VZCZCXRO8427
RR RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHQU RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #2035/01 3092218
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 052218Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6854
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 1763
RHFJUSC/BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION WASHDC
RHMFIUU/CDR NORAD PETERSON AFB CO
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHDC
RULSJGA/COMDT COGARD WASHDC
RUEAHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHDC
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RHMFIUU/HQ USNORTHCOM
RUEAIAO/HQ ICE IAO WASHINGTON DC
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 OTTAWA 002035 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KCRM PGOV ASEC KHLS ECON CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. - CANADA BORDER IN 2007: GROUND TRUTH AND 
POLICY IMPLICATIONS (PART I OF III - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
SUMMARY 
------------------------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Managing U.S.-Canada relations means managing the 
border.  It's that simple.  And that makes the border the 
number one priority for Mission Canada.  For the past year 
dozens of officers from the Embassy and our seven consulates 
have fanned out across Canada to observe the border and 
discuss border issues with citizens and officials of both 
Canada and the United States.  Their conclusions and analysis 
are collected here, together with recommendations on how we 
can better manage our compelling national interest along this 
vital frontier. 
 
¶2. (SBU) In general, the border works well, but there are 
places where increases in traffic and trade amidst aging or 
outdated infrastructure are causing unnecessarily long wait 
times.  We saw significant but piecemeal progress in border 
modernization.  We learned that the United States and Canada 
view the border differently, both in terms of its importance 
and the relative prioritization of security and openness, but 
both countries highly value the north-south linkages and the 
unique cross-border communities that dot the frontier.  We 
found that each border crossing has its own unique 
personality, which requires policy and regulatory flexibility 
to manage well.  We saw that the current environment is 
dominated by WHTI and the new post-9/11 security measures, 
particularly unilateral initiatives from the U.S. side. 
Finally, the sense we got from the ground was that the 
security threat is real but manageable without resorting to 
draconian, disruptive procedures. 
 
¶3. (SBU) A number of concrete recommendations flow from these 
conclusions.  First, both countries need to more 
systematically manage improvements to border infrastructure. 
Secondly, we need to focus constantly on port of entry 
staffing, which can be a major factor in managing border 
flow.  Thirdly, the two governments should continue an open 
dialogue on how to further the agenda on cooperative policing 
and information sharing.  Fourth, we must inform the public 
in real time about changes, security, and regulations 
affecting the border.   Finally, we need a more systematic 
way to manage bilateral border issues, something akin to the 
Bilateral Consultative Group on counter-terrorism, which 
convenes all agencies on an annual basis to review issues and 
advance the agenda.   Maintaining the historically unique 
cross-border travel and trade relations, while ensuring 
security of both countries is all about managing change, and 
we hope that this cable will contribute to our ability to do 
so. 
 
¶4. (SBU) This is a three-part cable series.  Part I covers 
the summary, conclusions, and recommendations.  Part II 
reviews ports of entry, the economy, and environmental 
issues.  Part III involves immigration, First Nations issues, 
WHTI, and cross border law enforcement. 
 
AMBASSADOR'S INTRODUCTION 
------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) On behalf of Mission Canada, I would like to  invite 
anyone with even a passing interest in our northern  border 
to peruse the year-long project we have just concluded to get 
a clearer snapshot of our border in the  year 2007.   You can 
Qa clearer snapshot of our border in the  year 2007.   You can 
access detailed reports submitted throughout the course of 
the year on our classified web site 
(http://ottawa.state.sgov.gov), and there is an extensive 
power point presentation on our State Department SBU intranet 
website under the Political Affairs Section - Reports and 
Cables (http://ottawa.state.gov) that provides a unique 
visual image of the border in 2007. 
 
¶6. (SBU) This time last year, first in response to concerns 
on the part of Canadians and Americans from all walks of life 
and second as a contribution to implementation of the Western 
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, this Mission embarked on a 
nationwide, integrated border reporting project.  We traveled 
to almost every border crossing, talked to officials involved 
in border management, and visited communities in both 
countries most directly affected by new border measures.  We 
 
OTTAWA 00002035  002 OF 005 
 
 
heard how important it was to "get the border right"; we 
heard how the border is "priority one"; and we heard how the 
way of life among border communities was changing.  We saw 
how some new measures such as improved border infrastructure, 
additional lanes, plazas, and other equipment have made it 
easier to get across the border.  However, we also saw long 
back-ups and increasing inspections.  We found towns with 
libraries which straddle the border and others which could 
only be reached by traveling through the other country.  We 
visited border crossings marked by a chain across a dirt road 
and others with 14 inspection booths for truck lanes. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The end result is a historic snapshot of our 
northern border in the year 2007.  It is a border at a 
crossroads, still in transition, moving away from the 
pre-9/11 optimism of open borders, with increasing volumes of 
just-in-time deliveries and communities connected by junior 
hockey and shopping, towards the concept outlined 5 years ago 
of a "smart border" that uses technologies to strengthen our 
border security while facilitating legitimate trade and 
travel.  The evolving vision that is captured here is of an 
intertwined frontier whose potential can only be realized 
through fulsome cooperation and constant attention by Canada 
and the U.S. 
 
COMMON THEMES AND CONCLUSIONS 
----------------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) As dozens of officers representing six agencies 
traveled from the Embassy and our seven consulates to visit 
border posts and meet with citizens whose lives are affected 
by the border, they found a series of common themes: 
 
--   When It Works (which It Usually Does), It Works Well; 
When It Doesn't Work, It Is Awful:  In general we found a 
disconnect between the rhetoric of a "thickening of the 
border," in which longer lines and bureaucratic delays make 
border crossings more difficult, and the reality that the 
border in most places runs smoothly.  There are situations 
when the border simply can't handle the traffic volume, 
however.  Southbound delays of over two hours at some of the 
major bridge crossings in Ontario were reported over the 2007 
Labor Day weekend, for example.  Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) inspection booths were fully staffed, but 
heavy volumes of traffic choked approach ways and slowed 
movement miles before the bridges.  The heavy traffic 
resulted from holiday weekend travel, a strong Canadian 
dollar, and fabulous back-to-school sales at malls in New 
York and Michigan, overwhelming the existing physical 
infrastructure at the border crossings.   (Comment:  The 
Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, reported northbound 
delays of from two - three hours as Canadians came home after 
Labor Day.  End comment.)  Those places where thousands of 
vehicles are funneled into a narrow border crossing will 
require significant investments to make them capable of 
handling the crush of people traveling over holidays, or to 
witness major sporting or cultural events. 
 
--   Each Border Crossing Is Unique:  The difference between 
small, intimate border crossings in isolated areas of the 
Qsmall, intimate border crossings in isolated areas of the 
West and upper Northeast, and the industrial style crossings 
of the Great Lakes region, is huge.  This leads each border 
crossing to take on its own distinct personality:  bridges 
and tunnels are operated by different governance structures, 
each crossing has its own infrastructure issues, and 
relations among local communities are distinct.  Solutions to 
border issues should be very flexible to take account of this 
great diversity. 
 
--   The U.S. and Canada Weigh the Border Differently:  To 
Canadians, 90% of whom live within 100 miles of the border, 
keeping the border open and moving smoothly is a major 
national issue, because Canada is one large border community. 
 This is not true for the United States, where only a 
fraction of the population lives near the northern border and 
only a few major cities, such as Detroit and Buffalo, are 
actually on the border.  The relative difference in 
prioritization of border issues often makes resolution of 
border issues inherently unequal. 
 
 
OTTAWA 00002035  003 OF 005 
 
 
--   Core Border Priorities also Differ:  The most obvious 
disconnect between the two countries is in their relative 
priorities on the border.  For Canada the number one priority 
is the free flow of people and goods in both directions.  For 
America the top priority is security.   Canadians see the 
border as something to be kept as invisible as possible. 
Post 9/11, Americans see the border as a last line of 
defense, the final place to check people or things coming 
into the country. 
 
--   For Both Countries, North-South Beats East-West:  The 
pull of the border is clear on both sides - an American 
living in northern Vermont is more economically integrated 
with a Quebecker across the border than with his fellow 
countryman in Indiana, while a Canadian in Vancouver would 
feel more comfortable with someone from Seattle than with a 
Manitoban.  Distinct cross-border cultures have been built up 
over several centuries and they are highly valued by those 
who belong to them, although arguably more by Canadians than 
Americans.  People on both sides believe these special 
relationships are worth preserving. 
 
--   Progress or Modernization Has Been Significant, but 
Piecemeal:  There has been a vast amount of border 
modernization by both countries.  The largest positive impact 
has come from enhanced infrastructure like the new truck 
plaza at the Champlain/LaColle crossing south of Montreal. 
There have also been significant advances in facilitating 
crossing and travel, like combining air, land, and sea 
components of the NEXUS trusted traveler program.   But the 
progress has not been comprehensive and has rarely been part 
of a strategic plan, instead depending on local or regional 
initiatives. 
 
--   Biggest Negative Is Unilateral Initiatives:  The most 
common refrain we hear from business is, "When are you going 
to stop?"  Business figures complain about new security 
initiatives that make crossings more difficult, or more 
costly:  the surprise APHIS inspection fee, the Bio-Terrorism 
Act, impending WHTI implementation, Hazmat ID for truckers, 
etc.  At the low end, these unilateral U.S. initiatives that 
have not been well explained in Canada lead to frustration 
and distrust, at the high end to avoidance of the border.  To 
Canadians, the trend in the U.S. seems to be moving in the 
direction of increasing unilateralism, without advance 
consultation with the Canadians, compared to the immediate 
post-9/11 period when the joint shared border programs were 
launched.  We can combat this misperception by increasing the 
interaction of U.S. agencies involved in border enforcement 
with their Canadian counterparts.  Canadians have so far (1) 
complained about new programs, but then (2) buckled down and 
figured out how to comply with the new requirements. 
 
--   Border Threat Is Real but Manageable:  The border 
threat stems from two key factors:  1) the inability to 
police such a wide area of complicated geography, and 2) a 
handful of extremists who make use of legal protections to 
continue to operate freely in Canada.  The issue is 
exacerbated by the inability of the U.S. and Canada to fully 
Qexacerbated by the inability of the U.S. and Canada to fully 
share law enforcement and terrorist information.  The best 
defense in the face of these realities is better intelligence 
and cooperative policing. 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING CHANGE 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) If there is one key to keeping the border open 
without sacrificing the safety of our citizens, it is 
managing change -- change in infrastructure, change in 
border crossing procedures, and change in the nature of 
cross-border communities.  All must be managed flexibly, 
transparently, and inclusively.  Emerging from this project 
are several recommendations for how we can best manage the 
many changes that will face us across the border. 
 
-- Keep an Eye on Infrastructure:  There are at any given 
time dozens of infrastructure projects underway along the 
border - from large-scale endeavors such as enhancements to 
the Detroit-Windsor bridges, to renovations of small border 
crossing posts in rural areas.  Canada is fairly strategic 
 
OTTAWA 00002035  004 OF 005 
 
 
about how these projects are planned and tracked, while the 
U.S. side is decentralized.  We should consider taking a more 
strategic approach to infrastructure, since this will, in 
many places; determine how well the border works.  A northern 
border infrastructure coordinator in Washington could help 
coordinate major border infrastructure projects to ensure 
they are synchronized, progressing, and successful. 
 
-- Keep Staffing Levels Up:  Adequate port of entry staffing 
is key to facilitating crossings while ensuring security 
along the land border.  The minimum time needed to process 
persons applying to enter the U.S. is fairly fixed.  Once a 
passenger vehicle reaches the inspection booth, the query 
process is oftentimes completed in seconds, not minutes. 
However, if lines begin to form long distances from the 
inspection booths, and travelers see that only half of the 
booths are open, they are bound to be frustrated.  There are 
simply few ways to cut corners on border staffing, and when 
staffing is not adequate, the result is delays.  Port of 
entry staffing levels must have sufficient flexibility to 
cover seasonal variations and shifting travel patterns, 
including holidays in both countries.  (Comment:  Despite the 
long backups experienced by Ontario border operators this 
past summer, border operators were generally complimentary of 
U.S. CBP's quick response time to fully staff available 
booths when backups were forming.  And, to be fair to CBP and 
CBSA, we understand that high traffic volumes during peak 
times may overwhelm existing infrastructure, causing lines to 
form even with all booths fully staffed.  End comment.) 
 
-- Continue to Press for Cooperative Policing:  The key 
imperative for cross-border security will be continuing to 
develop a mechanism for cooperative cross-border law 
enforcement.  We have scratched the surface, with Integrated 
Border Enforcement Teams, Shiprider Proofs of Concept, and 
the Cross Border Crime Forum.  But all venues to date have 
involved either temporary or partial integration.  We should 
work toward the kind of cooperation and integration of U.S. 
and Canadian law enforcement officials that we have had for 
military cooperation through NORAD. 
 
-- Improve Information Sharing:  Improved sharing of 
actionable law enforcement information is a key near-term 
goal.  We currently share threat information but often do not 
share the kind of background that would allow the other side 
to develop a full threat picture.  Part of the difficulty, of 
course, is that the Canadian Charter of Rights sets forth 
very strict right-to-privacy requirements.  Our law 
enforcement efforts on both sides of the border would benefit 
from a mechanism that would help us to get beyond the fallout 
from the Arar affair and engage in a free and continuous 
exchange of information on the entire range of cross-border 
law enforcement and counter-terrorism issues. 
 
-- Improve the Flow of Public Information:  Border rumors and 
lack of full information about upcoming regulation changes 
hurt us.  The resulting uncertainty causes citizens to delay 
or cancel travel, and leads to back ups at border crossings 
Qor cancel travel, and leads to back ups at border crossings 
as unprepared travelers do at the customs booth what they 
could have done in advance in preparation for travel.  We 
need new and better ways to communicate changes to border 
requirements, which should be announced well in advance and 
kept on track once announced.  We should aim for a regime of 
"no surprises." 
 
-- Finally, Keep Each Other Informed:  We should also enhance 
our border consultative mechanisms.  We have the Permanent 
Joint Board of Defense for military cooperation, the 
Bilateral Consultative Group for counter-terrorism 
cooperation, the Energy Consultative Mechanism for energy 
issues, and the International Joint Commission for boundary 
water management.  Given the complexity of the border and the 
many agencies and equities involved, an annual meeting along 
the lines of the other successful bilateral mechanisms we 
have with Canada could go a long way to bringing a strategic 
focus to our management of the border.  We might, for 
example, enlarge the number of agencies participating in 
meetings of CBP's and CBSA's Shared Border Accord 
Coordinating Committee (SBACC) to include all of those with a 
role to play in managing the border.  Messages II and III of 
 
OTTAWA 00002035  005 OF 005 
 
 
this three-part message contain the full report of our 
year-long investigation of the U.S.-Canada border in 2007. 
 
Visit our shared North American Partnership blog (Canada & 
Mexico) at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap 
 
Visit our shared North American Partnership blog (Canada & Mexico) at 
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap 
 
WILKINS