UNCERTAIN
ACCESS:
THE CONSEQUENCES OF U.S. SECURITY AND
TRADE
ACTIONS FOR CANADIAN TRADE POLICY
(Volume 1)
recent
history of The Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Dispute
While
the history of lumber-related disputes between Canada and the U.S. dates back to
the 19th century, the disputes of the last 20 years have the most relevance
to the present trade dispute.
In
1982, the U.S. forest industry petitioned the government to undertake a
countervailing duty investigation of Canada’s softwood lumber industry,
alleging that Canadian forest management practices subsidized manufacturers,
producers and exporters of softwood lumber.
The U.S. Department of Commerce completed its investigation and concluded
that Canada’s stumpage programs did not confer a countervailable subsidy.
The
U.S. forest industry petitioned the Department of Commerce again in 1986.
In its preliminary determination, the Department of Commerce found that
Canada’s stumpage programs provided lumber producers with an average subsidy
of 15%. Canada negotiated a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. to resolve this dispute.
Under the MOU, Canada agreed to collect a 15% tax on all softwood lumber
exports in exchange for the termination of the countervailing duty
investigation. The MOU also allowed
for the removal of the border tax if forest management “replacement
measures” were implemented in the provinces.
Through this provision of the MOU, B.C.’s border tax was eliminated and
Quebec’s charge was reduced in stages to approximately 3%.
Once the replacement measures were in place, Canada terminated the MOU on
the basis that recent stumpage rate increases made the export tax unnecessary.
Following
Canada’s termination of the MOU, the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1991
initiated another countervailing duty investigation and imposed a temporary
bonding requirement on all Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United
States. The investigation found
that forest management programs in B.C., Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta and
B.C.’s log export restrictions constituted countervailable subsidies and that
the subsidies injured U.S. producers. The
ultimate result of the investigation was the imposition of a 6.51%
countervailing duty on all softwood lumber imports from Canada.
The Atlantic provinces were excluded from the determination.
Canada appealed the U.S. decisions to a binational panel established
under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
The panel found that there was insufficient evidence or legal basis for
the U.S. decisions, and sent the decisions back to the U.S. Department of
Commerce twice before it accepted the binational panel’s finding and cancelled
the countervailing duty order.
The
U.S. Trade Representative initiated an Extraordinary Challenge Committee under
the Free Trade Agreement, on the premise that the two Canadian panellists on the
binational panel were in conflict of interest.
The Extraordinary Challenge Committee rejected this charge.
As a result, the U.S. refunded all countervailing duties collected from
Canadian exporters (approximately US$800 million).
In
1994, Canada and the U.S. undertook consultations to find a solution to the
ongoing dispute. They finalized a
5-year agreement on May 29, 1996. Under
the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement, Canadian softwood lumber exports that
exceeded a pre-determined quota were subjected to a border fee that was remitted
to the provinces in proportion to their share of national shipments, and the
U.S. agreed to forgo any further trade action for the 5-year term of the
agreement. The Softwood Lumber
Agreement applied only to exports from B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. Despite the agreement, disputes still arose between Canada
and the U.S. over classification of certain lumber products and changes in the
stumpage system in British Columbia.
When
the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement expired on March 31, 2001, the U.S.
Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports submitted a petition to the U.S. Department of
Commerce requesting countervailing duty (CVD) and antidumping (AD)
investigations. The Coalition
alleged a subsidy rate of approximately 40% and antidumping rates ranging from
approximately 23% to 73%. The U.S.
Department of Commerce initiated the investigations on April 23, 2001, exempting
Atlantic Canada from the countervailing duty investigation but not the
antidumping investigation. It
determined that “critical circumstances” were present in the case due to an
alleged increase in softwood lumber shipments following the termination of the
Softwood Lumber Agreement. To
offset this increase in shipments, the U.S. Department of Commerce required the
collection of bonds or cash deposits on softwood lumber shipments to the U.S.
while the investigations were underway. These
bonds were later cancelled following the International Trade Commission’s
finding that Canadian lumber shipments posed a threat to U.S. producers but had
not actually caused material injury. A
decision to collect duties on an “entered value” basis rather than the usual
“first mill” basis meant that lumber duties were collected on the value of
the lumber as it entered the U.S., not on its value as it left the primary
sawmill. This decision adversely affects Canadian remanufacturers
because duties have to be paid on the full value of the remanufactured product.
The final determination of subsidy by the Department of Commerce in March 2002 resulted in the imposition of a countervailing duty of 18.79% on all softwood lumber shipments from Canada (excluding the four Atlantic provinces and 20 companies producing lumber from private sources only). Shortly thereafter, the Department of Commerce determined an average dumping rate of 8.43%. Individual company rates ranged from a low of 2.18% for West Fraser to a high of 12.44% for Abitibi.
Canada,
the provinces (not including Atlantic Canada), and forest industry
representatives have requested a NAFTA Chapter 19 review of the “critical
circumstances” finding and the final determinations in the countervailing duty
and antidumping investigations. In
addition, Canada has filed numerous challenges at the WTO (see Appendix 3).
Source:
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade website at: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/chrono-en.asp.
Canada-U.S.
Softwood Lumber Dispute – challenges at the WTO and NAFTA
WTO Challenges
Canada
has undertaken the following WTO challenges relating to the softwood lumber
dispute:
1.
Export
restraints – A
WTO panel ruled in favour of Canada on June 29, 2001, regarding the U.S.
claim that log export restrictions confer subsidies.
The WTO panel ruled that log export controls do not provide a financial
contribution, and therefore do not confer countervailable subsidies.
The WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the panel’s final report on
August 23, 2001.
2.
Preliminary
determination of subsidy –
On November 1, 2002, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the a WTO panel’s
final report that the U.S. did not live up to its WTO obligations (erred) in its
preliminary determination of subsidy in the countervailing duty investigation.
·
The panel
found that the U.S. incorrectly used U.S. benchmark prices in calculating the
benefit to lumber producers conferred through Canadian stumpage programs.
While the panel found that provincial stumpage programs were a
“financial contribution” under the WTO Subsidy Agreement, it also concluded
that the U.S. had no basis for determining that stumpage is a countervailable
subsidy since the existence of a benefit was unknown.
·
The U.S.
wrongly presumed that benefits from harvesting subsidized timber would be passed
through in sales from producers of log or lumber inputs to all downstream
producers of lumber.
·
The U.S.
should not have applied “critical circumstances” measures following a
preliminary critical circumstances determination.
These measures allow for a limited retroactive imposition of duties if
there has been more than a 15% increase in imports during the period examined,
and should only be applied with respect to a final determination.
·
The U.S. had
an unfulfilled obligation to provide expedited reviews.
The U.S. is now complying with this direction from the WTO panel and
conducting expedited reviews for Canadian producers that have requested one.
The
U.S. has decided not to appeal the WTO panel decision on the preliminary
determination of subsidy.
3.
Final
determination of subsidy –
On October 1, 2002, a WTO panel was established to investigate Canada’s claims
concerning the final determination of subsidy.
The panel process is expected to take 9 to 10 months to complete, so the
final report can be expected in July 2003.
4.
Final
determination of dumping –
A WTO panel was established on January 8, 2003, to investigate Canada’s claim
that the U.S. Department of Commerce:
·
Improperly
initiated the anti-dumping investigation;
·
Used methods
inconsistent with the WTO;
·
Failed to
establish an appropriate product scope for investigation.
5.
Final
determination of threat of injury –
On December 20, 2002, Canada requested consultations with the U.S. concerning
the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) final determination of threat of
injury in the softwood lumber case. Canada
believes there is no basis for the ITC’s finding of threat of injury, and that
the ITC failed to:
·
Properly apply
anti-dumping and countervailing duties;
·
Demonstrate
that circumstances would change such that injury was clearly foreseen and
imminent;
·
Properly
consider all factors relevant to a threat-of-injury finding;
·
Consider the
effects of imports on the domestic industry and whether they would injure or
threatened to injure; and
·
Include
sufficient detail, reasoning and relevant considerations.
Other WTO
Challenges
The
following WTO challenges also indirectly affect the softwood lumber dispute:
1.
The Byrd
Amendment – On
September 16, 2002, a WTO panel found that the “Byrd Amendment” (which
allows for the redistribution of antidumping and countervailing duties to
affected domestic producers) violates the U.S.’s WTO obligations. The panel suggested that the U.S. repeal the Byrd Amendment.
The U.S. appealed the panel’s decision.
On January 16, 2003, the Appellate Body confirmed that the Byrd
Amendment violates WTO rules. The U.S. has since indicated that it will comply with the WTO
decision against the Byrd Amendment.
2.
Section 129
(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
– Where the WTO finds that the imposition of duties on foreign companies is
inconsistent with WTO rules, this section of the United States’ Uruguay Round
Agreements Act precludes the U.S. from refunding the duty deposits collected in
certain circumstances. The final
report on this issue was adopted by the WTO on August 30, 2002. The WTO panel did not address the substantive issue raised by
Canada, finding that the U.S. is not required to apply the legislation as
indicated by Canada. However, the
WTO panel did not rule out the possibility that Section 129(c)(1) could violate
WTO rules if applied. Thus, Canada
has the option of challenging at the WTO any future application of this
legislation by the United States.
NAFTA Challenges
Under
Chapter 19 of the NAFTA, binding binational panels can be established to
review final determinations in trade remedy cases. These five-person panels examine determinations to assess
whether they are consistent with trade laws of the investigating country.
Panel rulings must be made within 315 days of the request for
review. The following three NAFTA
challenges are currently underway:
1.
Final
determination of subsidy – The
Government of Canada formally requested a NAFTA panel review of the U.S. final
subsidy determination on April 2, 2002.
The panel for this review was selected on July 30, 2002.
To date, Canada has filed a 31‑count complaint and first
submissions to the NAFTA panel regarding the final determination of subsidy.
2.
Final
determination of injury – Canada
requested a review of the International Trade Commission’s final injury
determination on May 22, 2002. Canada
filed complaints on June 21, 2002.
3.
Final
determination of dumping – The
six mandatory respondents in the anti-dumping investigation requested a NAFTA
panel review of the dumping determination on April 2, 2002. They have since submitted complaints and first submissions
respecting the final dumping determination.
Panel
rulings for all three reviews are expected in mid-2003.
In addition, three forest companies (Canfor Corporation, Doman Industries
and Tembec) have announced that they intend to sue for damages under Chapter 11
of the NAFTA.
Source:
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade websites:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/wto_challenges-en.asp;
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/nafta_challenges-en.asp.
Backgrounder
PREVIOUS
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
There
have been nine U.S.-instigated investigations since 1990, none of which have
concluded that any practices of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) constitute unfair
subsidies or violate international trade agreements.
• In
February 2002, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 332
investigation (as part of U.S. Trade Representative's Section 301) examined the
Canadian and American wheat sectors and found that Canadian wheat was being sold
at prices comparable to U.S. wheat prices in the U.S. market. Canadian durum
wheat was found to be priced generally higher than U.S. durum wheat.
• In
October 1999, the U.S. Department of Commerce concluded that CWB pricing
policies for feed barley to Canadian cattle for export did not constitute a
subsidy. The petition had been filed by a U.S. lobby group, R-CALF, in December
1998.
• In
October 1998, a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled, U.S.
Agricultural Trade, Canadian Wheat Issues, found no evidence that Canada or
the CWB had violated any international agreement. It noted that the CWB operated
like other private-sector grain companies, which are not obligated to reveal
their sales prices as this would violate confidentiality agreements with
customers.
• In June
1996, a GAO report entitled The Potential Ability of Agricultural State
Trading Enterprises to Distort Trade reviewed the Canadian Wheat Board, the
Australian Wheat Board and the New Zealand Dairy Board, and did not allege that
the CWB or Canada violated international trade rules. The GAO also recognized
that the CWB was unlikely to cross-subsidize wheat export sales from domestic
sales due to the relatively small domestic market. The report had been requested
by 18 U.S. congressmen.
• In July
1994, an ITC Section 22 investigation found that some harm to U.S. programs was
attributed to imports of Canadian wheat and the U.S. decided to initiate action
under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XXVIII.
This GATT action, after a 90-day consultation period, would have allowed the
U.S. to impose a tariff rate quota for wheat and barley imports; however,
binational discussions led to the Memorandum of Understanding on Wheat, which
limited Canadian exports of wheat to 1.5 million tonnes in the 1994-1995 fiscal
year.
• In
January 1994, an independent auditor found that the CWB complied with its
Canada-United States Trade Agreement obligations on durum wheat sales on 102 of
105 contracts in the 43-month period between January 1, 1989, and July 31, 1992.
The three violations occurred during the six-month period after January 1, 1989,
when the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was being implemented.
• In
February 1993, a binational dispute settlement panel agreed with Canada's
interpretation of FTA Article 701.3 regarding the definition of
"acquisition price" for durum wheat and the costs to be included in
determining this price. The panel concluded that the acquisition price includes
only the initial payment; or, in the event of an upward adjustment, the
acquisition price for goods sold after the adjustment is the initial payment
plus such adjustment.
• In June
1992, a GAO report on marketing boards, Canada and Australia Rely Heavily on
Wheat Boards to Market Grain, failed to find evidence of unfair trade
practices as alleged by some U.S. trade officials.
• In June
1990, an ITC Section 332 investigation, Durum Wheat: Conditions of Competition
Between the U.S. and Canadian Industries, found that the prices paid for
Canadian durum were not significantly different from those paid for U.S. durum.
The ITC also found that the subsidized portion of Canadian freight rates, while
reflecting a decreased cost to the producer shipping the grain, did not appear
to have a significant effect on the delivered price of Canadian durum in the
United States. Subsidized freight rates were subsequently eliminated in 1995.
Source:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
SMART
BORDER ACTION PLAN
STATUS REPORT
December
6, 2002
In
December 2001, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley and Governor Tom Ridge signed
the Smart Border Declaration and associated 30-point Action Plan to enhance the
security of our shared border while facilitating the legitimate flow of people
and goods. The Action Plan has four pillars: the secure flow of people, the
secure flow of goods, secure infrastructure, and information sharing and
coordination in the enforcement of these objectives.
On
September 9, 2002, Prime Minister Chrétien and President Bush met to discuss
progress on the Smart Border Action Plan and asked that they be updated
regularly on the work being done to modernize our common border. This report is
the first update since the meeting of the Prime Minister and the President.
1.
BIOMETRIC IDENTIFIERS
Canada
and the United States have agreed to develop common standards for the biometrics
that we use and have also agreed to adopt interoperable and compatible
technology to read these biometrics. In the interest of having cards that could
be used across different modes of travel, we have agreed to use cards that are
capable of storing multiple biometrics.
Our
countries have begun to integrate biometric capabilities into new programs being
deployed. For example, the NEXUS-Air pilot program will evaluate iris scanning
technology and the new Canadian Permanent Resident Card is biometric-ready.
2.
PERMANENT RESIDENT CARDS
Since
June 28, 2002, Permanent Resident Cards have been issued to all new immigrants
arriving in Canada, replacing the IMM 1000. On October 15, 2002, Canada began
processing applications for the Permanent Resident Card, for the purposes of
travel, from immigrants with permanent resident status already in Canada.
Effective December 31, 2003, the IMM 1000 will no longer be recognized as a
document valid for travel.
The
Canadian permanent resident card contains features that make it one of the most
fraud-resistant documents in the world. The card has been recognized by the
International Card Manufacturers Association, winning the Elan Award for
Technical Achievement.
3.
SINGLE ALTERNATIVE INSPECTION SYSTEM
NEXUS is
functional at Sarnia-Port Huron (since November 2000), at Pacific Highway-Blaine
and Douglas-Blaine (since June 26, 2002) and Boundary Bay-Point Roberts (since
July 29, 2002). NEXUS will be operational at both the Windsor-Detroit and Fort
Erie-Buffalo bridges on January 23, 2003, and at the Windsor-Detroit tunnel in
March 2003. NEXUS will be expanded to the Queenston-Lewiston Bridge, the Rainbow
Bridge and to the Whirlpool Bridge by Spring 2003. NEXUS will also be expanded
to all other high-volume crossings between the two countries by the end of 2003.
NEXUS enrollment centres opened in Windsor-Detroit and in Fort Erie-Buffalo on
October 24, 2002.
Canada
and the United States are also working to implement a joint NEXUS - Air program
for air travellers. NEXUS - Air will be piloted at Ottawa and Dorval
International Airports. Enrollment will begin in April 2003.
4.
REFUGEE/ASYLUM PROCESSING
Canada
and the United States have made significant progress on a Statement of Mutual
Understanding (SMU) which will allow them to more effectively exchange
information on immigration-related issues. The two countries are also very close
to an agreement which will permit the systematic sharing of information relating
to asylum seekers. This will help each country identify potential security and
criminality threats and expose "forum shoppers" who seek asylum in
both systems. This exchange of information will be in accordance with the
privacy laws of both countries.
5.
MANAGING OF REFUGEE/ASYLUM CLAIMS
Canada
and the United States have signed a Safe Third Country Agreement that allows
both countries to manage the flow of individuals seeking to access their
respective asylum systems. The Agreement will cover asylum claims made at land
border ports of entry.
The
Agreement is bound by the principle of family re-unification in determining
whether an individual would be exempted from the requirement of making a claim
in the first country of arrival. The Agreement also clearly identifies that
individuals making a claim in either country would not be removed to another
country until a determination of that person’s claim has been made.
Both
countries will now finalize the regulatory framework and standard operating
procedures necessary to implement this Agreement.
6.
VISA POLICY COORDINATION
Canada
and the United States have agreed to enhance cooperation between our respective
Embassies overseas, which will allow our officials to more routinely and more
efficiently share information on intelligence and specific data concerning
high-risk individuals. The two countries have also agreed to formally consult
one another during the process of reviewing a third country for the purpose of
either a visa imposition or visa exemption.
Canada
and the United States are also continuing to work together to identify countries
that pose security concerns with a view toward further cooperation on visa
policy. In February 2002, the United States announced that nationals of
Argentina would require a visa to travel to the United States. In September
2002, Canada announced that citizens of Saudi Arabia and Malaysia would require
visas to travel to Canada. Canada and the United States currently have common
visa policies for 144 countries.
7.
AIR PRECLEARANCE
The
in-transit preclearance project in Vancouver, suspended as a result of the
events of September 11, was re-instated on February 14, 2002.
In
support of the preclearance program, the two countries signed "The
Agreement on Air Transport Preclearance between The Government of Canada and The
Government of the United States of America" on January 18, 2001. It allows
for the expansion of in-transit preclearance to other Canadian airports and also
has provisions that modernize the regime governing preclearance.
U.S.
government agencies are seeking the authority from Congress to offer reciprocal
authorities and immunities for Canadian customs and immigration officials in the
United States.
8.
ADVANCE PASSENGER INFORMATION / PASSENGER NAME RECORD
Canada
and the United States have agreed to share Advance Passenger
Information
and Passenger Name Records (API/PNR) on high-risk travelers destined to either
country. Canada implemented its Passenger Information system (PAXIS) at Canadian
airports on October 8, 2002 to collect Advance Passenger Information. The
automated Canada-U.S. API/PNR data-sharing program will be in place by Spring
2003.
9.
JOINT PASSENGER ANALYSIS UNITS
Canada
and the United States have agreed to a co-location of customs and immigration
officers in Joint Passenger Analysis Units to more intensively cooperate in
identifying potentially high-risk travelers.
Pilot
joint passenger analysis units became operational at the Vancouver and Miami
international airports on September 30, 2002, staffed with Canadian and U.S.
officials. The pilot sites will be evaluated at the end of six months to
determine the feasibility of expanding the units to other locations.
10.
MARITIME SECURITY AND FERRY TERMINALS
We have
completed a marine benchmark study to enhance Canadian and U.S. border security
at seaports aimed at improving security and contraband interception. Agencies
have begun to make improvements based on this study.
11.
COMPATIBLE IMMIGRATION DATABASES
Canada
and the United States have begun discussions towards developing parallel
immigration databases to facilitate regular information exchange. The United
States is studying the feasibility of duplicating Canadian intelligence
gathering software at six pilot sites. Other examples of information exchange
include lookouts from our respective databases and automating existing
exchanges.
12.
IMMIGRATION OFFICERS OVERSEAS
Canada
and the United States have begun deploying new immigration officers overseas to
deal with document fraud, liaison with airlines and local authorities, and work
with other countries to ensure intelligence liaison and to interrupt the flow of
illegal migrants to North America.
In the
past year, Canada has deployed additional officers for this purpose, bringing to
74 the total number of officers engaged in these areas. In 2002 and 2003, the
United States will deploy 85 new temporary officials with 40 new officials being
deployed permanently.
Working
together, Canada and the United States will continue to strengthen their
capacity to ensure the integrity of their immigration programs, to combat
document fraud, and to interdict irregular migrants.
13.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Canada
and the United States have worked together to provide technical assistance to
developing countries to deal with threats to our shared security. These
cooperative efforts will continue. Joint interdiction exercises and joint
training programs will assist other countries to combat document fraud and
irregular migration. Such assistance includes improving document integrity,
providing expertise on border controls, and joint training.
In
addition, Canada and the United States conducted a joint presentation to the
European Community CIREFI (Immigration Center of the Council of the European
Union) meeting in June, regarding the immigration items in the Smart Border
Action Plan.
14.
HARMONIZED COMMERCIAL PROCESSING
Canada
and the United States have established a joint program for low-risk companies
that will expedite the movement of low-risk shipments in either direction across
the border. The program, known as Free and Secure Trade (FAST), will be
available at the following high-volume border crossings:
- Douglas,
British Columbia / Blaine, Washington (December 31, 2002)
- Sarnia,
Ontario / Port Huron, Michigan (December 16, 2002)
- Windsor,
Ontario / Detroit, Michigan (December 16, 2002)
- Fort
Erie, Ontario / Buffalo, New York (December 16, 2002)
- Queenston,
Ontario / Lewiston, New York (December 31, 2002)
- Lacolle,
Quebec / Champlain, New York (December 31, 2002)
Canada
and the United States are working to align other customs processes for all
commercial shipments by 2005.
15.
CLEARANCE AWAY FROM THE BORDER
Canada
and the United States are developing approaches to move customs and immigration
inspection activities away from the border to improve security and relieve
congestion where possible.
Canada
and the United States have completed a joint analysis of the operational
benefits that could be achieved with the implementation of small and large
shared facilities located in one country or the other. Both governments continue
to explore approaches to the legal challenges that flow from border inspection
services of one country operating in the other.
We are
considering innovative procedures to improve rail enforcement activities and at
the same time facilitate the flow of rail traffic, such as conducting rail
enforcement activities before the border and trade compliance processes at the
destination.
16.
JOINT FACILITIES
Canada
and the United States have agreed to consider the following locations for joint
or shared facilities pending the outcome of feasibility studies:
- St. Stephen,
NB / Calais, ME
- River de
Chute, NB / Easton, ME
- Bloomfield,
NB / Monticello, ME
- St. Croix,
NB / Vanceboro, ME
- Morses Line,
QC / Morses Line, VT
- Highwater,
QC / North Troy, VT
- Winkler, MB
/ Walhalla, ND
- Northgate,
SK / Northgate, ND
- Snowflake,
MB / Hanna, ND
- West Poplar
River, SK / Opheim, MT
- Chopaka, BC
/ Nighthawk, WA
- Rykerts, BC
/ Porthill, ID
17.
CUSTOMS DATA
Canadian
and U.S. Customs agencies have extended the scope of information they share
through:
- the
Cooperation Arrangement for the Exchange of Information for the Purposes of
Inquiries Related to Customs Fraud, signed in December 2001; and
- an
agreement, reached by our customs agencies, on the principles to be included
in the exchange of information related to NAFTA rules of origin. The
agreement will be signed in March 2003, and includes audit plans, audit
reports, the results of advance rulings, and origin determinations and
re-determinations.
18.
CONTAINER TARGETING AT SEAPORTS
Through
an innovative solution to ensure that containers can be examined where they
first arrive, regardless of their ultimate destination in North America,
Canadian and U.S. Customs agencies have created joint targeting teams at five
marine ports. In the ports of Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax, U.S. officials
aid Canadian customs officials in identifying which containers to examine. In
the ports of Newark and Seattle-Tacoma, Canadian officials provide the same
assistance to U.S. Customs agents. The work of these teams will be facilitated
through the electronic transmission of advance manifest data for incoming ships
and the containers they carry.
19.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
Both
governments have committed funds for border infrastructure. Under Canada's new
Border Infrastructure Fund, C$600 million will be provided over five years for
physical and technological improvements at key border crossings. The United
States Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century also funds
transportation projects along U.S. corridors and at border points along the
Canada-United States border.
New
funding will support FAST and NEXUS and facilitate the secure and efficient
cross-border movement of people and goods, for example through dedicated lanes
for commercial and passenger vehicles at the border between the British Columbia
Lower Mainland and Washington state.
Canada
and the United States are working together at key border crossings to develop
computer simulations aimed at ensuring that border infrastructure investments
are put to the most effective use. The two countries will establish a binational
border modeling group to analyze border congestion on an ongoing basis.
20.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Canada
and the United States are piloting the Automatic Identification System (AIS) on
the St. Lawrence Seaway, which uses transponder and Global Position System (GPS)
technologies to allow for more effective monitoring of ships. The Cascade
Gateway Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) will be installed at the
Pacific Highway and Peace Arch crossings to enhance the mobility of people and
commercial goods between Canada and the United States. We will also invest in
high-energy gamma-ray systems to support joint efforts in screening marine
containers arriving at marine ports in both countries.
21.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Our
governments have agreed on a Joint Framework for Canada-U.S. Cooperation on
Critical Infrastructure Protection and have established a Binational Steering
Committee to assess threats to our shared critical infrastructure and ensure an
ongoing, high-level focus on the issue by both governments. The Committee has
developed detailed workplans for collaboration in the areas of energy,
telecommunications and transportation, and has established working groups to
address horizontal issues such as research and development, interdependencies,
mapping and threat information sharing. The next meeting of the Steering
Committee will be held in early 2003.
22.
AVIATION SECURITY
We
have agreed to recognize each other’s national standards for security in
airports and on board flights, and to coordinate measures that are essential to
protecting our citizens. With the creation of the new federal transportation
security agencies and the augmentation of existing departments, the two
governments have strengthened their respective capacities to set regulations,
review standards, and monitor and inspect all air security services. The two
governments have also assumed direct responsibility for security standards, and
will work to identify best practices with a view to improving them.
23.
INTEGRATED BORDER AND MARINE ENFORCEMENT TEAMS
Canada
and the United States have identified 14 geographical areas for the deployment
or enhancement of Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETS). IBETs are
currently operational in 10 of the 14 geographic areas, and will be operational
in all 14 geographical areas by December 2003. IBETs will focus on criminals and
terrorists that may attempt to cross the Canada-United States border.
The two
countries have also begun comprehensive training programs for IBET personnel,
from both Canada and the United States, to enhance their awareness and
understanding of one another’s laws and regulations. Two joint training
sessions have been held with additional sessions planned in the near future.
These initial training sessions will form the foundation of a long-term
integrated training plan.
24.
JOINT ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION
The
latest Canada-United States Cross-Border Crime Forum (CBCF) took place on July
21-22, 2002. The participants at the CBCF reiterated the importance of the role
of Project Northstar. Since becoming formally aligned with the CBCF in early
2001, the role of Project Northstar as a mechanism for joint law enforcement
coordination has been significantly enhanced. Project Northstar will have a
border-wide meeting in Winnipeg in April 2003.
Project
North Star will continue to:
- identify
and prioritize joint obstacles for law enforcement at the border;
- bring
these obstacles to policy makers at the Canada-United States Cross-Border
Crime Forum for resolution; and
- work
to increase and establish new, joint representation of the American and
Canadian law enforcement community at the binational, regional, and local
levels.
Planning
is currently underway for the next Cross-Border Crime Forum, which will be
hosted by the United States, in late Spring 2003.
25.
INTEGRATED INTELLIGENCE
The
Government of Canada has established Integrated National Security Enforcement
Teams (INSETs), which will include representatives from federal enforcement and
intelligence agencies, as well as international law enforcement partners such as
the U.S., on a case-by-case basis. Canada has also been participating since
April 9, 2002, in the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) in
Washington, to detect, interdict, and remove foreign terrorist threats.
26.
FINGERPRINTS
With the
development of a Memorandum of Cooperation, the RCMP and the FBI will implement
an electronic system for the exchange of criminal records information, including
fingerprints, using a standard communication interface.
27.
REMOVAL OF DEPORTEES
Canada
and the United States are continuing cooperation in removing individuals to
source countries. To date, Canada and the United States have conducted 5 joint
operations resulting in 313 removals.
28.
COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION
President
Bush signed anti-terrorism legislation on October 26, 2001. In Canada, the Anti-Terrorism
Act came into force on December 24, 2001.
29.
FREEZING OF TERRORIST ASSETS
Canada
and the United States have a working process in place to share advance
information on individuals and organizations that may be designated as terrorist
in order to coordinate the freezing of their assets. To date, Canada and the
United States have designated or listed over 360 individuals and organizations.
30.
JOINT TRAINING AND EXERCISES
LIST OF WITNESSEs
Associations
Agricultural
Producers Association of Saskatchewan ·
Mr. Dave Brown,
Vice-President
February 21, 2003 |
Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada ·
Mr. Rory McAlpine, Acting
Director General, International Trade Policy ·
Mr. Ian Thomson, Acting
Director, Western Hemisphere Trade Policy Division February 5, 2003 |
Alberta
Canola Producers Commission ·
Mr. Kenton Ziegler, Chair ·
Mr. Ward W. Toma, General
Manager February 19, 2003 |
Asia-Pacific
Foundation of Canada ·
Mr. John Wiebe, President
and Chief Executive Officer March 26, 2003 |
British
Columbia Lumber Trade Council ·
Mr. John Allan, President February 17, 2003 |
Canadian
Agri-Food Trade Alliance ·
Mr. Ted Menzies, President ·
Ms. Patty Townsend,
Executive Director February 5, 2003 |
Canadian
/ American Border Trade Alliance ·
Mr. Jim Phillips, President
and Chief Executive Officer March
18, 2003 |
Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers ·
Mr. Pierre Alvarez,
President February 19, 2003 |
Canadian
Cattlemen’s Association ·
Mr. Dennis Laycraft,
Executive Vice President February 19, 2003 |
Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives ·
Mr. Bruce Campbell,
Executive Director March 26, 2003 |
Canadian
Chamber of Commerce ·
Mr. Bob Keyes,
Vice-President, International ·
Mr. Alexander Lofthouse,
Policy Analyst February 12, 2003 |
Canadian
Chemical Producers’ Association ·
Mr. Richard Paton,
President; ·
Mr. David W. Goffin,
Secretary-Treasurer and Vice-President, Business and Economics April 1, 2003 |
Canadian
Council of Chief Executive Officers ·
Mr. Thomas d'Aquino,
President and Chief Executive Officer ·
Mr. George Haynal, Senior
Vice-President ·
Mr. Sam T. Boutziouvis, Vice
President, Policy and Senior Economic Advisor February 12, 2003 |
Canadian
Energy Research Institute ·
Dr. J. Philip Prince,
President ·
Mr. Peter L. Miles, Senior
Vice-President, Research February 19, 2003 |
Canadian
Federation of Agriculture ·
Mr. Robert Friesen,
President ·
Mr. Marvin Shauf, Second
Vice-President ·
Ms. Jennifer Higginson,
Policy Analyst February 5, 2003 |
Canadian
Food Inspection Agency ·
Mr. Paul Haddow, Executive
Director, International Affairs February 5, 2003 |
Canadian
Manufacturers and Exporters ·
The Honourable Perrin
Beatty, President and Chief Executive Officer April 1, 2003 |
Canadian
Trucking Alliance ·
Mr. David H. Bradley,
President and Chief Executive Officer ·
Ms. Elly Meister, Vice
President, Public Affairs April
9, 2003 |
Canadian
Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association ·
Mr. David C. Adams,
Vice-President, Policy April
1, 2003 |
Canadian
Wheat Board ·
The Honourable Ralph
Goodale, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Works and Government Services
and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board May 14,
2003 ·
Mr. Ian McCreary, Director ·
Mr. Victor Jarjour,
Vice-President ·
Ms. Alexandra Lamont, Policy
Advisor February
21, 2003 |
Canfor
Corporation ·
Mr. Kenneth O. Higginbotham,
Vice-President, Forestry and Environment February
18, 2003 |
Centre
for Trade Policy and Law ·
Mr. William A. Dymond,
Executive Director February
3, 2003 |
Communications,
Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada ·
Mr. Fred Wilson, National
Representative February
11, 2003 |
Department
of Citizenship and Immigration ·
Mr. Daniel Jean, Acting
Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development April
9, 2003 |
Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade ·
The Honourable Pierre
Pettigrew, P.C., M.P., Minister of International Trade February
3, 2003 ·
Mr. Marc Lortie, Assistant
Deputy Minister (Americas) April
8, 2003 ·
Mr. Doug Waddell, Assistant
Deputy Minister, Trade, Economic and Environmental Policy March
19, 2003 ·
Carlos Rojas-Arbulú, Trade
Commissioner, Mexico Division April
8, 2003 ·
Mr. Claude Carrière,
Director General, Trade Policy Bureau February
3, 2003 March
25, 2003 |
Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (continued) ·
Ms. Elaine Feldman, Director
General, Export and Import Controls Bureau March
19, 2003 ·
Ms. Suzanne Vinet, Director
General, Trade Policy II, Services, Investment and Intellectual Property
Bureau March
25, 2003 ·
Mr. Bruce Levy, Director,
Transborder Relations with the United States February 3, 2003 ·
Mr. Claudio Vallé,
Director, Technical Barriers and Regulations April 8, 2003 ·
Mr. Graeme C. Clark, Acting
Director, Mexico Division April
8, 2003 ·
Mr. Matthew Kronby, Counsel,
Deputy Director, Trade Law March 25, 2003 |
Doman
Industries Limited ·
Mr. Bob Flitton, Manager,
Real Estate and Governmental Affairs February 17, 2003 |
Embassy
of Mexico in Ottawa ·
H.E. Maria Theresa Garcia S.
de Madero, Ambassador of Mexico to Canada April 8, 2003 & May 5, 2003 ·
Ms. Cecilia Jaber, Deputy
Head of Mission May 5, 2003 ·
Mr. Carlos Pinera,
Representative of the Mexican Secretariat of the Economy in Canada April 8, 2003 ·
Mr. Fernando Espinosa,
Economic Attaché April 8, 2003 |
Fisheries
Council of Canada ·
Mr. Ronald W. Bulmer,
President March 18, 2003 |
Forest
Products Association of Canada ·
Mr. Avrim Lazar, President February 11, 2003 |
Fraser
Institute ·
Mr. Fred McMahon, Director,
Centre for Globalization Studies February 18, 2003 |
Free
Trade Lumber Council ·
Mr. Frank Dottori,
Co-President ·
Mr. Carl Grenier, Senior
Vice-President February 11, 2003 |
Government
of Mexico ·
The Honourable Luis Ernesto
Derbez Bautista, Secretary of Foreign Affairs ·
Mr. Geronimo Gutiérrez,
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs May 5, 2003 |
Independent
Lumber Remanufacturers Association ·
Mr. Russ Cameron, President February 18, 2003 |
Industrial,
Wood & Allied Workers of Canada ·
Mr. Kim Pollock, National
Director, Public Policy and Environment February 17, 2003 |
Maritime
Lumber Bureau ·
Ms. Diana Blenkhorn,
President and Chief Executive Officer February 11, 2003 |
National
Farmers Union ·
Mr. Darrin Qualman,
Executive Director February 21, 2003 |
Nova
Scotia Fish Packers ·
Mr. Denny Morrow, Executive
Director March 18, 2003 |
United
Steelworkers of America ·
Mr. Dennis Deveau,
Government Liaison, Legislative Department April 1, 2003 |
Western
Barley Growers Association ·
Mr. Douglas McBain,
President February 19, 2003 |
Weyerhaeuser ·
Mr. David A. Larsen, Vice
President, Government and Public Affairs February 17, 2003 |
Wild
Rose Agricultural Producers ·
Mr. Brent McBean, Director February 19, 2003 |
Individuals
Professor
Don Barry International Relations University of Calgary February 20, 2003 |
Mr.
Anthony Campbell Consultant March 18, 2003 |
Mr.
Peter Clark Partner Grey, Clark, Shih and Associates, Ltd. February 3, 2003 |
Professor
Theodore Cohn Department of Political Science Simon Fraser University February 18, 2003 |
Professor
Gilbert Gagné Department of Political Studies Bishop University February 3, 2003 |
Mr.
Billy Garton Partner Bull, Housser & Tupper February 17, 2003 |
Mr.
Charles Gastle Partner, Shibley Righton February 11, 2003 |
Professor
Richard Harris Economics Department Simon Fraser University February 17, 2003 |
Professor
John Helliwell Department of Economics University of British Columbia February 18, 2003 |
Mr.
Lawrence L. Herman Counsel Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP February 4, 2003 |
Mr.
Jon Johnson Partner Goodmans LLP February 4, 2003 |
Professor
Laura Macdonald Associate Professor and Director, Centre for
North American Politics and Society Carleton University April 8, 2003 |
The
Honourable Roy MacLaren Former Minister for International Trade February 4, 2003 |
Professor
George MacLean Political Studies University of Manitoba February 21, 2003 |
Ms.
Kathleen Macmillan President, International Trade Policy Consultants February 3, 2003 |
Professor
Donald McRae Business and Trade Law University of Ottawa February 3, 2003 |
Professor
Armand de Mestral Faculty of Law McGill University February 27, 2003 |
Professor
Rolf Mirus Director, Centre for Economic Research,
School
of Business University of Alberta February 20, 2003 |
Mr.
Tim O'Neill Executive Vice-President and Chief Economist BMO Financial Group March 26, 2003 |
Professor
Richard Ouellet Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law Laval University February 27, 2003 |
Mr.
Les Reed Forest Policy Consultant February 17, 2003 |
Mr.
Steven Shrybman Lawyer Sack Goldblatt Mitchell February 27, 2003 |
Mr.
David Usherwood February 19, 2003 |
Fact Finding Mission
Washington, D.C., April 28 – May
1st, 2003
American
Consumers for Affordable Homes ·
Ms. Susan E. Petrunias ·
Mr. Bruce
H. Hahn, President, American Homeowners Foundation ·
Mr. Kent
Knutson, Vice President, Governmental Relations, Home Depot ·
Mr.
Jonathan Gold, Vice President, International Trade Policy, International
Mass Retail Association ·
Mr.
Michael S. Carliner, Staff Vice President, Economics, National
Association of Home Builders ·
Mr. Jason
M. Lynn, Legislative Director, National Association of Home Builders ·
Mr.
Michael Strauss, Legislative Communications Director, National
Association of Home Builders ·
Ms.
Pamela J. Slater, Legislative Representative, Consumers for World Trade ·
Mr.
Donald Ferguson, Geduldig and Ferguson
·
Mr. Gary Horlick, Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering May 1st,
2003 |
American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research ·
Mr. John C. Fortier, Ph.D.,
Research Associate April 29, 2003 |
Americans
for Better Borders Coalition ·
Ms. Theresa Cardinal Brown, Coalition Co-Chair ·
Mr. John Murphy,
Vice-President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce April 30,
2003 |
Canadian
Embassy in the United States of America ·
Ambassador Michael F.
Kergin, Ambassador of Canada to the United States of America ·
Mr. Bertin Côté, Minister
(Economic) and Deputy Head of Mission ·
Mr. Peter Boehm, Minister
(Political) ·
Mr. William R. Crosbie,
Minister-Counsellor (Economic and Trade Policy) April 29-30, 2003 May 1, 2003 |
Canadian
Embassy in the United States of America (continued) ·
Mr. Ariel N. Delouya,
Minister-Counsellor (Congressional and Legal Affairs) ·
Mr. Terry R. Colli,
Director, Public Affairs ·
Mr. Alan H. Minz, Counsellor
(Trade Policy) ·
Mr. Christopher A. Shapardanov, Counsellor
(Political Affairs) ·
Ms. Birgit Matthiesen, Economic and Trade
Policy Division ·
Ms. Catherine Vézina, Multilateral Affairs April 29-30, 2003 May 1, 2003 |
Congressional
Research Service ·
Mr. Ian F. Ferguson, Analyst
in International Trade and Finance April 29, 2003 |
Embassy
of the United States of America, Ottawa ·
His Excellency Paul
Cellucci, Ambassador of the United States of America to Canada ·
Mr. Michael Gallagher,
Minister-Counsellor for Economic Affairs Ottawa, April 28, 2003 |
Murphy
Frazer & Selfridge ·
Mr. Paul Frazer April 29,
2003 |
Northern
Border Caucus ·
Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Co-Chair ·
Mr.
Michael Morrow, Senior Staff Assistant, Trade Subcommittee, Ways and
Means Committee ·
Ms.
Juliet A. Bender, LEGIS Fellow, Trade Subcommittee, Ways and Means
Committee ·
Mr.
Jasper MacSlarrow, Senior Legislative Assistant, Congressman Rick Larsen ·
Mr. Beau
Schuyler, Senior Legislative Assistant, Congressman John Turner ·
Mr. Darin
T. Beffa, Legislative Assistant, Congressman George R. Nethercutt Jr. ·
Ms. Lori Mrowka, Legislative Assistant,
Congressman Bart Stupak
·
Ms.
Andrea Salinas, Legislative Assistant, Congressman Fortney H. (Pete)
Stark May 1st,
2003 |
Office
of the United States Trade Representative ·
Mr. John M. Melle, Deputy
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for North America ·
Ms. Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,
Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Agricultural Affairs ·
Ms. E. Sage Chandler,
Director for Canadian Affairs April 29,
2003 |
Permanent
Mission of Canada to the Organisation of American States ·
Ms. Gwyneth Kutz, Counsellor
and Alternate Representative of Canada to the Organization of American
States May 1st,
2003 |
Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs ·
Senator Susan M. Collins
(R-ME), Chair ·
Mr. Rob Owen, Counsel,
Senator Susan M. Collins ·
Ms. Jane Alonso, Legislative
Assistant, Senator Susan M. Collins April 30,
2003 |
Senate
Subcommittee on International Trade ·
Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY),
Chairman ·
Mr. Bryn N. Stewart, General
Counsel, Senator Craig Thomas April 29,
2003 |
United
States Department of Commerce ·
Mr. William Henry Lash III,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance ·
Mr. Andrew I. Rudman, Acting
Director, Office of NAFTA and Inter-American Affairs ·
Ms. Geri
C. Word, NAFTA Compliance Team Leader ·
Mr. Carlos Busquets, Canada Desk Officer ·
Mr. Pierce Scranton, Special
Assistant May 1st,
2003 |
United
States House of Representatives ·
Congressman Amo Houghton (R-
Corning) ·
Mr. Bob Van Wicklin,
Legislative Director, Congressman Amo Houghton April 29,
2003 |
University
of Maryland ·
Professor Peter Morici,
Professor of International Business, Robert H. Smith School of Business April 29,
2003 |