Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Evaluation of travellers processing through a GBA+ lens:
1. Introduction

1.1 Evaluation purpose and scope

This report presents the results of the Evaluation of travellers processing through a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) lens. In accordance with the 2016 Treasury Board Policy on Results, the evaluation examined how the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) travellers processing continuum and its activities and outcomes impact diverse groups of travellers. The evaluation also uses GBA+ to offer insights on the effectiveness of traveller processing in identifying and mitigating risk at the borders. Finally, it provides suggestions on how the agency can strengthen GBA+ in the travellers stream in the future. The evaluation examined traveller processing between fiscal year (FY) 2014-2015 and FY 2019-2020.

1.2 Description of the travellers continuum

The travellers processing continuum, as described in this report, comprises the following responsibility areas within the CBSA:

  • Travellers Branch
  • National Targeting Centre (Intelligence and Enforcement Branch)
  • Recourse Directorate (Finance and Corporate Management Branch)

While the Travellers Branch holds the primary responsibility of processing travellers at the border, its activities are supported by the National Targeting Centre (NTC) and the Resource Directorate (refer to Appendix C). This evaluation focused on the Travellers Branch and NTC activities due to their roles in making decisions before or upon the arrival of travellers to a Canadian port of entry.

The processing of travellers at the border, as a key program activity, supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide greater security and opportunity for Canadians. The CBSA accomplishes this by facilitating legitimate travel across the border smoothly and efficiently, while identifying and mitigating safety and security threats. The CBSA protects the safety and security of Canadians by ensuring travellers are in compliance with applicable legislation and by managing non-compliance.

The screening and primary inspection activities are conducted before or upon arrival at a port of entry to determine whether travellers and their goods meet the requirements of relevant Other Government Departments (OGDs), as well as customs and immigration legislation. In the air mode, the processing of travellers is a continuum of activities that begins with the analysis of traveller information provided by commercial airlines. The National Targeting Centre (NTC) conducts targeting activities to identify and intercept suspected high-risk travellers by analyzing Advance Passenger Information (API) and Passenger Name Record (PNR) data.Footnote 1

The NTC develops scenarios which, through query rules, are used to further assess the risks posed by incoming travellers before their arrival at an air port of entry in Canada. Scenarios are developed based on information from a variety of sources, such as recent significant interdictions, historical enforcement, and intelligence information. The CBSA has established a governance framework for the review of scenarios for effectiveness and for proportionality based on a commitment made to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Prior to activation, the Targeting Travellers Unit reviews scenarios for operational impacts and implementation, with the objective of minimizing traveller impacts. Scenarios are also reviewed every 12 months for considerations, such as human rights, civil liberties, and privacy.

The role of the Travellers Branch is to facilitate the free flow of legitimate travellers and goods at various ports of entry, ensure that they comply with applicable legislation, and manage non-compliance. At the primary inspection stage, an individual is granted entry or is referred for further processing (e.g. payment of duties and taxes, issuance of a document) and/or examination. Primary inspections are mainly conducted in person or at a kiosk in the air mode.

Referrals to secondary processing can be mandatory, selective, or random.

  • Mandatory referrals: A referral that a Border Services Officer (BSO) must make for further documentation or examination, whether it is for CBSA purposes or for that of other government departments. [*]
  • Selective referrals: A referral that a BSO makes to the secondary inspection area following the establishment of the point of finality because they suspect that additional examination or investigation is necessary to make a decision on release.
  • Random referrals: Referrals based on a system, sometimes computer generated, which selects shipments and persons for examination in an indefinite pattern.

There are also many reasons why a traveller is referred to secondary examination. These include customs or OGD examinations, immigration investigation and regulatory duties, or fees and questions regarding the travellers' documentation.

If it is suspected that a traveller has concealed goods on or about their person that may contravene the Customs Act, a search may be conducted. Frontline personnel perform two types of searches that the Supreme Court of Canada does not view as part of routine processing: disrobing and cavity searches. Disrobing involves the removal of clothing, while a cavity search involves physical contact to examine the body. In instances where a cavity search is deemed necessary, persons are transported to medical facilities at which medical professionals conduct cavity searches. BSOs monitor, but do not perform, cavity searches. A Superintendent must authorize all personal searches, and these have to be supported by the appropriate justification and rationale before being conducted.

Overall, the evaluation found that caution is required when analyzing and reporting on the results of GBA+, particularly when using CBSA operational data. There are limitations associated with CBSA operational data, as a quantitative line of evidence. These challenges are outlined throughout the report. While an analysis of operational data can highlight certain trends, it can lack the important context provided by the agency's policies, practices, and procedures when it is presented on its own. Further, it does not reflect the broader social contexts that may affect a traveller's experience at the border.

Additionally, referrals and targets are made or issued based on a combination of experience, enforcement trends, training, and other sources of information. This makes it difficult to isolate the specific reasons for issuing a target, referring a traveller to secondary, or conducting an examination or a personal search. This is an important consideration when reading through the results presented in this report.

While the evaluation does rely on CBSA operational data for certain analyses presented in this report, the results should be viewed as indicative only. At this time, due to the limitations discussed, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on GBA+ using the agency's operational data. The quantitative results of this evaluation are used to show areas that may call for further exploration, by the agency, once the proper mechanisms and resources are in place to support a more comprehensive GBA+ within the travellers stream in the future.

1.2.1 Overall trends in the travellers continuum

Between FY 2015-2016 and FY 2018-2019, the number of overall incoming passages in the traveller stream increased across all modes. This trend was also observed in the number of NTC targets (Air mode) and primary referrals (Air mode) issued.Footnote 2

As a result of COVID-19 travel restrictions, volumes of incoming passages, targets, and primary referrals have all declined. This evaluation does not focus on traveller processing during the COVID period. Trends in incoming traveller passages, including typical patterns of seasonal fluctuation, may also change post-pandemic.

1.3 Evaluation scope

The evaluation scope was approved by the Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee (PMEC) in .

Table 1: Evaluation scope

In scope

  • To what extent does the scenario based targeting (SBT) approach consider impacts on travellers, through a GBA+ lens, when targeting travellers?
  • To what extent GBA+ variables were considered in traveller inspections at ports of entry in Canada between FY 2014-2015 and FY 2019-2020?
  • To what extent does the Travellers Program consider the development and achievement of its outputs and outcomes through the GBA+ lens?
  • How does the Travellers Program consider GBA+ variables between and within target population groups? Are diverse groups treated equitably by the program?

Out of scope

  • Travellers Program relevance and efficiency
  • Effectiveness and efficiency of OGDs
  • Mandatory immigration referrals to secondary examinations
  • Overseas processing of travellers
  • Trusted Traveller Programs (NEXUS and CANPASS)
  • Biometric verification (the Traveller Policy Division is currently completing a GBA+ specific to the expanded use of facial verification under Traveller Modernization)
  • Negotiated agreements and arrangements with partners, including agreements with airport authorities and airlines.

What did the evaluation focus on?

  • Activities: NTC pre-arrival targeting, primary referrals (at-border), and secondary examinations and enforcement (excluding immigration enforcement under IRPA)
  • Modes: Air mode (exception: all modes when assessing personal searches)
  • Referral areas: Customs (exception: immigration and customs for calculating referral rates)
  • Referrals types: Selective referrals (exception: all referral types were included in the calculation of referral rates)
  • Referral sources: Primary Inspection Line, Point, and Roving officers (exception: all sources for calculating referral rates)

The evaluation focused primarily on the air mode, as there are more extensive and diverse quantitative data sets available to facilitate a more comprehensive GBA+ of the travellers continuum.

The evaluation scope was also further refined to focus specifically on customs selective referrals, when undertaking certain analysis.

  • Referral rates in the air mode: The analysis of referral rates presented here include all possible referrals, including: referral areas (immigration and customs), referral types (mandatory, random, selective), and sources. For this reason, referral rates by citizenship did not include Canada (to control for immigration referrals).
  • Selective referrals in the air mode: The analysis of selective referral proportions, by demographic factors, presented here focus on customs selective referrals made by Primary Inspection Line (PIL) Officers, Rovers, and Point Officers and excludes all mandatory referrals. This, in large part, removes the "mandatory" element of a referral (e.g. student visa) and compares "officer judgement" in issuing a selective referral.

It is important to note that the selective referral logic used at PIK is different than that used by frontline officers. Other than system matches, most PIK selective referrals are due to inconsistent information provided by travellers in their declarations. PIK issues a receipt that indicates declaration cues to inform a referral. However, a BSO makes the final decision to release or refer to secondary. In turn, this referral source was excluded from analyses of customs selective referrals.

The evaluation also calculated resultant rates for examining the effectiveness of the agency's risk identification and mitigation activities in the travellers stream. However, it is recognized that the resultant rate is only one metric that can be used to examine level of risk among multiple risk indicators. The value for duty (VFD) and/or quantity of each seizure, for example, were not the focus of this evaluation. For more information on the challenges and limitations associated with calculating resultant rates, refer to Appendix E.

1.4 Evaluation methodology

A GBA+ lens was used to assess how the travellers continuum and its activities and outcomes impact diverse groups of travellers. It was also used, as much as possible, to assess the agency's effectiveness in identifying and mitigating risk in the travellers stream. This evaluation identifies gaps in the information needed to further support the agency's efforts toward fully integrating GBA+ into its programs, policies, and operations.

The evaluation employed a mixed-method approach, using four data collection methods to support the conduct of qualitative and quantitative data analyses. It also leveraged various groups of subject matter experts to validate data and findings. The data collection methods included:

  • a review of internal documents
  • an analysis of operational data from COGNOS, Secondary Processing and Passage History (SPPH)Footnote 3, Integrated Customs Enforcement System (ICES), and NTC scenario-based targeting (SBT) and flight list targeting (FLT) tracking
  • multiple semi-structured interviews with internal stakeholders
  • a survey of Border Services Officers (BSOs), Superintendents, and NTC Targeting Officers, working in the travellers stream within the last two years

The evaluation could not conduct comprehensive GBA+ of the travellers continuum due to inconsistency in the collection and management of operational data. It mitigated many challenges by focusing the analysis of operational data in the air mode to ensure a complete analysis of travellers program activities. Discussions with subject matter experts helped facilitate accurate interpretations of operational data and to contextualize this information with known data challenges/quality issues.Footnote 4

As a result of these challenges, the evaluation focused on certain GBA+ factors.

Table 2: GBA+ indicators explored by the evaluation

What the evaluation could explore

  • GenderFootnote 5: Focused on male and female gender categories, as data does not fully account for non-binary gender identities
  • Socio-economic status: Classified travellers, based on their citizenship, into continent groups and World Bank income groupings, to facilitate socio-economic analyses
  • Race or ethnicity to a limited extent: Analysis based on travellers' race or ethnicity was limited due to lack of consistent, accurate, appropriate, and/or self-identified data on these two identity factors
  • Departure countryFootnote 6: e.g. to measure effectiveness

What the evaluation could not explore (examples only)

  • Age: Comprehensive analysis could not be undertaken due to inconsistency and format of data on this factor across multiple databases
  • Country of birth: Not available consistently throughout continuum
  • Disability: No quantitative or qualitative data
  • Language: No quantitative data and limited qualitative data
  • Religion: No quantitative and minimal qualitative data

1.5 Background: GBA+ at the CBSA

What is GBA+?

GBA+ is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of people may experience policies, programs, and initiatives. It considers many identity factors, such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.

The Government of Canada has sustained its commitment to GBA+ in the development of policies, programs, and legislation since 1995. In the Letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP), the Prime Minister of Canada discussed the importance of "evidence-based decision-making that takes into consideration the impacts of policies on all Canadians and fully defends the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." It further directs the Minister of PSEP to "consider public policies through an intersectional lens in order to address systemic inequities including: systemic racism; unconscious bias; gender-based discrimination; barriers for persons with disabilities; discrimination against LGBTQ2+ communities; and inequities faced by all vulnerable populations."

The letter also outlined the need to:

  • whenever possible, work to improve the quality and availability of disaggregated data to ensure that policy decisions benefit all communities
  • take action to address systemic inequities in law enforcement
  • introduce and bring into force legislation to create a review body for the CBSA, including measures to ensure that complaints and reports are responded to promptly

What are the benefits of GBA+ in the CBSA context?

Canadians, people living in Canada, and people visiting Canada may have different experiences when it comes to law enforcement and, by extension, border security and management. Biases and assumptions can affect law enforcement and national security organizations' relationships with diverse communities, which are fundamental to keeping Canadians safe.Footnote 7

The CBSA, as a member of the Public Safety Portfolio, has engaged in sessions, which support Public Safety's ongoing work to enhance bias sensitivity, improve cultural competency, and better understand how intersecting identity factors can be considered in national security policies, programs, and operations. The Government of Canada's national security community has set objectives to increase its awareness and address potential biases. This includes understanding bias sensitivity, diversity, and identity considerations, and using GBA+ in all areas related to national security.

The rigorous and systematic application of intersectional analysis tools, such as GBA+, helps to identify, reduce, and prevent inequality. Bias-sensitive decision-making aims to:

  • enhance accountability to Canadians and the travelling public
  • enable the identification of risk
  • improve responses to security threats

How has GBA+ been integrated at the CBSA?

In FY 2018-2019, GBA+ became the subject of its own Supplementary Information Table in the CBSA's Departmental Plan. At that time, the CBSA committed to make GBA+ an integral part of its policies, programs, and initiatives to improve decision-making and achieve better results for clients, stakeholders, and all Canadians. To fulfill this objective, the agency nominated a GBA+ Champion, and established a GBA+ Centre of Responsibility and GBA+ Internal Working Group.

From FY 2018-2019 to FY 2019-2021, the CBSA included several planned and ongoing GBA+ related initiatives in the Departmental Plan:

  • modernizing sex and gender information practices
  • identified 18 CBSA initiatives as requiring attention to comply with the Treasury Board Policy Direction (e.g. forms, applications, client interactions)
  • explore internal training needs and horizontal training opportunities
  • increased understanding of the value of GBA+ in decision-making, data collection, and reporting
  • challenge assumptions and increase sensitivity to existing and potential biases
  • established an agency-wide task force on anti-racism that will develop training alongside the Customs and Immigration Union and HRB (including de-escalation training for frontline personnel)

Gender-disaggregated data and other socioeconomic data and indicators are a key component of GBA+. However, in the FY 2020-2021 CBSA Departmental Plan, the agency reported that it does not maintain an inventory of programs that collect and keep individual recipient microdata information to undertake GBA+, and that it did not anticipate providing any GBA+ related data in public reports for FY 2020-2021. Further, it is difficult to extract and consistently record gender-disaggregated and other data contained in the CBSA's databases and reporting instruments.

1.6 Background: GBA+ in the travellers continuum

Based on public opinion research (focus groups and surveys) commissioned by the Communications Directorate, Canadian travellers are, in general, satisfied with border processing and their experience at the border. For example, 96% of respondents rate their experience with a BSO as very positive or somewhat positive. However, some concerns were raised.

Based on an analysis of complaints received from to by the air mode, references to certain identity factors included language, age, disability, physical or mental health, race, ethnicity, or ethnic/national origin. Complaints were largely related to disrespectful treatment by frontline personnel or inequities resulting from airport procedures (e.g. waiting in line for a kiosk or a BSO). These complaints were mirrored in a number of news media articles in 2020.Footnote 8

Date modified: