Internal Audit and Program Evaluation Directorate
Evaluation of the Trusted Traveller Programs (Air, Land, Marine)
November 2016

Note

[*] An asterisk appears where sensitive information has been removed in accordance with the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Table of contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABC
Automated Border Clearance
AOE
Airport of Entry
BSO
Border Services Officer
BtB
Beyond the Border
BWT
Border Wait Time
CAM
Costing and Analytical Model
CANPASS
Canadian Passenger Accelerated Service System
CATSA
Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
CBP
U. S. Customs and Border Protection
CBSA
Canada Border Services Agency
CPC
CANPASS Processing Centre
EC
Enrolment Centre
GC
Government of Canada
GOES
Global Online Enrolment System
GTA
Greater Toronto Area
IPIL
Integrated Primary Inspection Line
MRZ
Machine Readable Zone
NFR
NEXUS Financial Review
PED
Program Evaluation Division
PET
Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport
PIA
Pearson International Airport
POE
Port of entry
PR
Permanent Resident
RFID
Radio-frequency Identification
TBS
Treasury Board Secretariat
TRC
Telephone Reporting Centre
TSA
Transportation Security Administration
TTP
Trusted Traveller Programs
U.S.
United States
VIA
Vancouver International Airport

Executive Summary

Program Description

The Trusted Traveller Programs (TTPs), which fall under Program 1.2: Secure and Trusted Partnerships, Sub-program 1.2.1: Trusted Traveller, of the current Program Alignment Architecture (PAA), are designed to simplify the border clearance process for pre-approved, low-risk travellers entering Canada. The overall objectives of the TTPs are to increase the efficiency of border processing; support the flow of low-risk, pre-approved travellers into Canada; and to allow the Agency to identify and focus on travellers of “unknown” or “higher” risk in specific modes of travel. Individual TTPs have specific objectives outlined in internal and public documentation that are detailed in Section 1.2.

Currently, TTP include, but are not limited to, CANPASS and NEXUS. Both programs are available to citizens or permanent residents of Canada and/or the United States (U.S.).

CANPASS is a Canadian TTP currently being delivered by the CBSA. The full suite of CANPASS programs consist of CANPASS Air, Private Boat, Corporate Air, and Private Air. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015–2016, the CANPASS suite of programs had 11,898 members who accounted for a total of 12,867 passages into Canada.

NEXUS is the other TPP. Currently, NEXUS members can access expedited processing via NEXUS lanes at 21 land ports of entry (POEs)Footnote 1, 426 designated marine reporting sites/marinas, and NEXUS kiosks at Canada’s eight Tier 1 airports,Footnote 2 as well as the Billy Bishop Airport in Toronto. In the past five fiscal years, NEXUS membership increased 129.3% (from 523,150 to 1,199,410), passage volume increased 115.8% (from 3,961,838 to 8,549,562) and growth is expected to continue.

Evaluation Purpose, Scope and Limitations

The purposes of the evaluation are to assess the relevance, performance, effectiveness and efficiency of the programs, and determine the degree to which the TTP have made progress on its original objectives.Footnote 3 The scope of the evaluation mainly focuses on all program activities related to the processing of trusted travellers in comparison to conventional travellers at the POEs in air, land and marine modes.

At the time of the evaluation, the TTP did not have approved and validated logic models (LM), Performance Measurement Strategies (PMS), or key performance indicators (KPIs). As a result, the Evaluation Team developed performance measures and gathered primary and secondary data to gauge the success of the TTP.

Findings and Recommendations

Relevance

As a group of programs, TTPs provide the Agency with mechanisms to address increasing traveller volumes, facilitate movements of low risk travellers, and allow border service officers (BSOs) to focus efforts on travellers of unknown and/or high-risk. TTP activities support the priorities of the Government of Canada by ensuring and enhancing border safety, security and management, and align with the federal roles and responsibilities to enforce the Canada Border Services Agency Act (CBSA Act) and the Customs Act.

Program Performance: Achievement of Objectives: CANPASS Suite

Although CANPASS programs contribute to facilitating the flow of pre-approved, low-risk travellers, their contributions are relatively small when considered against the volumes of conventional travellers (i.e., non-CANPASS and non-NEXUS members) and NEXUS members in the air and marine modes. Comparatively, membership and passage rates for CANPASS Private and Corporate Air have remained relatively stable, while rates of membership and passages for CANPASS Air and Private Boat have declined steadily in the past five fiscal years. Other programs and activities introduced since the implementation of CANPASS Air (e.g., NEXUS, Automated Border Clearance) offer similar or greater benefits to the majority of CANPASS members, contributing to the decline of CANPASS Air.

Program Performance: Achievement of Objectives: NEXUS

Overall, the NEXUS program has contributed to increasing the identification and pre-approval of low-risk travellers to facilitate their border processing and addressed a traveller demand for expedited processing in the land, air and marine modes. Moreover, a survey conducted by the Program Evaluation Division (PED) found that NEXUS members are very satisfied overall with the services they receive in all three modes.

NEXUS has achieved its objective of harmonizing previously separate components into a single program with consistent application processes, administration and policy. Although NEXUS membership and passages are increasing, the effective, expedited processing via NEXUS lanes at land POEs varies considerably by region and port of entry. Program benefits in NEXUS land are most evident at very high-volume ports of entry during peak periods.

The evaluation found that in the air mode, travellers using NEXUS kiosks were processed more quickly than those processed at primary inspection lines (PIL) or Automated Border Clearance (ABC) kiosks. In addition, external clients (e.g., airport authorities) view NEXUS as a key tool in managing high volumes of air travellers and are very satisfied with program performance.

Although the CBSA has established a risk assessment process to identify low-risk travellers through its application and enrollment process and annual reviews, [*] results provided by current measures are inconsistent.

NEXUS in the air mode is achieving its objectives by focusing BSOs’ primary processing effort on travellers of unknown and potentially high risk, achieving better enforcement results. Indications of this achievement are most evident in the past three fiscal years.

Program Performance: NEXUS Program Delivery

The evaluation indicated that the governance structure for the NEXUS program was diffuse; areas of responsibility were unclear and shared across multiple senior managers.

Program Performance: Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy - NEXUS

Human and financial resource data related to the Trusted Traveller Programs is undergoing development via the Costing and Analytical Model that will facilitate assessment of efficiency and economy, including value for money, in future evaluations. Although NEXUS program costs increased between FY 2011–2012 and FY 2013–2014, the program has maintained or improved efficiencies in key areas.

To enhance the delivery, management, and reporting on performance of the TTP, and financial and human resources to ultimately ensure that the TTP achieve their objectives, the evaluation made seven Recommendations:

  1. [*]
  2. The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should develop a strategy regarding the future of CANPASS Private Air and Corporate Air.
  3. The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should explore the feasibility of expanding the TTPs including NEXUS eligibility criteria and benefits, to increase participation.
  4. The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should develop clear criteria to determine if there is a benefit to the Agency to provide NEXUS service at specific ports of entry and criteria to guide POEs to leverage NEXUS once implemented.
  5. The Vice-President of the Programs Branch, supported by the Vice-Presidents of Operations and Information, Science and Technology Branches, should strengthen processes for ongoing monitoring and validation of NEXUS members' low-risk status and compliance with program requirements.
  6. The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should clarify and communicate the roles and responsibilities of Trusted Traveller Programs’ Management.
  7. The Vice-President of the Programs Branch, supported by the Vice President of the Comptrollership Branch, should establish a methodology to collect, analyze and report on performance and overall resources (human and financial resources, information technology, etc.) required to achieve the expected results of the NEXUS program

1.0 Introduction

1.1. Evaluation Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the degree to which the Trusted Traveller Programs (TTPs) —NEXUS and the CANPASS Suite — support the delivery of the Government of Canada (GC) and CBSA trusted traveller processing; assessment of achievement of original objectives; the relevance; program performance, efficiency and economy of the TTPs.Footnote 4

1.2. Program Description

The Trusted Traveller Programs include NEXUS and the CANPASS Suite of programs (CANPASS Air, Private Boat, Corporate Air, Private Air) which fall under Program 1.2: Secure and Trusted Partnerships, Sub-program 1.2.1 of the current Program Alignment Architecture (PAA). TTPs are designed to simplify the border clearance process for pre-approved, low-risk travellers entering Canada. The NEXUS program is jointly administered in cooperation with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and offered in the air, land and marine modes of transportation. The CANPASS Suite of Programs is administered and delivered exclusively by the CBSA in the air and marine modes.

It should be noted that the Agency piloted the Automated Border Clearance (ABC) program of self-service kiosks at Vancouver International Airport (VIA) from 2009–2011.Footnote 5 After a successful pilot, the program was expanded to include kiosks at Montréal’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau (PET) International Airport (2012) and Toronto’s Pearson International Airport (PIA) (2013).The ABC program/kiosks allows the Agency to streamline yet another component of the traveller processing experience: Canadian and U.S. citizens with valid passports, or Canadian Permanent Residents (PR) with valid PR cards can use the kiosks as an alternative to typical processing via primary inspection lines (PIL). The goal of ABC is to reduce processing wait times and congestion while improving processing capacity at large volume airports. Although ABC is not a component of the TTP, it may be an intervening variable in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of TTP processing against the processing of conventional travellers.

1.2.1. CANPASS Suite

Currently, the CANPASS Suite of programs consists of (a more detailed history of CANPASS’s evolution can be found in Appendix B):

The CANPASS Suite of programs has changed very little from an administrative (e.g., application, enrolment) and operational perspective since the program’s inception. Detailed outlines of program administration, membership, and benefits are presented in Appendix H and I. Key aspects are outlined below:

Exhibit 1: Summary of CANPASS Suite Administration, Enrolment and Benefits

  CANPASS Air CANPASS Private Boat CANPASS Private Aircraft CANPASS Corporate Aircraft
Client Group Canadian and U.S. citizens and PRs
Processing Fee and Membership Duration $50 (duration 1 year) $40 (duration 5 years)
Eligibility

Air only:

  • Citizens: Canadian and American;
  • Permanent Residents of Canada and U.S.: A three-year residency in Canada and U.S. is required (some exceptions apply);
  • Admissible to Canada under current immigration laws;
  • Be of good character;
  • Provide their consent in writing to the use of biometric data; and
  • Provide true, accurate and complete information in respect of the authorization.

Private Boat, Private and Corporate Aircraft:
Same as above except that the citizens of Canada and the U.S. must also adhere to the three-year residency requirements

Application Since inception, travellers can submit their applications in hard copy/paper only.
[*] [*]
Enrolment In-person interview at an Enrolment Centre (EC) to finalize enrolment No in-person interview, members receive a mandatory referral upon first passage to finalize enrolment.
Membership Card features Machine readable zone (MRZ), photo and biographical data displayed on card Paper permit which contains no security features.
Passage Special Services Counter (SSC) at nine specific international airports. Payment of duty and taxes: TDC card or cashier

A first and second call through the Telephone Reporting Centre (TRC) are requested.

BSOs provide the necessary procedures to follow before docking/landing. All passengers must be members to use designated CANPASS reporting sites.

CANPASS Private Boat:
At least 30 minutes but not more than 4 hours before arrival.

CANPASS Private and Corporate Aircraft:
At least two hours but no more than 48 hours before arrival.

Enforcement

Pending criminal charge or outstanding warrant: Reject application) suspension of membership.

Court Order to surrender travel documents: Rejection (application), suspension of membership.

Criminal convictions included in the CCC for which they have not received a pardon/record suspension from the Court: Rejection (application) or cancellation of membership.

Lack of compliance with legislation with program legislation: Reject application and cancellation of membership.

Source: Internal CBSA documentation; Government of Canada (2003). Presentation of Persons Regulations (PoP). Retrieved from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2003-323/ (Accessed July 15, 2016)

1.2.2. NEXUS

In December 2006, NEXUS Air, Land and Marine – were harmonized into a single trusted traveller program called NEXUSFootnote 6 (please see Appendix B for information on the NEXUS program’s evolution). Currently, NEXUS is available at twenty-one land ports of entry (POEs).Footnote 7 Amongst the twenty-one NEXUS POEs, Douglas has the highest number of lanes with four (two dedicated NEXUS and two flex lanes).

NEXUS Air kiosks are currently available at nine Canadian airports, including Canada’s Tier 1.Footnote 8 At the start of travel, members can use designated NEXUS lanes when entering the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) screening that offers an expedited security screening area of an airport; likewise, there are designated lanes in the U.S., under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), that offer expedited screening of NEXUS members (at more than 150 airports). When entering primary processing after landing, NEXUS members have access to designated lines (in the land mode) and kiosks (in the air mode) for expedited processing.

For those travelling via marine mode, NEXUS members can access 426 reporting sites/marinas. Members call into the Telephone Reporting Centre (TRC) to declare their arrival and destination. In addition to designated sites, NEXUS members also have a wider window for reporting: from a minimum of 30 minutes to a maximum of four hours prior to arrival in Canada.Footnote 9

Eligible Canadian and U.S. citizens or PRs can apply for NEXUS membership via two methods: online using the CBP-administered Global Online Enrolment System (GOES), or paper-based process administered by the CBSA.

A detailed outline of NEXUS program administration, membership, and benefits is presented in Appendix H. Key aspects are outlined below:

Exhibit 2: Summary of NEXUS Suite Administration, Enrolment and Benefits

  Land Air Private Boat
Client Group Canadian and U.S. citizens and PRs (including those who reside or who have recently returned from residing outside Canada and the U.S.). For PRs, there is a three-year residency requirement that must be met prior to the application
Processing Fee and Membership Duration $50 (duration 5 years) – Note: NEXUS is multi-modal. Approved members may use their card for expedited customs and immigration primary processing entering Canada or the U.S. in the land, air, or marine modes
Eligibility
  • Canadian and American citizens;
  • Canadian and U.S. PRs who meet the three-year residency requirement (some exceptions may apply):
  • admissible to Canada under current immigration laws;
  • Provide their consent in writing to the use of biometric data; and,
  • Provide true, accurate and complete information in respect of the authorization.
Application Applicants can submit their applications on-line or hard copy/paper.
[*] [*]
Enrolment CBSA and CBP: In-person interview at an Enrolment Centre (EC) to finalize enrolment;
CBP: Photo and fingerprints; and,
CBSA: Iris capture (optional - used for air travel processing only).
Membership Card features Radio-frequency Identification (RFID) chip, optical variable device and variable link, MRZ, photo and biographical data displayed on card.
Passage Use of designated and flex NEXUS lanes at 21 POEs equipped with RFID reader – all passengers must be NEXUS members to use NEXUS lane. Uses self-service kiosk or Special Services Counter at Tier 1 Airports Footnote 10 – all passengers must be NEXUS members to use NEXUS kiosk. Payment of duty and taxes: TDC card or cashier. Self-report via the TRC – At least 30 minutes but not more than four hours before arrival – all passengers must be NEXUS members to use designated NEXUS reporting sites.
Enforcement Memberships may be cancelled for no longer meeting eligibility criteria or for violating program conditions.
Warnings may be issued for some program violations while pending charges or court orders may result in suspension.
Source: Internal CBSA documentation; Government of Canada (2003). Presentation of Persons Regulations (PoP). Retrieved from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2003-323/ (Accessed July 15, 2016)

1.3. Program Objectives

Overall objectives of the TTPFootnote 11 are to contribute to:

Each program has specific objectives as outlined in internal and public documentation.

The objective of CANPASS is to facilitate the movement of low-risk travellers; focus resources on high-risk traffic; and, create a more seamless border crossing process for low-risk travellers.

The objective of NEXUS Land is to harmonize traveller registration processes and facilitate the movement of low-risk, pre-approved travellers crossing the Canada/U.S. land border.

The objectives of NEXUS Air are to:

2. Evaluation Methodology

Research for this evaluation was conducted between May 2015 and June 2016 (see Appendix C for details). The evaluation analyzed key CBSA program, human resource and financial data extracted by the program areas, CBSA documentation (e.g., Departmental Performance Report, internal audits, evaluations, reviews and assessments), and external sources (e.g., international data on other countries using trusted traveller initiatives). Evaluators conducted interviews with TTP program staff (at National Headquarters (NHQ) and in the regions). The team also conducted field research in the Pacific (Vancouver) and Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Regions which included: on-site observation (i.e., job shadowing) of border service officers (BSO) at major POEs and airports of entry (AOEs) and the TRC, time motion studies, interviews and group interviews. Research methods also included a national client satisfaction survey of 6,238 NEXUS members, and a social media analysis. The scope includes all program activities related to processing trusted travellers in comparison to conventional travellers at the POEs for the three modes and the membership application processes.

As per the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) Policy on Evaluation,Footnote 12 the evaluation examined three key areas: relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency and economy.

2.1. Research Limitations

At the time of the evaluation, the TTP did not have an approved and validated logic model (LM), Performance Measurement Strategy (PMS), or key performance indicators (KPIs). The most recently approved LM was for NEXUS (2013). However, it was not used for this evaluation as it included activities and related outcomes that did not align with current program activities. During the course of the evaluation, a Draft TTP Logic Model was developed by Corporate Reporting and Planning Directorate (CPRD) but, as of June 2016, it had not been approved by the Executive Committee. A key impact for this evaluation is that the Evaluation Team developed performance measures and gathered primary and secondary data to gauge the success of the TTP.

3. Findings and Recommendations

3.1. Program Relevance

3.1.1. Continued Need for TTP

Overall, the continued need for Trusted Traveller Program(s) arises from the ongoing increases in traveller volumes. TTP provides the Agency with mechanisms that allow it to address increasing traveller volumes by expediting processing of low-risk, pre-approved travellers coming to Canada, and permitting the Border Service Officers (BSOs) to focus efforts on travellers of unknown and potentially high-risk.

Between FY 2010–2011 and FY 2014–2015, the volume of travellers entering Canada increased steadily. International travellers entering Canada increased by 2.6% (from 88,651,055 to 90,989,182)Footnote 13 while the number of returning Canadian travellers increased marginally by 0.5% (from 55,683,906 to 55,970,694).Footnote 14 Staff at NHQ and the GTA indicated that volumes are projected for continual growth. For example, PIA is projecting an increase of 1M travellers per year for the next five years (approximately 80% will be foreign nationals [i.e., non-members]).Footnote 15 Similarly, VIA Authority indicated that it is on track to meet its goal of 25 million passengers per year by 2020.Footnote 16 Trusted Traveller Programs are an emerging and growing global trend in traveller processing and border management. Canada is not alone in terms of offering a trusted traveller program. In addition to Canada’s program, there are at least six similar traveller programs around the world, including in the United States (U.S), Mexico, United Kingdom (U.K), Netherlands, Germany and Korea. (Please see Appendix J for a summary of international trusted traveller programs).

The combined pressure of rising international traveller volumeFootnote 17 and the ongoing commitments under the Beyond the Border Action PlanFootnote 18 (BtB) increased the CBSA’s focus on trusted traveller programs as a mechanism to streamline border processes for pre-approved, low-risk travellers. As mentioned, the goals of increasing membership in trusted traveller programs is to allow the Agency the capability to manage the volume of travellers and focus its examination rate on higher risk or unknown travellers.Footnote 19

Continual and consistent growth in NEXUS memberships and use among members indicates that NEXUS is addressing the demand among travellers for expedited processing at customs and immigration primary.

In the past five fiscal years, NEXUS membership increased 129.3% (from 523,150 to 1,199,410) and the passageFootnote 20 volume increased 115.8% (from 3,961,838 to 8,549,562).Footnote 21 In addition, survey data and field research clearly indicates that external stakeholders are very satisfied with the NEXUS program, its benefits and processing at customs and immigration primary. By contrast, evidence indicates that the demand or need for the CANPASS Suite overall is declining. Membership and passage rates for CANPASS Air and Private Boat declined year over year between FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015. Total CANPASS Air membership and passages declined by more than eighty percent while CANPASS Private Boat membership and passages declined by more than twenty-six percent.Footnote 22

CANPASS Corporate and Private Air serve a unique market of travellers who arrive by private aircraft. Currently, there are no national or international equivalents for expedited processing of these client groups. In FY 2014–2015, each of the programs accounted for about 5% of the total arrivals by small aircraft.Footnote 23 Although this client group represents a relatively small group of all air travellers, the data indicates this group travels often. Between FY 2010–2011 and FY 2014–2015, Corporate Air membership fell by 19.8% but passage volume increased by 18.2%. The opposite occurred for Private Air where membership increased by 2.0% and passage volume decreased by 7.4%.Footnote 24

3.1.2. Alignment with Government Priorities

CANPASS and NEXUS activities support the priorities of the Government of Canada by ensuring and enhancing border safety, security and management while expediting low-risk traveller crossings, and building strong relations with the U.S. to enforce our shared border.

The GC has stated and reaffirmed its priority to ensure and enhance border safety, security and management over the last four years. Parallel to those priorities is a commitment to expedite low-risk traveller processing crossings, and build strong relations with the U.S to enforce our shared border.

Budget 2012 included the Action Plan on Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness to implement smarter border systems and to accelerate the border crossings of low-risk trade and travellers.Footnote 25 In the following year, Budget 2013 introduced the BtB Action PlanFootnote 26 to harmonize and enhance trusted trader and travellers programs with the U.S. The overarching objectives of the BtB are to expedite border crossing for Canada and U.S travellers, and increase efficiency in border crossings by reducing costs.Footnote 27 The GC’s most recent Budget (2016) has a focus on public safety priorities. The Budget announced funding over two years to improve the physical infrastructure of safety and security agencies, including those belonging to the CBSA.Footnote 28

3.1.3. Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

The TTP activities align with the Federal roles and responsibilities to enforce the Canada Border Services Agency Act (CBSA Act) and the Customs Act.

The CBSA Act established the Agency in 2003 (section 3(1)) to provide integrated border services, support public safety and national security priorities, as well as facilitate the free flow of legitimate travellers, goods, plants, and animals.Footnote 29 The CBSA Act also bestows the Agency with the authority to implement agreements, such as BtB, between the Government of Canada and foreign states.Footnote 30

As part of its mandated authority, the CBSA implements or enforces a number of legislations and/or programs, including the Customs Act. The Customs Act gives the Agency the authority to collect duties and taxes on goods entering Canada.Footnote 31 Section 11 of the Customs Act establishes traveller reporting requirements, regardless of the mode of entry into Canada: those entering Canada may only do so at a customs office, and must identify themselves, report and/or present goods upon request and answer truthfully any questions asked by an (border services) officer. Section 11(5) of the Customs Act indicates that those who enter Canadian waters (including inland waters) or airspace while proceeding directly from one place outside Canada to another place outside Canada are not required to report unless an officer requires that person to comply with those subsections of the Customs Act. The CBSA also fulfills its roles to collect duties and facilitate the entry of persons and goods through its inspection lines at AOEs and land POEs.

A core objective of the TTP is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of border processing of low-risk, pre-approved travellers, and therefore admissibility, of Canadian and American travellers to Canada. The TTP strive to create an environment where a proportion of travellers can be or are identified as low-risk and expedited in their entry to Canada so that the Agency could focus resources on those who attempt to violate the Customs Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or any other Canadian legislation.

3.2. Program Performance: Achievement of Objectives: CANPASS Suite

3.2.1. Facilitated movement of low-risk travellers and focussed resources on high-risk traffic

Although CANPASS contributes to facilitating the flow of pre-approved, low-risk travellers, contributions of the programs are very small compared to volumes of conventional travellers (i.e., non-CANPASS and non-NEXUS members) and NEXUS members in the air and marine mode. CANPASS passage rates in the air and marine modes are currently declining and are expected to continue to decrease.

Passages by CANPASS Private and Corporate Air members have remained relatively constant; however, CANPASS Air and Private Boat passages have declined steadily in the last six fiscal years. Program data in Exhibit 3 show that in the last fiscal year there were less than 1,000 CANPASS Air and Private Boat passages.

Exhibit 3: National CANPASS Passages FY 2010–2011 to FY 2015–2016

Exhibit 3: National CANPASS Passages FY 2010–2011 to FY 2015–2016

In terms of passage rates, CANPASS members represent a small percentage compared to other travellers. For example, CANPASS Air passages account for less than 1% (2,644 in FY 2014–2015) of all air passages. In addition, rates are declining year over year — likely due to increases in use of ABC and NEXUS kiosks (see Appendix F).

Exhibit 4: Volume of National Air Passages by Kiosk FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015Footnote 32

Exhibit 4: Volume of National Air Passages by Kiosk FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015

Similarly, CANPASS Private Boat passages account for less than 1% (844 in FY 2014–2015) of all marine passages reported to the TRC (see Appendix D, Exhibit A).

In contrast, the proportions of reported CANPASS Private Air and Corporate Air passages have been relatively stable during the past five fiscal years (see Appendix D, Exhibit B). Evidence indicates that the consistency in membership and passage rates of these CANPASS components is likely due to the fact that these two programs are the only programs to serve these specific traveller groups. Footnote 33

Expectedly, trends in membership and renewal rates were found to be commensurate with passage rates in each program (see Exhibit 5). Overall, CANPASS Suite membership has declined steadily since FY 2010–2011. General declines in CANPASS renewal rates indicate it is reasonable to expect that memberships will continue to decline. Regression analysis projections indicate that, by FY 2018–2019 CANPASS Air membership could reduce to 0 (no members) while CANPASS Private Boat members could reduce to a total of 59.

Exhibit 5: National CANPASS Membership Rates FY 2010–2011 to FY 2015–2016

Exhibit 5: National CANPASS Membership Rates FY 2010–2011 to FY 2015–2016

A review of membership renewal data also demonstrates a declining trend. During the past five fiscal years, fewer and fewer travellers have renewed their CANPASS memberships (see Exhibit C, in Appendix E). With the exception of CANPASS Private Air, membership renewal rates for CANPASS Air (-55.9%), CANPASS Corporate Air (-12.2%), and CANPASS Private Boat (-23.6%) indicate that traveller interest and/or demand in the program and/or its benefits have declined.

The context under which the CANPASS Suite was created has changed considerably. Other programs and activities introduced since the implementation of CANPASS Air (e.g., NEXUS, Automated Border Clearance) offer similar advantages or benefits. As such, in its current form, the majority of needs of CANPASS Air members can be met without the program.

The evaluation found that many aspects of the CANPASS Suite are not unique. Review of processes and activities associated with NEXUS, ABC, and functions of and regional staff in border management, as well as recent program reviews (see Exhibit I in Appendix H) indicate that if the CANPASS Suite did not exist, the needs of the majority of CANPASS members could be met by other Agency programs or activities. Exhibit J in Appendix H shows the current NEXUS program is covering “similar ground” as the CANPASS Suite. A key difference is coverage in Canada or the U.S (there are no equivalent programs for expedited processing of private aircraft: CANPASS Private and Corporate Air).

In the air mode, Corporate and Private Air members can report to 90 airfields or airports (42 of which are AOEs, and 48 are CANPASS-only).Footnote 34 In the marine mode, TTP members have the option of reporting to 426 designated reporting sites. The geographical challenge is that the distance between reporting sites and CBSA offices can vary greatly. As such, travel time to reporting sites from the POE is a factor in decisions to dispatch BSOs to meet conveyances for secondary inspection. Field research indicates that regional managers also need to consider POE resources (e.g., staff strength, vehicles, examination equipment) against other priorities (e.g., high volume periods, etc.) when assigning off-site examinations.

3.3. Program Performance: Efficiency and Economy: CANPASS Suite

Without consistent allocation and expenditure data, it is difficult to determine the efficiency of the CANPASS Suite of programs.

Evidence shows that the Agency is developing detailed, consistent coding and expenditure reporting through Comptrollership Branch’s Costing and Analytical Model (CAM). Moving forward, the results of this initiative will provide key human resource and financial information to support measurement of the achievement of outcomes. However, during the evaluation, the CAM provided information for one fiscal year. A key challenge for this evaluation was the budget and expenditure information for the CANPASS Suite was limited to one fiscal year which did not allow for year to year comparisons for the past five fiscal years. Exhibit 6 illustrates the allocation and expenditure data made available for the evaluation was limited to FY 2011–2012.Footnote 35 CAM data for the delivery of CANPASS Air for FY 2014–2015Footnote 36 totaled $255,581.70.

Exhibit 6: CANPASS Suite Budget Allocation and Estimated Expenditure FY 2011–2012

Salary O&M Corporate Support Total
CANPASS Budget Allocation $636,000 $241,001 NA $877,001
CANPASS Estimated Expenditure $481,988 $137,075 $106,510 $725,573
Source: Internal CBSA documentation.

If the Agency continues with the delivery of CANPASS Suite in its current form, there are factors that should be considered that will present foreseeable fixed expenditure issues. The Information Technology (IT) systems and printers that support the CANPASS Suite will require replacement in the near future, but the evaluation team could not validate specific timelines. [*]

In order to provide some cost comparison information, the evaluation used available financial and passage information to develop estimates provided below. Based on the available information, Exhibit 7 shows that NEXUS is far more efficient than CANPASS Air. The estimated cost per passage for NEXUS air travellers is less than one dollar ($0.45) while the estimated cost to the Agency per passage for CANPASS Air is more than one hundred dollars.

Exhibit 7: Comparison of Estimated Cost per Passage in Air Mode for TTP Components

  PassagesFootnote 37 Cost/ExpendituresFootnote 38 Cost per Passage
CANPASS Air 2,478 $255,581.70 $103.14
NEXUS 1,165,753 $530,206.67 $0.45
Source: CBSA internal documentation, systems data and June 2016 data from the Costing and Analytical Model (CAM) (NEXUS).

Overall, considering the declining CANPASS passages, membership rates, membership renewals, as well as the potential overlap with NEXUS, impact of ABC kiosk processing and expenditures associated with IT systems and equipment that support the CANPASS Suite, the following is recommended:

Recommendation 1: [*]

Recommendation 2: The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should develop a strategy regarding the future of CANPASS Private Air and Corporate Air.

According to the CBSAFootnote 39 and CBPFootnote 40 websites, there are differences between NEXUS and CANPASS eligibility criteria. First, CANPASS eligibility criteria states that an applicant cannot be in contravention of program legislation — particularly customs or immigration laws — in the previous six years (maximum). Based on the NEXUS website, if NEXUS applicants have a recorded customs, immigration or agriculture law violation then they will not be eligible for a NEXUS membership. It appears that the time of the violation is not a consideration in NEXUS eligibility at this time.

The CBP further states that persons subject to an ongoing investigation by any federal, state or local law enforcement agency are not eligible. This is not a criterion in the published CANPASS requirement. In addition, applicants for both NEXUS and CANPASS cannot have criminal convictions for which they have not received a pardon. However, a NEXUS criterion states that even if a conviction is pardoned, a U.S. background check may still review the conviction as part of a complete criminal history check. Lastly, NEXUS members must provide written consent for use of their biometric data in both Canada and the U.S., whereas CANPASS applications only require written consent for the use of biometric data in Canada.

If the NEXUS eligibility criteria can be expanded to reflect the current CANPASS eligibility considerations, there is the opportunity to broaden the eligible applicants for NEXUS and integrate current CANPASS users into NEXUS.

Recommendation 3: The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should explore the feasibility of expanding the trusted traveller programs, including NEXUS eligibility criteria and benefits, to increase participation.

3.4. Program Performance: Achievement of Objectives: NEXUS

3.4.1. Streamlined processing of low-risk, pre-approved travellers.

The program has contributed to the increasing identification and pre-approval of low-risk travellers for facilitated border processing and addressed a traveller demand for expedited processing.

NEXUS passages and memberships have increased year over year since the inception of the program. The data examined in the evaluation demonstrates that along with the increase in membership uptake over the previous five years, passages have also increased. Exhibit 8 shows that NEXUS passages across the Canada-U.S. border have steadily increased in each mode since FY 2010–2011.

Exhibit 8: National NEXUS Passages FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015

Exhibit 8: National NEXUS Passages FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015

As of FY 2014–2015, active NEXUS memberships totalled 1,119,410.Footnote 41 In the past five fiscal years, membership grew by 129% - an estimated growth rate of 20% year over year (see Exhibit 9). Based on this growth, it is projected that NEXUS will near 2 million members by late 2018. NEXUS has exceeded its projected membership goals year over year. Overall, the majority of NEXUS members are Canadian citizens or PR residing in Canada (1,000,551) outnumbering U.S. citizens or PR (219,446) by approximately 4 to 1.Footnote 42

Exhibit 9: Active NEXUS Membership FY 2004–2005 to FY 2014–2015

Exhibit 9: Active NEXUS Membership FY 2004–2005 to FY 2014–2015

In the past five fiscal years, membership renewals and re-applications have increased steadily. On average, membership renewals increased by 72.5%, while re-applications increased by 17.6%. A client satisfaction survey of members indicates that the NEXUS program is meeting the demands and/or needs of its members. The survey measured key aspects of the program and found the program was performing well. For example, the vast majority (98.7%) of respondents reported that, overall, the NEXUS program met their needs. Views on the application and renewal process were similarly positive. Approximately 90% of respondents reported that they were “very satisfied or somewhat satisfied” with the application process for membership (89.6%) and the membership renewal process (87.3%).

3.5. Program Performance: Achievement of Objectives - NEXUS Land

3.5.1. Facilitation of the movement of low-risk, pre-approved travellers crossing the Canada-U.S. land border.

Overall, NEXUS in the land mode is facilitating expedited primary customs and immigration processing for a growing number of low-risk travellers crossing the Canada-U.S. border.

Evidence indicates that NEXUS in Land mode has facilitated the passage of members across the border. Over the last five years, passages in the land mode have increased 114% (from 3,259,586 to 7,007,112) at an average annual rate of 53.5%. Figures presented in Exhibit 10 show that the proportion of passages by NEXUS travellers has increased annually over the past five fiscal years.

Exhibit 10: National Volume of Land Passages by Lane Type FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015

Exhibit 10: National Volume of Land Passages by Lane Type FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015

Internal stakeholders confirmed the usefulness of NEXUS lanes at land border POEs.Footnote 44 Senior CBSA Managers agreed that NEXUS is an important tool for facilitating expedited processing of low-risk travellers and managing high volumes of traffic. Several stakeholders viewed the implementation of NEXUS as a key mechanism for modernization of customs and immigration primary inspections – moving processing away from “transaction by transaction” interactions. In addition, stakeholders reported that if NEXUS did not exist, it would be a considerable operational challenge to maintain border wait times with current human resource and infrastructure.

Although NEXUS membership and passages are increasing, the effective, expedited processing via NEXUS lanes varies considerably by region and port of entry. Benefits and impacts of NEXUS Land are most evident at very high volume ports of entry during peak periods.

NEXUS lane passages vary by region and POE. In general, use of NEXUS lanes is greatest at the busiest POEs. Exhibit 11 shows the volume of NEXUS lanes passages (as a percentage of total annual passages) at large land POEs with NEXUS lanes. Overall, the data shows that NEXUS passages accounted for less than one percent of total passages and showed minimal growth at POEs with passages rates of 1M or less. In contrast, POEs with high or very high passage volumes (i.e., 3M to >4M passages) had the greatest volume NEXUS lane passages (10% to >20%) and rates of growth in NEXUS passages.Footnote 45

Exhibit 11: Total NEXUS Passage Rates by Large Land POEs FY 2010–2011 to 2014–2015

5 year Average Passage Volume POE FY 2010–2011 FY 2011–2012 FY 2012–2013 FY 2013–2014 FY 2014–2015
>4 million 8135 Douglas Passenger 21.12% 24.39% 29.15% 34.04% 38.08%
4101 Fort Erie Travellers 8.93% 9.66% 10.37% 11.90% 15.20%
3 to <4 million 8132 Traffic Ops West 11.24% 15.18% 20.64% 24.80% 29.45%
4273 Queenston Bridge Travellers 0.00% 1.49% 2.23% 3.46% 5.46%
4531 Ambassador Bridge Travellers 15.21% 14.72% 14.13% 14.08% 16.14%
1 to <3 million 4401 Sarnia Travellers (BWB) 14.96% 18.41% 18.48% 17.43% 18.01%
4521 Windsor Tunnel Travellers 15.19% 13.79% 12.85% 11.65% 11.86%
8173 Traffic Ops E Huntingdon 0.000% 0.007% 2.02% 8.36% 12.96%
3513 Rte 15 Lacolle Int'l 3.49% 3.91% 4.56% 4.56% 5.42%
8150 Boundary Bay 29.97% 31.27% 36.01% 38.68% 42.64%
4560 Lansdowne/Wolfe Island 0.035% 0.110% 0.140% 0.184% 0.420%
4410 Sault Ste Marie Bridge 0.123% 0.029% 0.023% 0.007% 0.008%
<1 million 3281 St-Armand Int'l Traffic 1.99% 1.96% 1.93% 2.64% 2.64%
4780 Fort Frances Bridge 0.06% 0.06% 0.11% 0.22% 0.18%
5021 Emerson West-Lynne Traffic 0.046% 0.042% 0.046% 0.075% 0.10%
7050 Coutts Traffic Operation 0.080% 0.079% 0.12% 0.25% 0.28%
2120 Woodstock Traffic 1.41% 0.82% 0.71% 0.36% 0.15%
4271 Whirlpool Bridge Travellers 98.29% 99.56% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Source: CBSA systems data.

Discussions with senior managers at NHQ and in the regions and program documentation confirmed these variations, identified contributing factors, and outlined associated operational impacts. For example, interviewees suggested high levels of membership and passages in high volume POEs in the Pacific region may be associated with factors such as: cross-border population density POEs, employment characteristics, shopping, and entertainment attractions – in essence, factors contributing to “commuter culture”. In contrast, characteristics of low volume POEs such as physical location (e.g., distance from major cities and attractions) and typical type of passages (e.g., commercial traffic vs. traveller) were associated with low NEXUS passages.

Program studies and reviews support these views and identify key impacts for the Agency.Footnote 46 Program studies suggest that uptake in NEXUS program membership and passages vary with POE traffic types and lane configurations –POEs with higher commuter traffic will often have a higher uptake of NEXUS.Footnote 47 In addition, these studies found that, generally, benefits and impacts of NEXUS can be ranked using a model associated with volume. According to the research, high volume NEXUS POEs exhibit resource allocation efficiencies for the Agency. Specifically, the top five ranked POEs with high NEXUS volumes clearly exhibit impacts such as increased port capacity and reductions in border wait times during peak periods and resource avoidance.Footnote 48 Medium volume POEs were considered “resource neutral” – meaning that NEXUS lanes increased capacity for primary processing during peak hours but efficiencies were offset when NEXUS lanes were required to be open during non-peak periods to process few travellers. Low volume POEs were found to be “resource intensive” – meaning that the requirement of opening and staffing NEXUS lanes to process small volumes of NEXUS travellers during peak periods rather than PIL lanes can negatively impact overall reductions in border wait times and the effective use of resources.

Recommendation 4: The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should develop clear criteria to determine if there is a benefit to the Agency to provide NEXUS services at specific ports of entry and criteria to guide POEs to leverage NEXUS once implemented.

3.5.2. NEXUS in the Land Mode: Expedited Customs and Immigration Processing

Primary research for the evaluation shows NEXUS is expediting primary processing for members. NEXUS lane queues were 20 times quicker than conventional lane queues at a large POE during peak hours of high volume periods. In addition, the vast majority of NEXUS members are highly satisfied with recent land border crossings.

A key performance indicator for the Agency is Border Wait Time (BWT)Footnote 49 at land border POEs. The CBSA is currently developing BWT measurement system that is due for completion in March 2018.Footnote 50 [*]

[*]

The case study found NEXUS members consistently experienced shorter queue times across all three volume periods (Exhibit 12). The greatest differences were found in high and low volume periods during which the queue time for NEXUS travellers was 7 to 20 times faster than non-NEXUS travellers.

Exhibit 12: Maximum Queue Time for Border Processing-during High, Medium and Low Volume Periods

Travellers High Volume Medium Volume Low Volume
NEXUS members 0.95 minutes maximum 2.62 minutes maximum 0.21 minutes maximum
Non-NEXUS members 20.5 minutes maximum 14.8 minutes maximum 0.91 minutes maximum
Source: Case study by PED (2015) and CBSA systems data.

These findings are supported by an Agency review conducted at the Douglas POE (2014)Footnote 51 during the Family Day weekend. In total, NEXUS lanes processed 1.5 times more passages per hour (261.7) than the PIL lanes (156.7). In addition, the average wait time for PIL lanes (59.0 minutes) was ten times longer than those for NEXUS lanes (6.0 minutes).

To further demonstrate the impact of NEXUS lanes have on operations, the evaluation determined potential impacts on operations in a hypothetical case where the two dedicated NEXUS lanes did not exist or were unavailable during high volume periods. Exhibit 13 shows that on average, the total queue times for the two designated NEXUS lanes were twice as fast as the total queue time for all PIL lanes. Therefore, if the POE did not have 2 dedicated NEXUS lanes, it would require the use of four conventional lanes to meet the queue time of 0.42 minutes (as found in conventional lanes).

Exhibit 13: Case Study: Douglas POE Average Processing Time - High Volume Period

    NEXUS Conventional
High Volume
August 18 to 24, 2014
Average Peak Hours 0.24 minutes 0.49 minutes
Average Off-Peak Hours 0.19 minutes 0.43 minutes
High Volume Average 0.21 minutes 0.42 minutes
Overall Average 0.22 minutes 0.44 minutes
Source: Internal CBSA documentation and systems data

Feedback from NEXUS members indicates that the program is working well in terms of facilitating expedited passage (see Exhibit 14 below). The NEXUS client survey measured satisfaction levels of members who crossed a land border in the past 12 months. The data clearly shows NEXUS members are very satisfied with recent border crossings via NEXUS lanes. Overall, ninety percent of respondents reported that they were “very or somewhat satisfied” with: NEXUS wait times (96.4%), time of interaction with BSOs (95.1%); and, the access to designated NEXUS lanes (88.5%).

Exhibit 14: NEXUS Member Survey - Satisfaction with Land POE Experience

Exhibit 14: NEXUS Member Survey - Satisfaction with Land POE Experience

3.6. Program Performance: Achievement of Objectives - NEXUS Air Mode

3.6.1. Managing increased volumes of travellers through primary processing

NEXUS in the Air mode is enabling the CBSA to manage increasing volumes of travellers through customs and immigration primary processing at Tier 1 airports by directing low-risk traveller processing through NEXUS kiosks.

Nine of Canada’s airports have NEXUS capacity.Footnote 52 Montréal’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau (PET) and Toronto’s Pearson International Airport (PIA, Terminals 1 and 3) have the largest quantity of NEXUS kiosks with nine each, followed by Vancouver International Airport (VIA) with six.Footnote 53 Of these nine airports, only four have ABC kiosks as well: PET (42), PIA (Terminals 1 and 3, (20 each)), and VIA (35). The NEXUS Air program was first piloted at VIA in 2004, before being expanded to PIA in 2007. Expansion of the program to the remaining six airports was completed thereafter.

Over the five year scope of the evaluation, NEXUS in air mode has seen an increase in passages by 115% (from 659,226 to 1,419,049) while total passages increased 19.2% (23,480,243 to 27,977,757). For Canada’s Tier 1 airports total air passage volumes have increased from 22.9 million in FY 2010–2011 to 27.1 million in FY 2014–2015 – an increase of 4.2 million passages.Footnote 54 Forecasts for Tier 1 airports project that from now to 2030, traveller volumes will increase steadily between 32.9% to 99.5%.Footnote 55

Exhibit 15 shows that the proportion of NEXUS traveller passages against total passages has increased year over year – comprising more than five percent of total passages in FY 2014–2015.

Exhibit 15: Volume of National Air Passages by KIOSK FY2010–2011 to FY2014–2015Footnote 56

Exhibit 15: Volume of National Air Passages by KIOSK FY2010–2011 to FY2014–2015

Unlike the case for NEXUS in land mode where volume of passages via NEXUS lanes varied greatly among land POEs, in general passages via NEXUS kiosks have increased across all airports regardless of volume characteristics.

Exhibit 16 illustrates the national volume of passages via NEXUS kiosks at the 10 largest AOEs proportional to total passages.

Exhibit 16: Summary of Total NEXUS Kiosk Passages (%) at Tier 1 Airports: FY 2010–2011 to 2014–2015

Average Annual Passage Volume Airport of Entry FY 2010–2011 FY 2011–2012 FY 2012–2013 FY 2013–2014 FY 2014–2015
5 million or more 4971 - PIA Terminal I 4.32% 5.23% 5.88% 6.53% 6.98%
3 to 5 million 3961 - PET Airport Traveller 2.59% 3.07% 3.53% 3.97% 4.21%
8212 - VIA Traffic Ops 2.93% 3.44% 3.99% 4.31% 4.87%
4974 - PIA Terminal III 1.36% 1.67% 2.09% 2.46% 3.12%
500 thousand to <3 million 7011 - Traffic Ops Calgary 3.29% 4.27% 5.39% 6.33% 6.99%
7023 - Edmonton Traffic 2.35% 2.93% 3.49% 4.17% 4.57%
4312 - Ottawa Intl Airport 2.50% 2.93% 3.41% 4.14% 4.81%
<500 thousand 7593 - Halifax Intl Airport 1.12% 1.49% 1.95% 2.40% 2.73%
4952 - Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport 0.01% 3.76% 5.28% 5.74% 6.14%
5102 - Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson Intl Airport - traffic ops 1.08% 1.40% 2.03% 2.69% 3.23%
Source: CBSA systems data.

3.6.2. Expedited passage of Pre-Approved, low-risk Air Travellers

The evaluation found that travellers using NEXUS kiosks were processed more quickly than those processed at primary inspection lines or Automated Border Clearance (ABC) kiosks. In addition, external clients (e.g., airport authorities) view NEXUS as a key tool in managing high volumes of air travellers and are very satisfied with program performance.

A quicker primary processing of travellers is an advantage for both members and the Agency. For members, there is an obvious advantage of spending less time in lines, waiting or processing their documents, and therefore a faster transition to the next phase of their travel.

During the evaluation period, measures, systems and statistics within the Agency captured parts of, but not all aspects, of air travellers’ experience associated with customs and immigration primary processing in Canadian airports. For example, Agency data on “processing time” for ABC and NEXUS captures the processing time of the technology only. The Agency is still in the process of developing measures that will capture time in queues and interactions with BSOs. In order to compare the processing time of air travellers using different kiosks, the evaluation conducted a time motion study at two high volume Tier 1 airports (VIA and PIA (T1)).

The time motion study focused on measuring the time required for an air traveller’s progression from: entrance to “Customs Hall” or primary processing area; time spent in queues for a NEXUS or ABC kiosk or PIL; automated kiosk processing interactions at primary inspection, to final release by the BSO at point. Specifically, the study measured the time required for an automated kiosk to process travellersFootnote 57 and total time required to clear customs and immigration primary (see Exhibit 17).

Exhibit 17: Time Motion Study – Mean Time Required to Clear Customs and Immigration PrimaryFootnote 58

  Pearson International Airport (T1) minutes Vancouver International Airport - minutes
Primary Inspection Line (PIL) 2.95 18.9
Automated Border Clearance (ABC) 3.88 22.1
NEXUS 1.71 2.2
Source: PED Time Motion Study, PIA (Terminal I) and VIA.

As shown in Exhibit 17, travellers arriving at VIA or PIA, who used NEXUS kiosks, cleared customs and immigration primary more quickly than all other travellers. On average, NEXUS travellers were cleared two to three times faster (1.71 minutes) than travellers using ABC (3.88 minutes) and PIL (2.95 minutes). The greatest variation in traveller experiences was found at VIA. NEXUS travellers arriving at VIA had an average time approximately ten times faster (2.2 minutes) than travellers processed using ABC (22.1 minutes) and PIL (18.9 minutes).

The study demonstrates that even with an increase in both traveller volumes and NEXUS passages over the last five years, these two large airports are able to process their low-risk travellers significantly faster than through the other two routes of processing (PIL, ABC).

The impact of the expedited passage at major airports for NEXUS members are highlighted in the results of the NEXUS Member survey (see Exhibit 18). Overall, NEXUS members are highly satisfied with key components of air traveller processing. For example, the vast majority of respondents reported that they were “very satisfied/ somewhat satisfied” with the designated NEXUS lanes for pre-flight screening (CATSA, TSA) (92.7%), the time it took to use a NEXUS kiosk (95.1%), and their wait times to reach a kiosk (96.3%).

Exhibit 18: NEXUS Member Satisfaction with Airport Experience

Exhibit 18: NEXUS Member Satisfaction with Airport Experience

Based on field research at VIA and PIA, evaluators observed that NEXUS passengers who travel with carry-on only benefit the most from expedited primary processing as they do not have to wait to collect luggage at baggage carousels. In addition, at PIA, NEXUS travellers can access a separate line to show their declaration card to an officer before exiting the arrival hall. Although it cannot be said with certainty what benefit NEXUS members derive from this additional line, it does demonstrate that, at PIA at least, there is evidence that CBSA management is considering how to extend the benefits and efficiency of NEXUS beyond primary processing.

Interviews with airport authorities show that NEXUS is considered an important mechanism to enhance the continuum of air travellers’ experience. The CBSA’s function in clearing arriving passengers was seen as one component in the continuum where it is important to minimize wait times as much as possible. As such, NEXUS was considered an important component in helping to move travellers through the continuum. With this view, some airport authorities have partnered with the CBSA to enhance the level of NEXUS advertising in common halls to support increased membership and use of the card in air passages. This was considered important as airport authority representatives felt that NEXUS has not yet reached its saturation point, and there is room for additional growth.

3.6.3. Identification and validation of low-risk travellers

The CBSA has established a risk assessment process to identify low-risk travellers through its application and enrollment process and annual reviews.

[*]

It is difficult to clearly determine the level of TTP members’ compliance with program requirements and legislation because a compliance baseline has not yet been established across all modes and results provided by current measures are inconsistent.

The random referral function is relatively new to the Agency (formalized in 2011).Footnote 59 The goal of random referrals is to establish a compliance baseline so that the effectiveness of other types of referrals can be compared, existing risk indicators can be validated, and new trends/indicators in non-compliance can be identified.

[*]

[*]

Recommendation 5: The Vice-President of the Programs Branch, in consultation with the Vice-Presidents of the Operations and Information, Science and Technology Branches, should strengthen processes for ongoing monitoring and validation of NEXUS members' low-risk status and compliance with program requirements.

3.6.4. Focussed efforts on travellers of unknown and potentially high-risk

Data indicates that NEXUS in the air mode is achieving its objectives by focusing BSOs’ primary processing efforts on travellers of unknown and potentially high-risk and contributing to achieving better enforcement results. Indications of this achievement are most evident in the past three fiscal years.

To demonstrate that the implementation of NEXUS in the air mode allowed the CBSA to focus its resources on high and unknown risk travellers, the evaluation examined the evolution of BSOs workload in the air mode and associated impacts. Upon arrival at a Tier 1 Canadian AOE, there are currently four paths that travellers can follow for customs and immigration primary processing: IPIL, CBSA Special Services Counters, ABC and NEXUS kiosks. In addition to pre-arrival risking, such as targeting, the traveller’s interview with a BSO is considered as the most thorough and intensive intervention during the primary processing of air travellers. As a result, one would expect that the implementation of NEXUS would lead to BSOs focussing their attention on high and unknown risk passengers, such as, foreign nationals and conventional travellers and those who do not qualify or apply for TPP.

Air traveller passage data shows that ABC and NEXUS processing are having an impact on BSO activities at customs and primary processing at seven Tier 1 Canadian Airports. For example, prior to NEXUS implementation (FY 2003–2004), BSOs were interviewing 100% of all air travellers at IPIL. Twelve years after implementation (FY 2015–2016), the data shows that the proportion of air travellers interviewed by BSOs was 54.4% (refer to Appendix F, Exhibits D, E and F for more detailed graphics), as a result of NEXUS and ABC. The diversion impact was most evident since the introduction of ABC and continues to increase.

Exhibit 19 illustrates air traveller customs and immigration primary processing (pre and post implementation of NEXUS) at seven Tier 1 Canadian Airports for the past thirteen fiscal years. The data clearly shows that alternate processing paths (ABC and NEXUS) are meeting a key outcome for the Agency. The total number of air passages processed by BSOs at IPIL (compared to all passages) has been declining from FY 2009–2010 to present. During this period, the total number of passages processed by BSOs at IPIL declined by 22.7% (from 17,311,092 to 13,380,184).

Exhibit 19: Air Traveller Processing All Passage Paths vs. IPIL-Only (Air Mode) by Fiscal Year

Exhibit 19: Air Traveller Processing All Passage Paths vs. IPIL-Only (Air Mode) by Fiscal Year

Exhibit 20 further shows that the ABC and NEXUS implementation results in the diversion of high and unknown risk travellers to be interviewed by BSOs, which is consistent with the objective of focussing agency resources on these groups of travellers. The data shows that in the past four fiscal years, an increasing proportion of air travellers (specifically Canadian or U.S. residents) were diverted away from IPIL.Footnote 60 The proportion of air travellers processed by BSOs at IPIL declined from 72.7% (FY 2012–2013) of BSO workload to 57.6% (FY 2015–2016). During the same period, BSO activities at IPIL focussed on air travellers coded as “Other/Unknown” residencyFootnote 61 in CBSA systems – which may reflect travellers of “unknown or potential high-risk”, such as foreign nationals.Footnote 62 The proportion of ”Other/Unknown” residency travellers processed by BSOs increased from 29.3% (FY 2012–2013) to 42.4% (FY 2015–2016). This indicates that, ABC and NEXUS are allowing BSOs at customs and immigration primary to focus their attention on air travellers of “unknown or potential high-risk”. It should be noted that as the ABC usage increases over time, its diversion impact is more significant than NEXUS.

Exhibit 20: Characteristics of Air Traveller Passages through IPIL (Air Mode) (FY 2012–2013 to FY 2015–2016)

Exhibit 20: Characteristics of Air Traveller Passages through IPIL (Air Mode) (FY 2012–2013 to FY 2015–2016)

The impact of utilizing BSOs to focus on high and unknown risk travellers is reflected in the customs examination results. Exhibit 21 illustrates the resultant rates for customs examinations referred by IPIL, ABC or NEXUS. Despite the fluctuation of the overall enforcement resultant rate, there are indications that NEXUS is achieving its objectives.

Exhibit 21: Air Traveller Customs Examination Resultant Rates Post-NEXUS Implementation

Exhibit 21: Air Traveller Customs Examination Resultant Rates Post-NEXUS Implementation

In this select data set, the IPIL resultant rates are greater than the baseline of “overall resultant” rates for referrals from ABC, CANPASS, TRBP, NEXUS and IPIL combined from FY 2013–2014 forward. The resultant rate gap between IPIL (BSO referral) and the baseline increased to its widest margin of 0.24% in FY 2015–2016. During the same period, the resultant rates for customs examinations of pre-approved, low-risk referrals declined. This indicates that allowing BSOs to focus on air travellers of “unknown or potential high-risk” is yielding the results expected by the Agency. Although the data is specific to customs examinations, it is anticipated that the trend would be even clearer if resultants of immigration examinations are added to the data set. The contribution of NEXUS is most evident is the years prior to ABC implementation and the combined impact of the introduction of ABC and increase NEXUS usage is most evident in FY 2014–15, and FY 2015–16.

Finally, the evidence demonstrates that diverting high and unknown risk travellers to BSO for primary processing led to enforcement results that are more closely aligned with CBSA’s enforcement priorities. The evaluation team analysed data on the following enforcement priorities: Smuggling and Contraband (Controlled Substances, Contraband Tobacco, Firearms Smuggling, Counter-Proliferation, and Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) outlined in the Integrated Intelligence/Enforcement Priorities 2011–2012 to 2013–2014.Footnote 63 Overall, 67.8% of the seizures referred by BSOs at IPIL reflect these priorities; only 26.2% of NEXUS enforcement was aligned with these enforcement priorities. This shows that NEXUS risking succeeded in identifying high and unknown risk travellers to be processed by BSOs, or BSOs were more capable of risk assessing at primary processing, or a combination of these two factors.

Exhibits 22 and 23 illustrate the types of seizures made by the Agency during customs secondary examinations of air travellers referred by IPIL and NEXUS.

Exhibit 22: Air Traveller Customs Seizures Referred by IPIL (Air Mode)Footnote 64, Post-NEXUS (FY 2013–2014 to FY2015–2016)

Exhibit 22: Air Traveller Customs Seizures Referred by IPIL (Air Mode) , Post-NEXUS (FY 2013–2014 to FY2015–2016)

Exhibit 23: Air Traveller Customs Seizures Referred by NEXUS (Air Mode), Post-NEXUS (FY2013–2014 to FY 2015–2016)

Exhibit 23: Air Traveller Customs Seizures Referred by NEXUS (Air Mode), Post-NEXUS (FY2013–2014 to FY 2015–2016)

In summary, the creation and implementation of NEXUS has allowed BSOs to focus their efforts on high and unknown risk air traveller, such as foreign nationals, rather than the entire air traveller population. As the NEXUS membership and passages increased, in combination with the introduction of ABC, BSOs were able to generate better enforcement results, more closely aligned with the Agency’s enforcement priorities.

3.7. Program Performance: Achievement of Objectives - NEXUS Marine Mode

NEXUS marine is contributing to the identification and expedited processing of travellers entering Canada via private vessels. NEXUS members arriving in Canada via private vessel are highly satisfied with the program.

In the past five fiscal years, Travellers passages into Canada via private vessel (who reported to the TRC) have increased by 25% (from 54,368 to 67,988). As the information in Exhibit 24 shows, during this period the vast majority of reported passages were by non-TTP members (82%). But, an increasing proportion of reported passages are TTP members — specifically NEXUS members. Overall, the reported passages by NEXUS members have increased by 44.4% in the past 5 fiscal years.

Exhibit 24: Volume of Marine Passages Reported to the TRC FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015

Exhibit 24: Volume of Marine Passages Reported to the TRC FY 2010–2011 to FY 2014–2015

One of the benefits for NEXUS travellers is when calling the CBSA TRC to report entry to Canada, member’s calls are prioritized. Field research and Agency data indicates that incoming calls to the TRC are prioritized according to membership in TTP. Similar to the NEXUS lanes at highway POEs, NEXUS member calls are placed higher in the call queue so that they speak with a BSO sooner than non-NEXUS members.

NEXUS marine processing is similar to conventional marine traveller processing. BSOs at the TRC fulfil the same role as their colleagues at PIL in the land or air modes. Based on BSO discretion, marine travellers can be referred to designated reporting sites for a secondary examination. NEXUS members have the benefit of reporting to marinas designated as “NEXUS-only” reporting sites in order to expedite processing. [*] In effect, this means that travellers arriving by private vessel, regardless of TTP membership, are processed in a similar manner at marine telephone reporting sites and marinas.

Overall, NEXUS members are highly satisfied with key components of marine traveller processing. As Exhibit 25 shows, the vast majority of respondents reported that they were “very satisfied/ somewhat satisfied” with the NEXUS reporting protocols.

Exhibit 25: NEXUS Member Survey: Satisfaction with General Aspects (Marine Mode)

Exhibit 25: NEXUS Member Survey: Satisfaction with General Aspects (Marine Mode)

3.8. Program Performance: NEXUS Program Delivery

[*]

[*]

Recommendation 6: The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should clarify and communicate the roles and responsibilities of Trusted Traveller Programs Management.

3.9. Program Performance: Future Considerations

NEXUS memberships and passages have grown steadily over the past five fiscal years and indications are that it will likely continue to increase. These increases may have impacts on the administration and delivery of the program.

At present, Enrolment Centres (ECs) are managing the increasing number of applications, renewals and reapplications. There are indications that ECs are reaching their capacity with the current human and financial resources they have. [*]

The Agency will also be modernizing its primary inspection technology in the form of Primary Inspection Kiosks, or PIK, in the near future (full implementation currently planned for summer 2018). PIK is expected to alleviate growing pressures in travel volume by providing the next iteration of kiosk technology to more airports, processing more travellers. Present ABC technology is only available for Canadian and U.S. citizens, PRs and Trusted Travellers, and PIK would include these three categories plus foreign travellers. Once PIK is fully implemented, kiosks will process the E311s, biometric, taxes and duties of Canadian citizens and PRs, U.S and foreign nationals. The investment in PIK technology is a demonstration of greater collaboration between airport authorities and CBSA in an effort to continue to streamline, modernize and facilitate an expedited traveller experience. The airport authorities have agreed to cover the costs associated with kiosk procurement, installation, and maintenance at their respective airports. What remains to be seen is the impact that PIK will have on the traveller experience and NEXUS members. For example, whether the various additional components of kiosk processing (E311s, duties and payment) will extend queues to processing and, subsequently, wait times. The evaluation suggests that the implementation of PIK take into consideration the effect it will have on NEXUS traveller processing if separate queues are not maintained.

The evaluation found that over the five years examined, national outreach activities had been reduced. For example only seven conventions were attended by NHQ representatives, and other activities were conducted on an ad hoc basis in the regions. Based on this success, targeted outreach activities could support the program in gauging its growth potential, market reach and demand in areas with limited public uptake, as well as options for future iterations of the program (for example, agreements with other countries to become part of the program).

3.10. Program Performance: Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy - NEXUS

Human and financial resource as well as volumetric data related to the Trusted Traveller Programs is undergoing development via the Costing and Analytical Model that will facilitate assessment of efficiency and economy, including value for money, in future evaluations.

Efficiency is defined as the “extent to which resources are used such that a greater level of output/outcome is produced with the same level of input or, a lower level of input is used to produce the same level of output/outcome. The level of input and output/outcome could be increased or decreased in quantity, quality, or both.” Footnote 65 Generally the efficiency of a program is determined by comparison of human and financial resources expended against outputs and impact(s) of those investments. Determining the efficiency of the NEXUS program is a challenge for this evaluation. There was no single set of human and financial resource data for the evaluation period which was collected in a consistent and standardized format that all internal stakeholders recognized as the resources utilized to achieve the expected results or objectives of the program. Requests for financial information yielded two sets of data that presented significantly different figures.

One vetted data sets utilized for the internal NEXUS Financial Review (NFR) included information on program costs and deficits, and as well as efficiency gains for FY 2009–2010 through FY 2014–2015.Footnote 66 This information reports that expenditures totalled $33,026,371 in FY 2014–2015. Alternatively, the Costing and Analytical Model (CAM) from Comptrollership Branch reported total NEXUS program expenditures at $10,037,906.31 for FY 2014–2015Footnote 67 — a variance of $22,988,464.70. There are a number of factors that may contribute to the variation in financial numbers. For example, the CAM data only includes expenditures for medium, large and extra-large POEs; and, the data includes different counts and coding. Consultations with Comptrollership staff indicate that the CAM takes into account activities that are coded to NEXUS and therefore the discrepancy between expenditure figures may be due to the costs not accounted for in the Manual, such as IT costs or program management.

Although this challenge limited the evaluation team’s ability to conduct an independent analysis of program efficiency, the evaluation examined the NFR and found it presents useful information on the efficiency of NEXUS. To minimize duplications of work and make use of past research, select NFR findings are presented as examples of efficiency.

Although NEXUS program costs increased between FY 2011–2012 and FY 2013–2014, the program has maintained or improved efficiencies in key areas.

Between FY 2011 and FY 2014 NEXUS program costsFootnote 68 have increased 50.3% from $21,975,150 to $33,026,371. A significant portion of program costs are comprised of application processing (44%) and passage costs (37%). For FY 2014, program costs exceeded program funding by 46.6%. The NFR assessed the program’s cumulative deficit point to be $4.1 million.

Applications have been increasing over the last five yearsFootnote 69 and as a result, application processing has also increased. However, the report demonstrated that the processing of applications has become more efficient between FY 2011 and FY 2014 as the cost per application has decrease from $61 to $42.

Recommendation 7: The Vice President of the Programs Branch, supported by the Vice President of the Comptrollership Branch, should establish a methodology to collect, analyze and report on performance and overall resources (human and financial resources, information technology, etc.) required to achieve the expected results of the NEXUS Program.


Appendix A – Management Response and Action Plan

Overall Management Response:

The Programs, Operations and Comptrollership Branches agree with the Recommendations provided within this evaluation. Steps have already been taken to ensure that many of the risks identified in the evaluation are in the process of being resolved.

[*] A strategy regarding the future of CANPASS Private Air and Corporate Air will be developed by Programs Branch. It will also develop criteria to determine if there is a benefit to the Agency to provide NEXUS service at specific ports of entry (POEs) and criteria to guide POEs to leverage NEXUS once implemented.

The process for ongoing monitoring and validation of NEXUS members' low-risk status and compliance with program requirements will be strengthened through the implementation of regulatory amendments and by providing operational guidance. Programs Branch will define and communicate the roles and responsibilities of Trusted Traveller Programs Management.

Programs Branch will also establish a methodology to develop a NEXUS program annual summary using the financial information on overall resources provided by Comptrollership Branch. As well, Programs Branch will explore the feasibility to expand the trusted traveller programs’ participation. This management action plan will be implemented by April 2018.

Recommendation 1:

[*]

Management Response:
[*]
[*] [*]
[*] [*]

Recommendation 2:

The Vice-President of Programs Branch should develop a strategy regarding the future of CANPASS Private Air and Corporate Air.

Management Response:
Programs Branch agrees with the Recommendation to develop a strategy regarding the future of CANPASS Private Air and Corporate Air by March 2017.
[*] [*]
[*] [*]

Recommendation 3:

The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should explore the feasibility of expanding the trusted traveller programs, including NEXUS eligibility criteria and benefits, to increase participation.

Management Response:
The Programs Branch agrees with this Recommendation to explore the feasibility to expand the trusted traveller program, including NEXUS eligibility criteria and benefits, to increase participation, by January 2018.
[*] [*]
[*] [*]

Recommendation 4:

The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should develop clear criteria to determine if there is a benefit to the Agency to provide NEXUS service at specific ports of entry and criteria to guide POEs to leverage NEXUS once implemented.

Management Response:
Programs Branch agrees with the Recommendation to develop clear criteria to determine if there is a benefit to the Agency to provide NEXUS service at specific POEs and criteria to guide POEs to leverage NEXUS once implemented by September 2017.
[*] [*]
[*] [*]

Recommendation 5:

The Vice-President of the Programs Branch, in consultation with the Vice-Presidents of the Operations and Information, Science and Technology Branches, should strengthen processes for ongoing monitoring and validation of NEXUS members' low-risk status and compliance with program requirements.

Management Response:
Programs Branch agrees with the Recommendation to develop clear criteria to determine if there is a benefit to the Agency to provide NEXUS service at specific POEs and criteria to guide POEs to leverage NEXUS once implemented by September 2017.
[*] [*]
[*] [*]

Recommendation 6:

The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should clarify and communicate the roles and responsibilities of Trusted Traveller Programs Management.

Management Response:
The Programs Branch agrees with this Recommendation and will clarify and communicate the roles and responsibilities of Trusted Traveller Programs Management by June 2017.
[*] [*]
[*] [*]

Recommendation 7:

The Vice-President of the Programs Branch, supported by the Vice-President of Comptrollership Branch, should establish a methodology to collect, analyze and report on performance and overall resources (human and financial resources, information technology, etc.) required to achieve the expected results of the NEXUS Program.

Management Response:
The Programs and Comptrollership Branches agree with the Recommendation. Programs Branch will commit to establish a standardized methodology to report on performance data of the NEXUS program’s results. In addition, Comptrollership Branch will provide financial information required to report on overall resources by April 2018.
[*] [*]
[*] [*]

Appendix B – Background for CANPASS Suite and NEXUS

CANPASS

CANPASS is a suite of programs that expedite border crossings from the United States into Canada for low-risk, pre-approved travellers (a citizen or permanent resident (PR) of Canada or the United States (U.S.)), and, in the case of CANPASS Air, from anywhere in the world when entering Canada. Please see Appendix E for detailed eligibility criteria and benefits.

The CANPASS Suite of programs was initiated in 1995 as a pilot project in the land mode to replace the Peace Arch Crossing Entry that combined pre-approval processing, express lanes, a self-declaration card, and an automated billing system to accelerate border crossings.Footnote 70 Suite components in the air and marine modes were implemented in FY1996-97 and operated until September 11, 2001, when CANPASS was suspended while Canada and the U.S. explored methods for enhanced risk assessment scrutiny used for border passage determinations as per the Shared Border Accord (SBA).Footnote 71

In 2002, the CANPASS Suite (including CANPASS Air, CANPASS Private Boats, CANPASS Private Aircraft, CANPASS Corporate Aircraft) was reinstated. CANPASS Land was not reinstated as early pilot testing showed it had not reached its potential.Footnote 72 It was replaced by NEXUS Land following successful pilot testing at the Blue Water Bridge.Footnote 73

NEXUS

NEXUS membership offers expedited entry processing to eligible citizens or PR of Canada or the U.S. entering Canada or the U.S. by land, air or marine. NEXUS uses biometric technology as one component of identification: iris scans are optional and only used when travelling in the air mode (for entry into Canada), and fingerprints and photos (for entry into the U.S.). Please see Appendix H for a detailed list of NEXUS eligibility criteria and member benefits.

NEXUS first began as a pilot project at Sarnia Bluewater Bridge in 2002, replacing CANPASS Land after unsatisfactory results. Footnote 74 The program was subsequently expanded to British Columbia and Ontario in FY 2002-03 and included the use of Radio-frequency Identification (RFID) technology to expedite land crossings. NEXUS in the land mode underwent three significant expansion phases in 2007–2009, 2013–2013, and 2014–2016.Footnote 75

Prior to this restructuring, each component was functioning as a separate entity.Footnote 76 Harmonization supports standardized application processing of new and returning members via two streams: electronic enrolment via the CBP GOES website or manual enrolment of application documentation by mail. In addition, the harmonization guides the management of admittance, risking, re-risking, revocation and redress functions to ensure controls for risking, approval and monitoring of low-risk traveller membership are in place.Footnote 77

Appendix C – Summary of Methodologies

Document and Literature Review

In preparation for this evaluation, team members reviewed previously-conducted studies and the terms of reference (where available) for ongoing and future studies to avoid research duplication and to minimize operational disruption. In addition, they read and summarized a variety of related documentation.

International Comparison

An international comparison was undertaken, looking at two distinct elements. One focus was on how other countries expedited the flow of legitimate travellers in all modes (land, air and marine). The other focus considered the latest developments and trends in related technology. The goal of this international comparison will be to distil the trends and best practices in traveller processing which may be applicable in Canada.

Performance Data Analysis

Performance data was analyzed to demonstrate the extent to which trusted traveller programs are achieving their expected outcomes. Key data points include the following:

Financial Data Analysis

A comprehensive review of the NEXUS financial data was completed in April 2015. Additional financial data for CANPASS, conventional and ABC traveller processing was used to complete the analysis. Differences in data collection and the programs’ objectives were noted to make comparisons as accurate as possible.

Survey

A survey of current and past NEXUS members was conducted to capture their experiences with application process (initial and renewal) and at POEs in different modes, as well as the value they place on their membership benefits. A separate short survey will be sent to past members who did not renew their NEXUS or CANPASS membership to inquire why they chose not renew. Considering that an average of 51% of members do not renew, knowing their reasons could help with member retention strategies in the future. The surveys were conducted near the end of the research phase and results will be assessed for the margin of error and confidence interval.

Field Research

Through observation, formal and informal discussions with regional BSOs and program management, the evaluation team learned how the program is run, managed at the POEs visited. Field research covered off the following activities:

Group Interview

The evaluation team conducted one or two 90-minute group interviews per field research location for a total of five to ten group interviews. Each group interview was comprised of four to six BSOs and focussed on operational differences between the traveller streams (i.e. trusted, conventional, ABC), and the impacts of the trusted traveller processing on POE operations.

Key Informant Interviews

The objective of the key informant interview was to gather in-depth information of program design and delivery, performance measurement, program impacts, and areas for improvement. Key informant discussions complement evidence gathered as part of this evaluation, as they provided qualitative information that may clarify, corroborate, and contextualize data collected through other methodologies. Discussions will be held with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) within the Programs and Operations Branches at NHQ and in the Regions, and with other Branches as required.

Social Media Analysis

The objective of social media analysis was to assess the potential reach and impact of the CBSA’s messaging via its social media accounts.

Appendix D –– CANPASS Private Boat, Private and Corporate Air Passages

Exhibit A: National TRC CANPASS Private Boat Passages FY 2010–2011 – FY 2014–2015

Exhibit A: National TRC CANPASS Private Boat Passages FY 2010–2011 – FY 2014–2015

Exhibit B: National TRC CANPASS Air Passages FY 2010–2011 – FY 2014–2015

Exhibit B: National TRC CANPASS Air Passages FY 2010–2011 – FY 2014–2015

Appendix E –– CANPASS Suite Membership Renewal Rates

Exhibit C: National CANPASS Membership RenewalFootnote 78 Rates FY 2010–2011 to FY 2015–2016

Exhibit C: National CANPASS Membership Renewal  Rates FY 2010–2011 to FY 2015–2016

Appendix F – Air Traveller Processing and Customs Seizures Pre & Post-NEXUS

Exhibit D: Air Traveller Processing – Pre-NEXUS FY 2003–2004 (n=11,454,895)

Exhibit D: Air Traveller Processing – Pre-NEXUS FY 2003–2004 (n=11,454,895)

Exhibit E: Air Traveller Processing – 6 Years Post-NEXUS FY 2009–2010 (n=18,033,931)

Exhibit E: Air Traveller Processing – 6 Years Post-NEXUS FY 2009–2010 (n=18,033,931)

Exhibit F: Air Traveller Processing – 12 Years Post-NEXUS FY 2015–2016 (n=24,568,949)

Exhibit F: Air Traveller Processing – 12 Years Post-NEXUS FY 2015–2016 (n=24,568,949)

Exhibit G: Customs Seizures Referred by IPILFootnote 79, Post-NEXUS (FY 2013–2014 to FY 2015–2016)

Exhibit G: Customs Seizures Referred by IPIL , Post-NEXUS (FY 2013–2014 to FY 2015–2016)

Exhibit H: Customs Seizures Referred by NEXUS, Post-NEXUS (FY 2013–2014 to FY 2015–2016)

Exhibit H: Customs Seizures Referred by NEXUS, Post-NEXUS (FY 2013–2014 to FY 2015–2016)

Appendix G –– Administrative and Membership Summary CANPASS SuiteFootnote 80

  CANPASS Air CANPASS Private Boat CANPASS Private Aircraft CANPASS Corporate Aircraft
Processing/ Issuance Fee $50 $40 $40 $40
Membership Duration 1 year 5 years 5 years 5 years
Application Process Submit paper application only Submit paper application only Submit paper application only Submit paper application only
Eligibility

Air only:

  • Citizens: Canadian and U.S.
  • Permanent Residents of Canada and U.S.: A three-year residency in Canada and/or the U.S. is required (some exceptions may apply).
  • Admissible to Canada under current immigration laws;
  • Have no criminal record for which they have not received a pardon/record suspension from the Court or the conviction is not part of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC);
  • Have not contravened the program legislation in the last six years;
  • Provide their consent in writing to the use of biometric data, and,
  • Provide true, accurate and complete information in respect of the authorization.

Private Boat, Private and Corporate Aircraft:
Same as above except that the citizens of Canada and the U.S. must also adhere to the three-year residency requirements.

CPC Process

Data keying; risking; fee processing

Data keying; risking; fee processing

Data keying; risking; fee processing

Data keying; risking; fee processing

Enrolment Process

In-person interview at an Enrolment Centre (EC) to finalize enrolment.

Mandatory referral upon first passage to finalize enrolment.

Mandatory referral upon first passage to finalize enrolment.

Mandatory referral upon first passage to finalize enrolment.

Card Features and Issuance

Features:
MRZ, photo and biographical data displayed on card.

Issuance

  • Initial and yearly renewal and full fee (no fee for children under 18).
  • Re-instatement, Lost or Stolen – member reapplies: No charge.

Features:
Paper permit - Contains no security features

Issuance:

  • Initial and renewal and full fee (no fee for children under 18) every five years.
  • Re-instatement, Lost or Stolen – member reapplies: No charge.
[*] [*]
Passage

[*]
Uses Special Services Counter (SSC) at nine specific international airports. Payment of duty and taxes: TDC card or cashier

A first and second call through the TRC are requested.
BSOs provide the necessary procedures to follow before docking/landing.
All passengers must be members to use designated CANPASS reporting sites.

CANPASS Private Boat:
At least 30 minutes but not more than 4 hours before arrival

CANPASS Private and Corporate Aircraft:
At least 2 hours but no more than 48 hours before arrival

Renewals

Membership term is one (1) year

Every five (5) years – same as new application

Every five (5) years – same as new application

Every five (5) years – same as new application

Recourse

Tier 1: Individual challenges HQ Recourse because of a suspension/cancellation.
Recourse analyzes the case, takes a decision and writes to the individual accordingly.
Tier 2: If individual doesn’t agree: Federal Court

Enforcement

Pending criminal charge or outstanding warrant: Reject application) suspension of membership.
Court Order to surrender travel documents: Rejection (application), suspension of membership.
Criminal convictions included in the CCC which they have not received a pardon/record suspension from the Court: Rejection (application) cancellation of membership.
Lack of compliance with legislation with program legislation: Reject application and cancellation of membership.

Appendix H – Comparison of NEXUS and CANPASS ProgramsFootnote 81

Exhibit I: Comparison of NEXUS and CANPASS

  NEXUS CANPASS
Client Groups Canadian and U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents Canadian and U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents who have lived in Canada and/or the U.S. continuously for the last three years
Modes Air, Marine and Land Air, Marine, Corporate Aircraft and Private Aircraft
Fee $50 / 5 years – multimodal $40 / 5 years – Corporate Air, Private Air and Private Boat $50/1 year – CANPASS Air
Card Features and Issuance

Features: RFID chip, security features optical variable device, optically variable ink, tactile features, MRZ, photo and biographical data displayed on card, etc.

Issuance:
1. Initial and Renewal – all require re-applications and full fee (except for children under 18).
2. Re-instatement, Lost or Stolen –a new picture will be required and a fee to be re-issued a card will be required. (Defective cards are replaced free of charge).

Features: MRZ, photo and biographical data displayed on card (Air only)
Private Aircraft/Corporate Aircraft/Private Boats: Paper permit

Issuance:
1. Initial and Renewal, – all require re-applications and full fee (except for children under 18)
2. Re-instatement, Lost or Stolen –no charge.

Eligibility Criteria
  • Citizens of Canada or the U.S.
  • A three-year residency in Canada and U.S. is required for PRs of Canada and the U.S. (some exceptions may apply).
  • Admissible to Canada and the U.S. under current immigration laws;
  • Have no criminal record for which they have not received a pardon/record suspension from the Court or the conviction is not part of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC);
  • Have not contravened the program legislation;
  • Provide their consent in writing to the use of biometric data and fingerprints.
  • Provide true, accurate and complete information in respect of the authorization.
  • From the perspective of the CBP, persons subject to an ongoing investigation by any federal, state or local law enforcement agency are not eligible.

Air only:

  • Citizens of Canada or the U.S.
  • PRs of Canada and the U.S. require a three-year residency in Canada and U.S. is requested (some exceptions may apply).
  • Admissible to Canada under current immigration laws.
  • Have no criminal record for which they have not received a pardon/record suspension from the Court or the conviction is not part of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC);
  • Have not contravened the program legislation in last six years;
  • Provide their consent in writing to the use of biometric data,
  • Provide true, accurate and complete information in respect of the authorization.

Private Boat, Private and Corporate Aircraft:
Same as above except that citizens of Canada and the U.S. must also adhere to the three-year residency requirement

Application Process Submit application online or by mail Submit paper application only
CPC Process For paper: data keying; risking; fee processing
For electronic: risking only
For paper: data keying; risking; fee processing
For electronic: n/a
Enrolment Interview (Canada and U.S.), photo (U.S.), fingerprints (U.S.), iris (CA) Air: Interview, photo
Private Boats/Corporate Air/Private Air:
No interview, photo or iris
[*] [*] [*]
Renewals

Renewals (every five years): Canada and U.S.

Risking: same as new application;
Interviews: based on risking results and set parameters

Photo: may be retaken. Fingerprints may be retaken with new photo capture

Iris (optional for Air only)

Air: annually — see above
Private Boats/Corporate Air/Private Air: every five years — same as new application

Passage

[*]

Air: Kiosk with iris and membership card; payment of duty and taxes via TDC deposit box or cashier

Land: RFID card scan; payment via TDC deposit box or cashier; option for oral declaration

Marine: A first and second calls through the TRC are requested.
BSOs provide the necessary procedures to follow before docking.

[*]

Air: SSC, payment of duty and taxes via TDC deposit box or cashier.

Private Boat, Private and Corporate Aircraft: A first and second call through the TRC are requested. BSOs provide the necessary procedures to follow before docking/landing.

Land: n/a

Recourse

Tier 1: The individual challenges HQ Recourse because of a suspension/cancellation.
Recourse analyzes the case, takes a decision and writes to the individual accordingly.

Tier 2: If individual doesn’t agree: Federal Court

Enforcement Pending criminal charge or outstanding warrant: Put on hold (application) suspension of membership.
Court Order to surrender travel documents: Rejection (application), suspension of membership.
Criminal convictions included in the CCC which they have not received a pardon/record suspension from the Court: Rejection (application) cancellation of membership.
Lack of compliance with legislation with program legislation: Cancellation.

Exhibit J: Summary of Comparative Analysis of CANPASS Suite and NEXUS

  Congruence Summary of Comparison of Current Characteristics
Client Group Very High Target NEXUS client group is more inclusive than that for CANPASS SuiteFootnote 82
Modes Medium NEXUS covers more modes than CANPASS (air, marine and land). Key difference: CANPASS only program that addresses private aircraft (CANPASS Private and Corporate Air)
Fee High NEXUS fee offers more benefits (privileges, multi-mode access and duration) than CANPASS. Key difference: 1 year duration of CANPASS Air
Card Features and Issuance Very High NEXUS card features meet & exceed card standards for CANPASS Air card, while other CANPASS programs use paper permits. Issuance protocols are very similar.
Eligibility Criteria Very High NEXUS eligibility criteria are very similar to CANPASS.
Application Process Very High NEXUS offers online as well as paper-based application options.
CPC Process Very High NEXUS follows similar CPC process to CANPASS but includes risking activities for applications submitted electronically.
Enrolment Very High NEXUS enrollment protocols (Interview, photo, fingerprints, and iris scan) meet and exceed those for the CANPASS Suite. With the exception of CANPASS Air, there are no protocols for CANPASS Suite.
Risking Very High NEXUS risking protocols meet and exceed those for the CANPASS SuiteFootnote 83.
Renewal Very High NEXUS renewal protocols meet and exceed those for the CANPASS Suite.
Passage Medium NEXUS and CANPASS passage protocols are very similar in the air and marine modes. Key differences: NEXUS protocols for Land passage and passage protocols for private aircraft are unique.
Recourse Very High NEXUS and CANPASS recourse protocols are very similar
Enforcement Medium Enforcement protocols are relatively similar.

Appendix I – Benefits of CANPASS Suite of Programs for Members and the CBSA

CANPASS AIR

Benefits for Member Travellers Benefits for the CBSA
  • Expedited processing for entry to Canada at the nine major international airports at Special Services Counters only.
  • Canadian members can report any goods that exceed personal exemptions with the Traveller Declaration Card (TDC).
  • Enrollment in the program is free for member dependants under the age of 18.
  • CANPASS AIR allows the Agency to pre-identify trusted travellers who do not quality for NEXUS or choose to remain in a domestic program.
  • In total, this comprises 1,627 members who are not NEXUS members.
Issues and Considerations
As NEXUS is introduced and membership expands, the advantages of CANPASS Air diminish for the majority of Canadian travellers.
Impact: Low membership in CANPASS Air means that CANPASS Air does not contribute significantly to streamlining processing or allow the agency to focus on high-risk travellers
[*]
[*]

CANPASS PRIVATE BOAT

Benefits for Member Travellers Benefits for the CBSA
  • If all travellers on the vessel are CANPASS Private Boat members, then the vessel can enter Canada at any of the 431 marinas/ designated reporting sites for clearance.
  • Returning to Canada, members can phone/report to the Telephone Reporting Centre (TRC) between 30 minutes and 4 hours prior to their estimated time of arrival.
  • In contrast, non-CANPASS members must proceed to a designated site and call the TRC to request entry into Canada and remain on board until clearance is received or officers arrive to examine the vessel and travellers.
  • CANPASS Private Boat Program allows the Agency to pre-identify trusted travellers who have yet to migrate to NEXUS.
  • In total, this comprises 1,237 members who are not (or do not qualify to be) NEXUS members.
Issues and Considerations
As NEXUS is introduced and membership expands, the advantages of CANPASS Private Boat are benefits for an increasingly small proportion of Canadian travellers.
Impact: Low membership in CANPASS Private Boat means that it does not contribute significantly to streamlining processing or allow the Agency to focus on high-risk travellers.
In practice, private CANPASS members and non-members alike are making use of designated member-only reporting sites (marinas). This dilutes member benefits for low-risk travellers.
[*]
[*]

CANPASS PRIVATE AIR

Benefits for Member Travellers Benefits for the CBSA
  • A CANPASS Private Aircraft can carry up to 15 passengers and crew.
  • CANPASS Private Air members enjoy expedited clearance if all passengers on board are members.
  • Aircrafts that meet CANPASS Private Air requirements can land at any airport of entry (AOE) during business hours, regardless of the hours of operation of the local CBSA office.
  • CANPASS Private Aircraft members can also land at designated CANPASS-only airports.
  • [*]
  • CANPASS Private Aircraft allows the Agency to obtain information on travellers on private aircraft
  • In total, this comprises 7,581 members.
  • Through this program, the Agency can maintain eyes and ears on this specific clientele, and pre-identify incoming travellers who will land at non-major airports.
Issues and Considerations
Currently, there are no alternative programs that serve this clientele and NEXUS does not offer equivalent benefits.
CANPASS Private Aircraft members continue to engage the CBSA on matters regarding their membership.
[*]

Appendix J – Comparison of International Trusted Traveller Programs

  Canada/ U.S. – NEXUS Canada – CANPASS Air USA – Global Entry Mexico – Global Entry Netherlands – Privium Germany – Registered Traveller Program The Republic of Korea – SES-Global Entry UK – Registered Traveller Service
Biometrics Photo, Fingerprints, Iris (air travel only Photo Photo, Fingerprints Fingerprints Iris Facial recognition Fingerprints + Facial recognition Facial recognition
Fee (Canadian dollars) $50 $50 US$100 $100 Privium: €121-€205
FLUX: €135
There is no fee $100 £70
($146)
Length of membership (years) 5 1 5 5 1 in Privium/FLU Membership length dependent on passport 5 1
Estimated participants 1.2 million 1,627 2 million 2 million 48,000 No Information Found 1 million No Information Found
Number of partnerships 1 0 6 6 31 EasyPass: 33 1 9
Airport Processing time (seconds) 45 29 No Information
Found
No Information
Found
12 10-15 12 30-45
Interface Kiosk   Kiosk Kiosk Gate eGate Auto-gate Gate
Access NEXUS card CANPASS card ePassport, GE Card ePassport, GE Card Privium card ePassport ePassport ePassport
Modes Land, Marine, Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air, Land
Date modified: