these benefits will in the future help to reduce the costs of doing cross-border business and improve the competitiveness of the regional economy.
Border communities need to work together to develop business plans for their regions, and then present those plans to federal agencies. Federal agencies and border communities then need to discuss with those communities plans for the future, to include infrastructure development, risk management approaches to inspecting people and cargo, and border security. Border-area leaders can let federal agencies know which ongoing programs are working well and which are not, and help with the rollout of new programs such as NEXUS. Federal agencies, at the same time, can make local leaders aware of security concerns and how we can work together against cross-border criminal activity.
Conclusion
In keeping with the spirit of the FTA and NAFTA, we need to approach the U.S.-Canada internal border as a garden gate, a binational economic zone that should be as seamless as possible. We can make our internal border more open if we coordinate more closely on our perimeter, harmonizing our customs, immigration and security standards wherever possible and appropriate. In concert with other cross-border mechanisms, the Canada-U.S. Partnership will continue working toward this end, encouraging innovative approaches to managing our border in the 21st Century, and stimulating dialogue between various stakeholders in border communities and in national, state and provincial capitals. We propose to reach out to border regions beyond those where the first two CUSP meetings were held, including a 2001 meeting in Detroit/Windsor, and to engage as many border stakeholders as possible.
Not only our border communities, but all of the United States and Canada have much at stake in ensuring that our common border runs smoothly, that the 99% of trade and travelers that are legal can cross the border easily, and that we can focus enforcement instead on the 1% of cross-border activity that is illegal. We need to ensure that we have sufficient resources to make this happen, and that we use those resources wisely. Working together, the United States and Canada can meet the facilitation/enforcement challenge and make our border an even better model for the rest of the world.
ANNEX 1: BINATIONAL COOPERATION - FEDERAL AGENCIES
Transportation
The annual movement of some 200 million people and US$447 billion in goods across the Canada-United States border could not happen without a well developed transportation infrastructure, an efficient transportation industry and effective border inspection systems.
Cross-border movements involve a wide range of public and private sector participants on both sides of the border, including transportation providers, infrastructure operators and regulatory agencies.
Constant improvements are nevertheless required to cope with increasing demand. Some recent notable developments include:
- U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater and Canadian Transportation Minister David Collenette committed their agencies to enhanced collaboration in a Memorandum of Cooperation they signed in October 2000.
- Construction at Sarnia-Port Huron of a second span at the Bluewater Bridge, and of a new rail tunnel capable of carrying double-stack rail traffic in a key cross-border corridor. Plans are also at varying stages of development for enhancements at other key crossings along the Canada - U.S. border.
- Innovative strategies for promoting efficiency in border processing such as the Commercial Vehicle Processing Centre at the Peace Bridge [Fort Erie - Buffalo].
- Implementation of the Canada-United States "Open Skies" Air Agreement and a pilot project on in-transit pre-clearance of U.S. - bound international passengers arriving at Vancouver Airport.
- Various agreements on technical standards affecting motor carrier operations including medical reciprocity for commercial vehicle drivers. The agreement eliminates the need for Canadian commercial drivers to carry a U.S. medical card.
- Implementation by Canada and U.S. Customs of improved procedures for processing in-transit truck movements, cutting the number of border stops in half.
- Continued cooperation in seeking efficiencies in the management of the St. Lawrence Seaway. In this regard, commercial discipline has been brought to the Canadian side through a management contract with a private sector, not for profit corporation controlled by Seaway users.
For decades, transportation authorities in Canada and the United States have maintained constructive on-going dialogue through such initiatives as the Motor Carrier Consultative Mechanism. Recent discussions have focussed on the need to co-ordinate efforts in areas related to transportation corridors, border gateway infrastructure, deployment of transportation technology, interoperability of Intelligent Transportation Systems, reciprocal recognition of standards, and collaboration on research and data collection.
Increased trade and market integration between the two countries over the past decade has served to raise the profile of issues related to border crossings and transportation corridors. The result is a greater degree of interaction among public and non-government interests at the national, regional and local levels in promoting transportation efficiency in support of economic development.
Customs and Immigration
Recognizing that border management cannot be dealt with in isolation, Canada and the United States have increased co-operation in a number of areas. During the 1995 summit between Prime Minister Chrétien and President Clinton, Canada and the U.S. announced the bilateral Accord on our Shared Border. At their subsequent meeting in April 1997, the Prime Minister and the President announced a further set of initiatives with the United States to encourage the flow of people and goods across the Canada-U.S. border and protect health and safety. Also in 1997, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began developing a strategic, regional approach to migration issues through their Border Vision process.
Both countries are committed to the modernization of the shared border in order to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, improve compliance with the laws of both countries, and efficiently manage increasing volumes of trade and travel to reduce pressures on border resources and infrastructure. Guiding principles for the shared border in the 21st century include streamlining and harmonizing border policies and management, expanding co-operation at and beyond the border, and collaborating on common threats outside Canada and the United States. Examples of progress since 1997 are:
Shared Border Accord:
- Extended hours of service and better border security at small border communities by the use of technology;
- Increased efficiencies through the construction of joint and shared border facilities. Work is underway on three shared border facilities;
- Reduction of in-transit highway cargo inspections from four to two, offering substantial savings to Canadian and U.S. trucking operations;
- Passage of Canadian legislation to grant limited enforcement powers, on a reciprocal basis, to U.S. customs and immigration personnel at Canadian airport preclearance sites and plans to implement in-transit preclearance at other Canadian airports beyond the successful Vancouver pilot program;
- Programs that speed up the entry of low-risk, pre-approved travellers arriving by air, highways and water (CANPASS in Canada; United States has several programs including PORTPASS). The two countries have recently agreed to develop a joint, harmonized highway pilot program to make border crossings streamlined and seamless to travellers in both countries, and to jointly evaluate the results;
- The Commercial Vehicle Processing Centre was constructed at Fort Erie, Ontario, to streamline the flow of south-bound commercial traffic and reduce congestion at the border crossing. It is a staging facility for commercial vehicles where drivers can park their vehicles and get the necessary paperwork together for transmission the U.S. customs, without holding up the regular traffic flow. This reduces traffic congestion and delays at the border and results in improved efficiency for all parties.
- In 1999, Canada Customs and USCS began a Liaison Officer Program to obtain better understanding of each other's operation and seek better cooperation and coordination on the development of Accord initiatives.
- To combat the growing threat of smuggling, the two customs agencies are working together to develop, procure and share sophisticated contraband detection equipment to improve our ability to interdict contraband goods.
- Recently initiated joint study of border security procedures will review the activities related to communications, training, border integrity, intelligence sharing and screening processes of Canadian and U.S. Customs and Immigration as they apply to terrorism, criminality and contraband. The study will identify and provide for sharing of best practices for targeting the illegal movement of goods and people to more effectively respond to future threat situations.
Border Vision:
Objective: Development of a joint regional approach to migration that through information and intelligence sharing, policy coordination, joint overseas operations and border cooperation protects the public interest by strengthening the integrity of the border while furthering its facilitative character.
The approach focuses on:
- Finding solutions to immigration control problems offshore closer to their source.
- Using advanced technologies as enablers at airports and the land borders to facilitate the movement of genuine travelers, control undesirables and regularly exchange intelligence data and analysis through the establishment of common platforms.
- Establishing better co-ordination on visa policies and issuance procedures.
- Improving cooperation and coordination on the land border.
- Officials of the U.S Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. State Department, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, under four working groups, are engaged in efforts to develop this approach. The four working groups involve information exchange and technology, interdiction and intelligence, visa and policy coordination and land border coordination. Examples of progress that has been made to date include:
- Signing an information sharing agreement to facilitate the exchange of intelligence on illegal migration.
- Establishment of a process to allow the systematic and regular sharing of information on known and suspected terrorists to ensure early detection.
- Joint analysis of trends in illegal migration to both countries to develop and coordinate prevention strategies.
- Creation of a process for the exchange of information on visa issuance practices with the aim of working toward the co-ordination of visa exemption policies.
In April 1997, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and President Bill Clinton agreed to establish a bilateral consultative mechanism to address cross-border crime issues. The Cross-Border Crime Forum, led by the Solicitor General of Canada and the Attorney General of the United States, has met annually since first convening in Ottawa in September 1997. The fourth meeting of the Crime Forum was held in June 2000 in Washington.
Under the supervision of the U.S. Attorney General and the Canadian Solicitor General, the Forum brings together Canadian and U.S. officials to address transnational crime problems such as smuggling, organized crime, telemarketing fraud, money laundering, missing children and parental abduction, crimes using computers and other emerging cross-border issues. As a result, the Forum has improved cooperation and information sharing between our two countries, which is a priority for both the United States and Canada in the fight against organized crime. The cooperation and collaboration arising from the Crime Forum also improves both countries' efforts and mutual interest in the global fight against transnational organized crime.
Participants in the Crime Forum from Canada include Solicitor General Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, Justice Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, provincial and local police forces and officials. Participants from the United States include the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorneys' offices, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Nationalization Services, U.S. Customs Service, the Secret Service, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Internal Revenue Service and regional state and local authorities. The Forum itself meets once a year, and its work is ongoing through subgroups on law enforcement, intelligence, prosecutions and telemarketing fraud. The Forum and its subgroups have already led to enhanced collaboration and liaison, legislative initiatives, the development of binational threat assessments and improved coordination of enforcement efforts. Increasingly sophisticated international crimes threaten our common safety and prosperity. To combat them, communities, governments and industry must work together in a coordinated approach.
Canada and the United States also coordinate anti-terrorist efforts through the Bilateral Consultative Group on Counter-Terrorism (BCG). The BCG was established in 1988, and brings together on an annual basis representatives from agencies and departments in both governments involved in the fight against terrorism. In addition, inter-agency and inter-departmental cooperation goes on daily between officials on both sides of the border to advance practical, on-the-ground cooperation. For instance, Canada and the United States conduct joint training involving senior officials and policy makers to strengthen joint response capabilities, and undertake joint research and development projects to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities.
ANNEX 2 - CUSP PARTICIPANT LISTS
CUSP I
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario - Buffalo, New York
April 11-12, 2000
| Allen, Jon | Minister-Counselor (Political), Canadian Embassy |
| Bailie, John | Director of Government Relations, Kodak Canada |
| Baird, Peter | Baird and Associates |
| Ballard, David | Northern Border Field Liaison, U.S. Customs Service |
| Barrett, Dave | Freed Maxick Sachs & Murphy, PC |
| Barrus, Winston | Acting District Director, Buffalo, U.S. INS |
| Bennett, James | Partner, Watson, Benett, Colligan, Johnson & Schechter, LLP |
| Berstein, Karen | Council for International Visitors |
| Best, Gina | Apex Transportation |
| Bivens, Allen | Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine and Huber |
| Black Abolins, | Staff - Governor Ridge's office (PA) |
| Jennifer | |
| Blake, Colleen | Managing Director, Shaw Festival |
| Boger, Katherine | Project Assistant, Council for International Visitors |
| Boswell, Donald | President, WNY Public Broadcasting Association |
| Bowles, George | Director, Border Policy, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) |
| Bradley, Jim | MPP, St Catherines |
| Brennen Taylor, | Staff, U.S. Representative Quinn's |
| Mary | office (NY) |
| Brown, Clinton | President, Clinton Brown Company Architecture, PC |
| Brownlow, Barry | Hamilton & District Chamber of Commerce |
| Bruce, Laura | Senior Consultant, OEB International |
| Buckley, Noel | President, Niagara Falls Canada Visitor and Convention Bureau |
| Budney, Albert | President, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. |
| Burke, Michael | Manager of Government Relations, Ontario Trucking Association |
| Burmaster, Clyde | Chairman, Niagara County Legislature |
| Caton, Margaret | Economic Officer, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Connor, William | Chief Executive Officer, Niagara Economic and Tourism Corp. |
| D'Avignon, Michel | Acting Assistant Deputy, Canadian Solicitor General |
| Darmody, Steve | Legal Adviser, 9th District Command, U.S. Coast Guard |
| Dawson, James | Executive Director, Niagara International Trade Council |
| Dayer, Roberta | |
| DeCarme, David | Division Chief for Maritime Surface and Facilitation, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) |
| Di Sanza, Emile | Director, Motor Carrier Policy, Transport Canada |
| Donaldson, Holly | Niagara International Trade Council |
| Doolittle, Timothy | Upstate Regional Director, N.Y. Governor's Office |
| Draves, Larry | Vice President, Canadian Business Group, M&T Bank |
| Dyster, Paul | Mayor Elia's Office (Niagara Falls) |
| Epstein, Howard | Freed Maxick Sachs & Murphy, PC |
| Filip, Renee | Executive for Strategy Initiatives, Ciminelli Development Company, Inc. |
| Flickinger, Bonnie | Rainbow Lectures |
| Ford, Jim | Regional Manager, Niagara Project, NY Power Authority |
| Foxcroft, Ron | President, Fluke Transportation |
| Fullworth, Cheryl | Account Manager, AIMM Transatlantic Business Development |
| Gandell, Allen | General Manager, Niagara Falls Bridge Commission |
| Gardner, Arnold | Kavinoky and Cook |
| Gibbard, Paul | Deputy Director, U.S. Transboundary Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) |
| Giffin, Gordon | U.S. Ambassador to Canada |
| Goatbe, Greg | Director General, Program Strategy Directorate, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) |
| Grant, Kerry | Dean of Arts and Sciences, University of Buffalo |
| Greene, Robert | Managing Partner and CEO, Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine and Huber |
| Hahn, Larry | Director of Regulatory Affairs, Livingston International (Canadian) |
| Haynal, George | Assistant Deputy Minister for the Americas, DFAIT |
| Hoogland, Laura | Senior Program Director, Council for International Visitors |
| Hrinyak, Michael | Assistant Commissioner, U.S. INS |
| Huddle, Pancho | U.S. Consul General, Toronto |
| Hunt, Baxter | Canada Desk Officer, U.S. Department of State |
| Hulshoff, Laree | Senior Vice President, Investments, Smith Barney, Inc. |
| Hvilivitzky, Tanya | Manager, Public Relations, Casino Niagara |
| Iannarelli, Joe | Business First |
| Jablonski, Joseph | |
| Jensen, Cary | Director of International Relations, University of Rochester |
| Jockin, Hubert | |
| Kadas, Robert | Special Advisor to Minister of Foreign Affairs, DFAIT |
| Kane, James | Regional Director, Office of U.S. Senator Moynihan (N.Y.) |
| Kaufman, Allan | Vice President, Legal and Public Affairs, United Parcel Service (Canada) |
| Kelley, Barbara | Vice President Corporate Communications, Bausch and Lomb, Inc. |
| Keyes, Robert | Senior Vice President-International, Canadian Chamber of Commerce |
| Knopse, Christopher | Staff, U.S. Representative Reynold's office (NY) |
| Kolundzic, Dan | Political/Economic Officer, Canadian Consulate General, Buffalo |
| Kowalewski, Ed | International Trade Specialist, Empire State Development |
| Krueger, Karen | Deputy Political Minister Counselor, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Kwong, Ralph | Administrative Officer, U.S. Consulate General Toronto |
| Lefebvre, Denis | Assistant Commissioner, CCRA |
| Loewen, Chuck | Peace Bridge Duty Free |
| Maeby, Leslie | Staff, Governor Pataki's office (NY) |
| Magellen, David | AIMM Transatlantic Business Development |
| Mangor, Benny | Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Attaché, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Mariano, James | Director, Buffalo Export Assistance Center |
| Markoff, Kathy | Director of National Customer Support Centre, Canadian National Railway |
| Mathews, Karen | Assistant County Attorney, Erie County Attorney's Office |
| Matton, Susan | Vice President, Business Services, Plattsburgh North Chamber of Commerce |
| Maves, Bart | MPP, Niagara Falls |
| Mazon, Brad | Executive Director, BCWA/CIV |
| McBride, Terry | Member of the Board of Directors and Chairman of Customs and Market Access Committee, Alliance of Exporters and Manufacturers |
| McConnell, James | Director, Canada-U.S. Trade Center, U.B. |
| McKernan, KimMarie | Global Markets Research Analyst, ACTS Testing Labs, Inc. |
| Medulun, Greg | Casino Niagara |
| Mehltreller, Kathleen | First Assistant U.S. Attorney General for New York, Western District |
| Meister, Lee | Director, Canadian Office, State of New York |
| Mitchell, Kerry | Public Affairs Officer, Canadian Consulate General, Buffalo |
| Mitchell-Peterson, Simone | Executive Director and CEO, Girl Scout Council of Buffalo & Erie County |
| Moore, Amy | Program Director, Buffalo Council on World Affairs |
| Moreau, Ken | Executive Assistant to Senior Assistant Deputy, Canadian Solicitor General |
| Mountain, Tom | Executive Vice President, PBB Logistics |
| Norman, Earnest | Watson, Bennett, Colligan, Johnson & Schechter, LLP |
| O'Dea, Frank | President, CharlingDea |
| O'Donnell, Denise | U.S. Attorney for New York Western District |
| O'Donnell, Jack | Staff, U.S. Senator Schumer's office (N.Y.) |
| O'Shea, Deborah | Atlantic Corridor |
| Orlando, Nick | Executive Vice President, Cosma International |
| Optician, Mitch | Economic Officer, U.S. Consulate General Toronto |
| Parass, Dennis | President, Handling Specialty Manufacturing Inc. |
| Patterson, Dan | President, Niagara College |
| Payne, Hal | Buffalo State College |
| Pearch, Jim | Peace Bridge Duty Free |
| Pennachetti, Leonard | Chairman, Wine Council of Ontario and Owner, Cave Springs Winery |
| Phillips, James D. | Executive Director, CanAM Border Trade Alliance |
| Piatek, Anthony | |
| Plonka, Deanne | Controller, Child & Adolescent Treatment Services |
| Poetschke, Robert | Canadian Consulate General, Seattle |
| Ponticello, Christine | Program Manager, Buffalo Niagara Enterprises |
| Ranger, Louis | Assistant Deputy Minister, Transport Canada |
| Redekop, Wayne | Mayor of Fort Erie |
| Rich, Luke | Vice President/Regional Director, Empire State Development |
| Rigby, Tim | Mayor, City of St. Catharines |
| Rivait, Donald | Manager of Canada Customs, Daimler Chrysler (Canada) |
| Robinson, Ross | President, Oh Canada?! Dinner Show |
| Robson, Doug | CEO, Ontario Chamber of Commerce |
| Romanin, Renato | Senior Economic Development Officer, Niagara Economic and Tourism Corp. |
| Romero, Peter | Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State |
| Romoff, Mark | Canadian Consul General, Buffalo |
| Rubin, Irving | Executive Director, Eastern Border Transportation Coalition |
| Rudnick, Andrew | President, Buffalo-Niagara Partnership |
| Rutenber, Timothy | Association Vice Provost for International Education |
| Ruth, Thomas | Vice President, Sales, Livingston International, Inc. |
| Ryan, Joseph | Mayor Masiello's office (Buffalo) |
| Sachs, James | Director, Freed Maxick Sachs & Murphy, PC |
| Sava, Jennifer | Assistant Chief Inspector, U.S. INS |
| Savarino, Samuel | President, ADF Construction, Corp. |
| Saxton, Paul | Director, Office of Canadian Affairs, U.S. Department of State |
| Schecter, Norbert | Partner, Brock, Schecter & Polakoff |
| Schoeny, Steven | Staff - Governor Taft's office (OH) |
| Schreiber, Jack | Vice President, HSBC Bank USA |
| Sheppit, William | Director General, Case Management Intelligence, CIC |
| Smolik, Robert | Minister Counselor for Economic Affairs, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Snodgrass, Coral | Chair, Department of Management and Marketing, Canisius College |
| Soluri, Richard | Mayor of Lewiston |
| Stachura, Edward | URS Greiner, Inc. |
| Stevenson, Robert | President and CEO, Eastman Worldwide |
| Stites, Richard | Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Consulate General Toronto |
| Taylor Lee, Gordon | U.S. General Relations Division, DFAIT |
| Trotter, Robert | Assistant Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service |
| Van Beek, Stephen | Associate Deputy Secretary, U.S. DOT |
| Viola, Art | Mayor, town of Niagara-on-the-Lake |
| Wallace, Debra | Assistant to the Dean, Knowledge Management Initiatives, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto |
| Welsh, Michael | Director, United States General Relations Division, DFAIT |
| Weese, Robert | Vice President of Government and External Relations, GE Canada |
| Whelan, Paul | Canadian Consulate General , Buffalo |
| Williams, Cam | Ruch and Williams |
| Wilson, David | General Manager for U.S. and Canada, Vice President, Eastman Kodak |
| Wilson, Joseph | Customs Port Director, U.S. Customs, Buffalo |
| Worden, Lynne | Manager of Trade, GM Corporation (Canada) |
| Zimmerman, Debbie | Regional Municipality of Niagara |
CUSP II
Vancouver, British Columbia - Blaine, Washington
June 22-23, 2000
| Agnew, Bruce | Executive Director, Discovery Institute |
| Alper, Don | Director of Canadian Studies, Western Washington University |
| Anderson, David K. | PACE President, Barrister and Solicitor |
| Anderson, Glen | Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Customs and Excise, Vancouver, B.C. |
| Anderson, John | Program Director, Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development |
| Anderson, Richard S. | Regional HQ - Prairie/Terr. Region Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) |
| Anderson, Val J. | Member Legislative Assembly (MLA) - Vancouver Langara |
| Ardiel, Heather | Manager of the Port of Entry, CIC |
| Aversa, Marty | Consul, U.S. Consulate General Vancouver |
| Ballard, David | Northern Border Field Liaison, U.S. Customs Service |
| Baker, Dale | Chief of Police, Ferndale Police Department, Ferndale, WA |
| Bass, Gary | Chief Superintendent, Major Crimes Division, "E" Division, RCMP, Vancouver, B.C. |
| Beason, Ken | Managing Director, Public Policy Management |
| Begg, Kevin | Director of Police Services Division, B.C. Coordinating Committee on Organized Crime |
| Berton, Giny | President, Board of Commissioners, Port of Bellingham |
| Billester, John | Lieutenant, Linden Police Department, Linden, WA |
| Black, Gord | Inspector, RCMP, Surrey Detachment, Surrey, B.C. |
| Bond, Robert | Resident Agent in Charge, United States Secret Service |
| Boos, Greg | Attorney at Law, Border Trade Alliance |
| Bowles, George | Director, Border Policy, CIC |
| Branson, Tim | |
| Bronson, Karen | Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development for Canada and Latin America |
| Brown, Errol | Admiral, 13th District Commander, U.S. Coast Guard |
| Brown, Norma | Public Affairs, U.S. Consulate General, Vancouver |
| Carroll, Elizabeth | Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, U.S. Department of State |
| Carney, Patricia | Canadian Senator |
| Cartwright, Ron | President, Chamber of Shipping |
| Cessford, Jim | Delta Police Department, Delta, B.C. |
| Chan, Raymond | Member Parliament (MP) - Richmond, B.C. |
| Chang, Michael | Consular Chief, U.S. Consulate General |
| Chapman, Bruce | President, Discovery Institute |
| Charles, Anne | Director, Transboundary Relations Division, DFAIT |
| Cheng, Nellie | CMHC |
| Chiu, Gordon | Director, Trade Development, Vancouver Port Authority |
| Clifford Wayne | Assistant Deputy Minister, Alberta International and Intergovernmental Relations |
| Coleman, Bob | Seattle District Director, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) |
| Collins, Mary | President, Amarok Holdings |
| Connelly, Mark | Director General, Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) |
| Conroy, Hugh | IMTC Research and Policy Analysts |
| Cook, Kevin | Canadian Consulate General, Seattle |
| Cormier, Michael P. | Assistant Harbour Master, Port of Vancouver |
| Costaris, George | Canadian Consulate General, Detroit |
| Daniell, Paul | The Cascadia Institute |
| Daniels, Barry | Chief Constable, Abbottsford Police Department, Abbottsford, B.C. |
| Dansereau, Claire | Deputy Minister, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways |
| Deacon, Jamie | Director, Anti-Organized Crime Division |
| Delgaty, Blake | Regional Director, CCRA, Vancouver, B.C. |
| Del Re, Frank | Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Blaine, WA |
| Del Vecchio, Patrick | Minister Counselor for Political Affairs, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Di Sanza, Emile | Director, Motor Carrier Policy, Transport Canada |
| Dobell, Ken | |
| Dolsen, Brian | Assistant Deputy Minister, B.C. Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture |
| Douglas, David | Chief Officer, Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. |
| Drummond, Douglas | Mayor, Burnaby |
| Duncan, Mark | Regional Director General, Pacific Region, Transport Canada |
| Elfo, Bill | Chief of Police, Blaine Police Department, Blaine, WA |
| Entem, Mustafa | Canadian Club Member |
| Evans, Ruby | Past President of WCC |
| Fairchild, Lon | U.S. Consulate General, Vancouver |
| Fast, Don | Assistant Deputy Minister, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks |
| Fearson, Margaret | Area Port Director, U.S. Customs Service, Blaine, WA |
| Fanelly, Mike | Assistant Country Attaché, Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms, U.S. Consulate Vancouver |
| Fergurson, Ian | President and CEO, West Coast Group |
| Fisher, Jim | Detachment Coordinator, RCMP, White Rock, B.C. |
| Fisman, Ronald | U.S. Immigration Lawyer |
| Flago, Mike | Chief, DEA, Blaine, WA |
| Forseth, Paul E. | MP - New Westminister/Burnaby, B.C. |
| Friesen, L.J. | Friesen Electric International Inc. |
| Gajole, David | Director of Sales, Gray Line of Seattle |
| Gibbard, Paul | Deputy Director, Transboundary Relations Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) |
| Giegrich, Steve | Consul, U.S. Consulate General Vancouver |
| Gordon, Peter | Assistant Regional Director for Inspection, U.S. INS |
| Gosal, John | Transboundary Relations Division, DFAIT |
| Grant, W.N. Bill | President, Consolidated First Fund |
| Greenwood, Raymond | Vancouver Fireworks Society |
| Grewal, Gurmant | MP - Surrey Central, B.C. |
| Gunn, Ruth | Canadian Consulate General, Seattle |
| Hall, Mike | Detective, Port Angeles Police Department, Port Angeles, WA |
| Harcourt, Mike | Co-Chair B.C.-Washington Corridor Task Force |
| Hardy, Tom | Seattle Field Director, U.S. Customs Service |
| Harvey, Dale | Executive Director, B.C. Institute for Studies in International Trade |
| Haugen, Chris | Chief of Police, Sumas Police Department, Sumas, WA |
| Hayes, Ron | Seattle Area Port Director, U.S. INS |
| Haynal, George | Assistant Deputy Minister-Americas, DFAIT |
| Higginbotham, John | Canadian Embassy, Washington |
| Howard, Neil | Vice-President External Affairs |
| Hrinyak, Michael | Acting Assistant Commissioner for Inspections, U.S. INS |
| Hull, James | Admiral, 9th District Commander, U.S. Coast Guard |
| Hunt, Baxter | Canada Desk Officer, U.S. Department of State |
| Ip, Kelly | Former Canadian Club President |
| James, Carry | Chief Patrol Agent, Blaine, U.S. Border Patrol |
| James, Jeanette | State Legislator, Alaska |
| Jilk, Stephen | City of Lynden |
| Jolly, Carol | Executive Policy Advisor on Natural Resources, Washington Governor's Office |
| Josephson, Bob | Mount Baker Area Administrator, Washington DOT |
| Kadas, Robert | Special Assistant to the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Relations |
| Kang, Charles | B.C. Deputy Minister of Employment and Investment |
| Keller, Dave | Intelligence Officer, Blaine, U.S. Border Patrol |
| Kelly Charles | Publisher, New Pacific Communications |
| Kennedy, Lynne | Counselmember, Vancouver City Council |
| Kingham, Ian R. | President, GMK Transportation Planning and Engineering LTD |
| Knott, Lyall D | Honorary Consul, Tunisia |
| Kohnke, James E | Manager, Canadian Marketing & Sales, Tote-Alaskan Ocean Express |
| Krueger, Karen | Deputy Minister Counselor, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| LaFranchi, Michael | Resident Agent in Charge, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Seattle, WA |
| Landry, Paul | |
| Laster, Molly | The Cascadia Institute |
| Lawson, Edward | Canadian Senator |
| Lee, Philip | A&A Contract Custom Brokers |
| Lefebvre, Denis | Commissioner, CCRA |
| Li, Kenneth | HSBC Bank, Canada |
| Lindstrom, Ted | Assistant to Admiral Errol Brown, U.S. Coast Guard |
| Llorens, Hugo | Consul General, U.S. Consulate General Vancouver |
| Lowell, Jack | Detective, Port Angeles Police Department, Port Angeles, WA |
| Matthiesen, Brigit | Canadian Embassy, Washington |
| Mayhon, Diedre | Office of Investigations, Headquarters, U.S. Customs Services |
| Mayne, Jack | Asian Pacific Journal |
| McAlaster, Sean | Manager of Carrier Incentive Programs, Insurance Company of B.C. |
| McDonald, Wendy B. | Chairman & CEO, B.C. Bearing Engineers Limited |
| McWhinney, Ted | MP - Vancouver Quadra, B.C. |
| Melymick, Wayne | Inspector, Special Investigation Division, Vancouver Police Department |
| Mercier, Rick U.S. Customs Attaché | U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Meredith, Val | MP - South Surrey-White Rock-Langely |
| Miller, James | Executive Director, Whatcom County |
| Miller, Keith | Assistant Chief Patrol Agent, Blaine, U.S. Border Patrol |
| Miller, Melissa | |
| Mills, John | Regional Director, Coordination |
| Moran, Brian | Section Chief, Criminal Justice Division, Washington, Attorney General's Office |
| Moran, Peter | Chief Patrol Agent, Buffalo, U.S. Border Patrol |
| Morgan, Tyler | Special Agent, United States Custom Service, Blaine, WA |
| Morrison, Matt | Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Economic Region |
| Nelson, Christopher D. | Assistant Deputy Minister, B.C. Ministry of Employment and Investment |
| Nesmitt, Ron | Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Seattle, WA |
| Nixon, Martha | Assistant Deputy Minister, CIC |
| Norisue, Keiko | President, Royal International College |
| Norton, Peter | President, FSC Financial Services Center Inc. |
| Oppal, Wallace T. | Supreme Court Justice of B.C. |
| O'Shea, Kevin | Canadian Consulate General, New York |
| Ogilvie, Keith | Senior Advisor, International Relations, B.C. Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat |
| Okamoto, John | Northwest Regional Administrator, Washington DOT |
| Osbourne, Deborah | Representative for the office of Ja Inslee |
| Owen, Philip | Mayor of Vancouver |
| PACE Group | Sponsor |
| Pazhouh, Jan | B.C. Ministry of Transportation |
| Pflaumer, Kate | Assistant U.S. Attorney, Seattle |
| Pinnich, Harry | Assistant Legal Attaché, FBI, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Plant, Geoff | MLA - Richmond-Steveston/Liberal |
| Preshaw, Terry T. | Barrister & Solicitor |
| Terry Preshaw Guest | |
| Poetschke, Robert | Consul, Canadian Consulate General, Seattle |
| Ramstead, Erik | Chief of Police, Everson Police Department, Everson, WA |
| Ranger, Louis | Assistant Deputy Minister, Transport Canada |
| Rhodes, Steve | Executive Director, Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council |
| Roberts, David | British Deputy Consul General, Vancouver |
| Robinson, Gordon | Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic Development Division, B.C. Ministry of Employment and Investment |
| Rochon, Jacques | Director, Highway Policy |
| Romero, Peter | Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State |
| Romoff, Mark | Canadian Consul General, Buffalo |
| Roper, Tony | Chairman of Chamber of Shipping |
| Ross, John | Division Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Seattle Field Division |
| Sandell, Dean | Under Sheriff, Whatcom County, Bellingham, WA |
| Sangsari, Jennifer | Investment banker |
| Savas, Daniel | Vice President, Agnus Reid Group |
| Savich, John | Assistant Director, Washington Office of Trade and Economic Development |
| Saxton, Paul | Director, Office of Canadian Affairs, Department of State |
| Schmidt, Greg | Executive Assistant to the Hon. Herb Gray, Deputy Prime Minister |
| Schmidt, Werner | MP - Kelowna, B.C. |
| Scorey, Bev | Cascadia Institute |
| Sekora, Lou | MP - Port Moody-Coquitlam, B.C. |
| Shinkman, Buck | Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Shrine, Jack | RCMP Inspector, Chilliwack, B.C. |
| Simmons, Roger | Canadian Consul General, Seattle |
| Smolik, Robert | Minister Counselor for Economic Affairs, U.S. Embassy Ottawa |
| Sohlberg, Mary | Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard |
| Stewart, Gail | District Director, Pacific Highway, CCRA |
| Taylor, Chris | Director General, CIC, Vancouver, B.C. |
| Taylor, David | Office of Investigations, Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service |
| Taylor-Lee, Gordon | U.S. Relations Division, DFAIT |
| Terrell, Glen | Victoria Chamber of Commerce |
| Trotter, Robert | Assistant Commissioner, Office of Strategic Trade and Northern Border Coordinator, U.S. Customs Service |
| Tureaud, Rodney | Seattle Office, U.S. Customs Service |
| Turner Patricia | Past President of WCC |
| Unger, John | Deputy Chief Constable, Investigation Division, Vancouver Police Department |
| Valentine, Bill | Deputy Minister, B.C. Ministry of Fisheries |
| Van Beek, Stephen | Associate Deputy Secretary and Director, Office of Intermodalism, U.S. DOT |
| Vanderyacht, Dale | President, Border Brokerage Co., Inc. |
| Vogel, Paul | Assistant to Admiral James Hull, U.S. Coast Guard |
| Wainstanley, Andrew | Canadian Club Director |
| Wall, Dale | Assistant Deputy Minister, Local Government Department, Ministry of Municipal Affairs |
| Wallace, Bill | Northwest Regional Manager, Washington Department of Natural Resources |
| Wallace, Paul | Canadian Club Member |
| Welsh, Michael C. | Director, United States General Relations Division, DFAIT |
| Whaley, Doug | U.S. Attorney's Office, Seattle |
| White, Ted | MP - North Vancouver |
| Wynnwilliams, Andrew | B.C. Chamber of Commerce |
| Zelenika, Brian | Inspector, Canadian Security Investigation Service, Vancouver, B.C. |
[end of document]