(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:




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.




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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:

Canada and the United States are working to align other customs processes for all commercial shipments by 2005.


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:

17.            CUSTOMS DATA

Canadian and U.S. Customs agencies have extended the scope of information they share through:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:

Planning is currently underway for the next Cross-Border Crime Forum, which will be hosted by the United States, in late Spring 2003.


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.


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.


President Bush signed anti-terrorism legislation on October 26, 2001. In Canada, the Anti-Terrorism Act came into force on December 24, 2001.


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.


Canada and the United States have been conducting a series of counter-terrorism exercises of increasing complexity that will culminate in the full-scale TOPOFF II exercise in May 2003. TOPOFF II will include a wide range of participants, from first responders to senior government leaders at the local, state/province, and federal levels and ask them to respond to multiple terrorist attacks within the United States which have cross-border implications. This exercise will provide the foundation for an ongoing program of joint training activities.




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


·         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




·         Mr. David A. Larsen, Vice President, Government and Public Affairs

February 17, 2003


Wild Rose Agricultural Producers

·         Mr. Brent McBean, Director

February 19, 2003





Professor Don Barry

International Relations

University of Calgary

February 20, 2003


Mr. Anthony Campbell


March 18, 2003


Mr. Peter Clark


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


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


Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP

February 4, 2003


Mr. Jon Johnson


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


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


·         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

Top of document