(Video: CPAC)
Gord Brown (Conservative, Leeds-Grenville) and Brian Masse (NDP, Windsor West), members of the “all-party Border Caucus” (Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group), respond to the new Border Security Agreement signed by Janet Napolitano and Peter Van Loan at last week’s summit in Ottawa.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Canada Gets Serious About Consumer-Product Safety
(Law.com – Peter Pliszka and Richard Butler, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin)
Manufacturers, importers, retailers and advertisers that sell products in Canada can expect to see a flurry of regulatory change relating to consumer products later this year. The activity – culminating in House of Commons Bill C-6, "An Act respecting the safety of consumer products" – stems from an increased focus by the Canadian government on the regulatory controls for consumer products.
Bill C-6, known colloquially as the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA), was introduced in Canada's House of Commons on January 29. If enacted into law as drafted, the CCPSA will reconstitute the federal organization Health Canada as a powerful regulator of consumer products, providing it with unprecedented authority to inspect and influence the supply chain for consumer goods.
The legislation currently governing consumer product safety in Canada is the federal Hazardous Products Act (HPA). Health Canada, the country's public health agency, is responsible for administration and enforcement of the HPA and its regulations, through its Product Safety Program. […]
The regulatory tools conferred upon Health Canada by the HPA are limited because they apply only to the list of products that fall within the scope of the HPA, and the powers are reactive in nature. At present, the HPA does not confer upon Health Canada any legislated authority to compel parties in the supply chain to initiate product recalls. Therefore, Health Canada must rely on the cooperation of private parties with respect to consumer product recalls.
As the Canadian government's vehicle for delivering an overhaul of consumer product regulation in Canada, the new CCPSA will repeal and replace Part I of the HPA. The CCPSA will apply to all "consumer products," other than exceptional products prescribed by regulation.
Read the complete article here.
Manufacturers, importers, retailers and advertisers that sell products in Canada can expect to see a flurry of regulatory change relating to consumer products later this year. The activity – culminating in House of Commons Bill C-6, "An Act respecting the safety of consumer products" – stems from an increased focus by the Canadian government on the regulatory controls for consumer products.
Bill C-6, known colloquially as the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA), was introduced in Canada's House of Commons on January 29. If enacted into law as drafted, the CCPSA will reconstitute the federal organization Health Canada as a powerful regulator of consumer products, providing it with unprecedented authority to inspect and influence the supply chain for consumer goods.
The legislation currently governing consumer product safety in Canada is the federal Hazardous Products Act (HPA). Health Canada, the country's public health agency, is responsible for administration and enforcement of the HPA and its regulations, through its Product Safety Program. […]
The regulatory tools conferred upon Health Canada by the HPA are limited because they apply only to the list of products that fall within the scope of the HPA, and the powers are reactive in nature. At present, the HPA does not confer upon Health Canada any legislated authority to compel parties in the supply chain to initiate product recalls. Therefore, Health Canada must rely on the cooperation of private parties with respect to consumer product recalls.
As the Canadian government's vehicle for delivering an overhaul of consumer product regulation in Canada, the new CCPSA will repeal and replace Part I of the HPA. The CCPSA will apply to all "consumer products," other than exceptional products prescribed by regulation.
Read the complete article here.
CBP is Accepting 2009 Claims for Antidumping and Countervailing Duties until July 28
(CBP)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) today [Friday] announced in the Federal Register that the CBP Revenue Division is accepting fiscal year 2009 claims for antidumping and countervailing duties.
The notice list all domestic producers who are entitled to file a claim under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). The purpose of this law is to disburse anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected by CBP to domestic producers injured by foreign dumping and subsidies.
Any domestic producer who is entitled to file a claim under the CDSOA must file their claim with the CBP Revenue Division no later than July 28.
The notice gives detailed instructions and requirements to be followed to ensure timely filing of claims. In order to be considered timely filed, the CBP Revenue Division must receive all fiscal year 2009 claims no later than July 28.
Any certifications received after July 28 will not be eligible to receive a distribution.
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 Certification, CBP Form 7401, may be used to apply for CDSOA distribution. This form is available at http://www.pay.gov and can also be found attached to the May 29 Federal Register Notice. This certification can be submitted electronically through www.pay.gov or by mail.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) today [Friday] announced in the Federal Register that the CBP Revenue Division is accepting fiscal year 2009 claims for antidumping and countervailing duties.
The notice list all domestic producers who are entitled to file a claim under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). The purpose of this law is to disburse anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected by CBP to domestic producers injured by foreign dumping and subsidies.
Any domestic producer who is entitled to file a claim under the CDSOA must file their claim with the CBP Revenue Division no later than July 28.
The notice gives detailed instructions and requirements to be followed to ensure timely filing of claims. In order to be considered timely filed, the CBP Revenue Division must receive all fiscal year 2009 claims no later than July 28.
Any certifications received after July 28 will not be eligible to receive a distribution.
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 Certification, CBP Form 7401, may be used to apply for CDSOA distribution. This form is available at http://www.pay.gov and can also be found attached to the May 29 Federal Register Notice. This certification can be submitted electronically through www.pay.gov or by mail.
Understanding Chinese Rules of Origin to Lower Costs and Ensure Compliance
(World Trade Interactive – Zhaokang Jiang)
Companies doing business in China can lower the costs of cross-border trade and avoid compliance risks by ensuring that they have a sound understanding of China’s preferential and non-preferential rules of origin. Zhaokang Jiang, head of Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg’s Beijing office, offers the following guidance on this important topic.
There are two types of rules of origin: one applies to most-favored-nation trade (non-preferential ROO) and the other applies to imports under bilateral and regional trade agreements or unilateral preference programs. The World Trade Organization does not have an agreement on product-specific and detailed ROO, and international trade is governed by national laws and bilateral and multilateral international agreements. Read more here.
Companies doing business in China can lower the costs of cross-border trade and avoid compliance risks by ensuring that they have a sound understanding of China’s preferential and non-preferential rules of origin. Zhaokang Jiang, head of Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg’s Beijing office, offers the following guidance on this important topic.
There are two types of rules of origin: one applies to most-favored-nation trade (non-preferential ROO) and the other applies to imports under bilateral and regional trade agreements or unilateral preference programs. The World Trade Organization does not have an agreement on product-specific and detailed ROO, and international trade is governed by national laws and bilateral and multilateral international agreements. Read more here.
U.S. Security Czar Softens Stand on Border
(Adelle Loiselle — The Canadian Press)
Laws same, enforcement techniques will be different at Canadian, Mexican borders, U.S. official says
A senior U.S. official who earlier stoked concerns that Canada”s border would be treated no different than Mexico”s now says that while the law governing the crossings is the same, the techniques used to implement it will be different.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano”s words — made in Detroit late yesterday — come less than a week before new rules kick in that require a passport or other secure document to enter the U.S.
“We”re going to be using a different mix of manpower and technology between the ports of entry, for example, than we would at the southern border,” Napolitano said at a joint news conference with Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan.
“So, the law is the same but the techniques we use to implement that law will be differentiated because of the differences between Canada and Mexico.” Read more here.
Laws same, enforcement techniques will be different at Canadian, Mexican borders, U.S. official says
A senior U.S. official who earlier stoked concerns that Canada”s border would be treated no different than Mexico”s now says that while the law governing the crossings is the same, the techniques used to implement it will be different.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano”s words — made in Detroit late yesterday — come less than a week before new rules kick in that require a passport or other secure document to enter the U.S.
“We”re going to be using a different mix of manpower and technology between the ports of entry, for example, than we would at the southern border,” Napolitano said at a joint news conference with Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan.
“So, the law is the same but the techniques we use to implement that law will be differentiated because of the differences between Canada and Mexico.” Read more here.
Bid to Kill “Buy U.S.” Hinges on Provinces
(Paul Vieira — National Post)
Ottawa urges officials to open markets to U. S.
The federal government is looking to cut a deal with Washington that would persuade U. S. legislators to repeal controversial Buy American measures that Canadian firms say are costing them sales and forcing them to shed jobs.
The key element of such a pact, however, is getting the provinces and territories to open up their procurement markets to U. S. suppliers. At present, provinces and municipalities are not bound by global trade law and are free to discriminate against U. S. companies in favour of local suppliers.
International Trade Minister Stockwell Day has been in talks with the provinces to determine their willingness. If most are, Ottawa”s goal is to persuade Washington to drop the Buy American clauses on the understanding that provinces would commit to talks aimed at opening their markets. Read more here.
Ottawa urges officials to open markets to U. S.
The federal government is looking to cut a deal with Washington that would persuade U. S. legislators to repeal controversial Buy American measures that Canadian firms say are costing them sales and forcing them to shed jobs.
The key element of such a pact, however, is getting the provinces and territories to open up their procurement markets to U. S. suppliers. At present, provinces and municipalities are not bound by global trade law and are free to discriminate against U. S. companies in favour of local suppliers.
International Trade Minister Stockwell Day has been in talks with the provinces to determine their willingness. If most are, Ottawa”s goal is to persuade Washington to drop the Buy American clauses on the understanding that provinces would commit to talks aimed at opening their markets. Read more here.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
NDP Introduces Buy Canadian Legislation
(Ottawa Business Journal)
A private member’s bill introduced Monday by the New Democrats would require the federal government to give priority to Canadian companies when purchasing goods and services. Bill C-392, known as the Made in Canada Act, makes exceptions for emergency purchases, cases where there are no Canadian bidders or if the procurement falls under international trade agreements.
“This bill will help build new markets for Canadian suppliers, strengthen sustainability and our environmental commitments, and encourage Canadian entrepreneurship,” said NDP MP Irene Mathyssen in a statement. The bill defines a Canadian product as one in which more than 50% of the total value is manufactured, produced or assembled in Canada.
Canadian politicians continue to voice concerns over “Buy American” provisions attached to U.S. stimulus legislation that are appearing in other pieces of legislation, such as funds for local governments to improve drinking water systems. Last week, Conservative Industry Minister Tony Clement said the measures are “of grave concern to Canada” and warned protectionist impulses could backfire on the U.S. economy.
A private member’s bill introduced Monday by the New Democrats would require the federal government to give priority to Canadian companies when purchasing goods and services. Bill C-392, known as the Made in Canada Act, makes exceptions for emergency purchases, cases where there are no Canadian bidders or if the procurement falls under international trade agreements.
“This bill will help build new markets for Canadian suppliers, strengthen sustainability and our environmental commitments, and encourage Canadian entrepreneurship,” said NDP MP Irene Mathyssen in a statement. The bill defines a Canadian product as one in which more than 50% of the total value is manufactured, produced or assembled in Canada.
Canadian politicians continue to voice concerns over “Buy American” provisions attached to U.S. stimulus legislation that are appearing in other pieces of legislation, such as funds for local governments to improve drinking water systems. Last week, Conservative Industry Minister Tony Clement said the measures are “of grave concern to Canada” and warned protectionist impulses could backfire on the U.S. economy.
No Industry Exempt from Global Downdraft
(Export Development Canada – Peter G. Hall)
Canadian exporters have faced significant new-millennium challenges. The irrepressible loonie, increased global competition, a thickening border with our top customer, bottlenecks in trade infrastructure – any one of these would have been challenge enough. Even so, exporters have managed to grow their business and create key success stories, thanks to vibrant global demand. With that key element now gone, export sales have suddenly become tough for all industries.
Exports fell into recession last year, led by a sharp drop in auto sector shipments and ongoing woes in the forestry industry. But at the same time, others were soaring. It was a great time to be producing raw materials: the energy, agri-food and fertilizer industries each saw sky-high gains. Also, exports of other transportation equipment, ores and metals, and industrial machinery and equipment posted respectable gains. The story for 2009 is much more uniform.
This year, there seem to be two categories: bad, and worse. Many of last year’s high-flyers will experience the deepest sectoral declines in 2009 export shipments. Few were not shocked by the extent of the collapse in energy and base metal prices, significant enough to put certain key projects in jeopardy, at least in the short term. Energy sector exports are forecast to tumble by 41% this year, before regaining 16% of the lost ground in 2010. Collectively, ores and metals will see a 33% drop in 2009 before a modest rebound in prices lifts 2010 shipments by 11%. Read more or watch the video version here.
Canadian exporters have faced significant new-millennium challenges. The irrepressible loonie, increased global competition, a thickening border with our top customer, bottlenecks in trade infrastructure – any one of these would have been challenge enough. Even so, exporters have managed to grow their business and create key success stories, thanks to vibrant global demand. With that key element now gone, export sales have suddenly become tough for all industries.
Exports fell into recession last year, led by a sharp drop in auto sector shipments and ongoing woes in the forestry industry. But at the same time, others were soaring. It was a great time to be producing raw materials: the energy, agri-food and fertilizer industries each saw sky-high gains. Also, exports of other transportation equipment, ores and metals, and industrial machinery and equipment posted respectable gains. The story for 2009 is much more uniform.
This year, there seem to be two categories: bad, and worse. Many of last year’s high-flyers will experience the deepest sectoral declines in 2009 export shipments. Few were not shocked by the extent of the collapse in energy and base metal prices, significant enough to put certain key projects in jeopardy, at least in the short term. Energy sector exports are forecast to tumble by 41% this year, before regaining 16% of the lost ground in 2010. Collectively, ores and metals will see a 33% drop in 2009 before a modest rebound in prices lifts 2010 shipments by 11%. Read more or watch the video version here.
U.S., Canada Discuss Possibility of Shared Border Facilities
(World Trade Interactive)
U.S. and Canadian officials met in Ottawa May 27 to discuss management of their common border. With respect to customs issues, the two sides said only that they would explore the possibility of sharing border facilities, equipment and technology. They also agreed on a framework for cross-border operations during and following an emergency.
Border Management.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Canadian Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan issued a joint statement following their meeting stating that they are committed to a “collaborative approach” to border management that “enhances our security and public safety while facilitating the trade and travel that connects our two countries.” The officials said they plan to meet twice a year to monitor progress toward the following goals.
• explore models for joint or shared border facilities, equipment and technology, as well as cross-designation of personnel
• develop joint threat and risk assessments and advance initiatives that manage risk while facilitating the movement of legitimate goods and people
• endeavor to share information relevant to preventing people or goods that threaten mutual safety and security from entering either nation or crossing the shared border
• expand integrated law enforcement operations along the shared border and waterways
Read the complete article here.
U.S. and Canadian officials met in Ottawa May 27 to discuss management of their common border. With respect to customs issues, the two sides said only that they would explore the possibility of sharing border facilities, equipment and technology. They also agreed on a framework for cross-border operations during and following an emergency.
Border Management.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Canadian Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan issued a joint statement following their meeting stating that they are committed to a “collaborative approach” to border management that “enhances our security and public safety while facilitating the trade and travel that connects our two countries.” The officials said they plan to meet twice a year to monitor progress toward the following goals.
• explore models for joint or shared border facilities, equipment and technology, as well as cross-designation of personnel
• develop joint threat and risk assessments and advance initiatives that manage risk while facilitating the movement of legitimate goods and people
• endeavor to share information relevant to preventing people or goods that threaten mutual safety and security from entering either nation or crossing the shared border
• expand integrated law enforcement operations along the shared border and waterways
Read the complete article here.
‘I’m busy doing my job’, Flaherty Says of Recession, $50B Deficit
(Video: CTF/Global TV • Story: CBC News)
Finance minister rejects opposition parties’ calls for his resignation
The $50-billion deficit Canada is facing this fiscal year is necessary to help Canadians weather the worst economic recession since the Second World War, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Thursday, rejecting calls from the opposition to resign.
“I’m busy doing my job. There’s a global recession going on,” Flaherty told CBC News.
Flaherty announced Tuesday the deficit will rise by more than $16 billion in 2009-10 from the $34 billion he forecast in January’s budget.
The announcement prompted calls from the opposition on Wednesday for him to step down. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff called Flaherty’s handling of the global recession “incompetence on a historic scale.”
Flaherty said Thursday the projected deficit only represents about 3.3 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. That pales compared to the 10 per cent and greater deficits Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States are facing, Flaherty said. Read more here.
Finance minister rejects opposition parties’ calls for his resignation
The $50-billion deficit Canada is facing this fiscal year is necessary to help Canadians weather the worst economic recession since the Second World War, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Thursday, rejecting calls from the opposition to resign.
“I’m busy doing my job. There’s a global recession going on,” Flaherty told CBC News.
Flaherty announced Tuesday the deficit will rise by more than $16 billion in 2009-10 from the $34 billion he forecast in January’s budget.
The announcement prompted calls from the opposition on Wednesday for him to step down. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff called Flaherty’s handling of the global recession “incompetence on a historic scale.”
Flaherty said Thursday the projected deficit only represents about 3.3 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. That pales compared to the 10 per cent and greater deficits Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States are facing, Flaherty said. Read more here.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
CP Notice: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Lacey Act Blanket Declaration Pilot Program
(CP Rail)
This is further to our Customer Bulletin of March 24, 2009, concerning USDA APHIS implementation of the Revised Lacey Act Provisions.
This update will be of particular interest to Shippers and U.S. Importers who:
a) Ship / Import goods to the U.S. subject to Lacey Act provisions b) Participate in U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (USCBP)
Automated Line Release (ALR) program The USDA is introducing a blanket Declaration Pilot Program for shippers using the USCBP ALR program.
The Pilot Program allows importers and shippers currently using ALR codes to continue doing so provided they participate in the Pilot. Those who do not participate in the program will have their ALR C4 code inactivated effective June 1, 2009.
The Lacey Act Blanket Declaration Pilot Program is open only to those entities currently participating in one of Customs and Border Protection's expedited border release programs, Automated Line Release (ALR) or Border Release Advance Screening and Selectivity (BRASS). This pilot program will test the feasibility of collecting the information required through the use of a periodic "blanket" declaration, with subsequent reconciliation reports.
Eligible importers who wish to participate in the pilot must send a letter to APHIS (to the address provided below) specifically requesting participation in the program. The letter must contain the importer's C4 code and the name and telephone number of an individual who will serve as a point of contact should APHIS require additional information.
The blanket declaration must be submitted in paper form and mailed to:
Lacey Act c/o U.S. Department of Agriculture
Box 10 4700 River Road • Riverdale, MD 20737
Canadian Pacific strongly encourages shippers and U.S. importers to review the details of this program. Participation will protect your Automated Line Release reporting privileges and help facilitate the cross border fluidity of your Lacey Act eligible goods.
Details on the USDA APHIS Program are available at the USDA website. Specific questions should be directed to your customs broker or the USDA APHIS.
This is further to our Customer Bulletin of March 24, 2009, concerning USDA APHIS implementation of the Revised Lacey Act Provisions.
This update will be of particular interest to Shippers and U.S. Importers who:
a) Ship / Import goods to the U.S. subject to Lacey Act provisions b) Participate in U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (USCBP)
Automated Line Release (ALR) program The USDA is introducing a blanket Declaration Pilot Program for shippers using the USCBP ALR program.
The Pilot Program allows importers and shippers currently using ALR codes to continue doing so provided they participate in the Pilot. Those who do not participate in the program will have their ALR C4 code inactivated effective June 1, 2009.
The Lacey Act Blanket Declaration Pilot Program is open only to those entities currently participating in one of Customs and Border Protection's expedited border release programs, Automated Line Release (ALR) or Border Release Advance Screening and Selectivity (BRASS). This pilot program will test the feasibility of collecting the information required through the use of a periodic "blanket" declaration, with subsequent reconciliation reports.
Eligible importers who wish to participate in the pilot must send a letter to APHIS (to the address provided below) specifically requesting participation in the program. The letter must contain the importer's C4 code and the name and telephone number of an individual who will serve as a point of contact should APHIS require additional information.
The blanket declaration must be submitted in paper form and mailed to:
Lacey Act c/o U.S. Department of Agriculture
Box 10 4700 River Road • Riverdale, MD 20737
Canadian Pacific strongly encourages shippers and U.S. importers to review the details of this program. Participation will protect your Automated Line Release reporting privileges and help facilitate the cross border fluidity of your Lacey Act eligible goods.
Details on the USDA APHIS Program are available at the USDA website. Specific questions should be directed to your customs broker or the USDA APHIS.
Napolitano Clarifies Sept. 11 Remarks
(Bill Curry — Globe & Mail)
It’s the American myth that just won’t die, and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano distanced herself from it before Wednesday’s visit to Ottawa, reiterating that she does not believe the Sept. 11 attackers came from Canada.
“Now we know the 9/11 terrorists did not use the Canadian border,” she said Tuesday in Detroit, a month after she suggested in an interview that they did.
“However, we also know that just as our economy has become globalized, so has terrorism. And it erupts in many ways, in many different facets beyond the traditional al-Qaeda episodes that we have seen in the past and attacks we have seen in the past.”
Ms. Napolitano’s comments fall short of what opposition MPs want to hear from her Wednesday on Parliament Hill in her first Canadian visit as secretary: a clear statement to the U.S. audience that Canada is not a threat. Read more here.
It’s the American myth that just won’t die, and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano distanced herself from it before Wednesday’s visit to Ottawa, reiterating that she does not believe the Sept. 11 attackers came from Canada.
“Now we know the 9/11 terrorists did not use the Canadian border,” she said Tuesday in Detroit, a month after she suggested in an interview that they did.
“However, we also know that just as our economy has become globalized, so has terrorism. And it erupts in many ways, in many different facets beyond the traditional al-Qaeda episodes that we have seen in the past and attacks we have seen in the past.”
Ms. Napolitano’s comments fall short of what opposition MPs want to hear from her Wednesday on Parliament Hill in her first Canadian visit as secretary: a clear statement to the U.S. audience that Canada is not a threat. Read more here.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Borderline Breakdown
(Macleans.ca)
Border security is still a very sore point in Canada-U.S. relations
The greatest test of whether the election of President Barack Obama will really repair the strains in Canada-U.S. relations gets under way this month when the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, comes to visit. The transformation of land border security over the last eight years came to symbolize the tense relations between Ottawa and the Bush administration. The almost 9,000 km of friendly frontier, and gateway to $1.6 billion in trade per day, turned into another front in the war on terror, patrolled by now-armed guards and unmanned drones, riddled with new regulations that business complains tie up trade, and as of June 1, a passport requirement for the first time. From the Canadian point of view, it was the work largely of an overzealous American administration and Congress taking a series of unilateral actions. “The previous attitude was that any additional step that could be taken should be taken without regard for trade,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan told Maclean’s. Like many Canadians, he hopes that will change under Obama. “Now we want to focus on security that is actually effective, and addresses real security threats—counterterrorism, the drug trade, organized crime, immigration issues—and we want to find ways to improve the flow of goods across the border.”
But from the U.S. point of view, the last eight years looked rather different. The world changed on 9/11, and Americans and Canadians reacted with what Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior Department of Homeland Security official who worked on border issues under George W. Bush, diplomatically refers to as “a different sense of urgency.” He suspects Ottawa and Washington will find it just as difficult to resolve their differences under Obama as they did under Bush. “One of the things I’ve learned is that there is this myth that Canadians and Americans are a lot alike in how they view things like trade and terrorism,” Rosenzweig said in an interview. “And they simply are not.” Where Canadians saw U.S. unilateralism, Americans saw Canadian complacency. On both sides, there was an erosion of trust. Can it be rebuilt? “My advice to Secretary Napolitano,” says Rosenzweig, “would be to explore how much of our inability to achieve common objectives with Canada was the product of political issues relating to the Bush administration—and how much of it was fundamental.”
Read more here.
Border security is still a very sore point in Canada-U.S. relations
The greatest test of whether the election of President Barack Obama will really repair the strains in Canada-U.S. relations gets under way this month when the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, comes to visit. The transformation of land border security over the last eight years came to symbolize the tense relations between Ottawa and the Bush administration. The almost 9,000 km of friendly frontier, and gateway to $1.6 billion in trade per day, turned into another front in the war on terror, patrolled by now-armed guards and unmanned drones, riddled with new regulations that business complains tie up trade, and as of June 1, a passport requirement for the first time. From the Canadian point of view, it was the work largely of an overzealous American administration and Congress taking a series of unilateral actions. “The previous attitude was that any additional step that could be taken should be taken without regard for trade,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan told Maclean’s. Like many Canadians, he hopes that will change under Obama. “Now we want to focus on security that is actually effective, and addresses real security threats—counterterrorism, the drug trade, organized crime, immigration issues—and we want to find ways to improve the flow of goods across the border.”
But from the U.S. point of view, the last eight years looked rather different. The world changed on 9/11, and Americans and Canadians reacted with what Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior Department of Homeland Security official who worked on border issues under George W. Bush, diplomatically refers to as “a different sense of urgency.” He suspects Ottawa and Washington will find it just as difficult to resolve their differences under Obama as they did under Bush. “One of the things I’ve learned is that there is this myth that Canadians and Americans are a lot alike in how they view things like trade and terrorism,” Rosenzweig said in an interview. “And they simply are not.” Where Canadians saw U.S. unilateralism, Americans saw Canadian complacency. On both sides, there was an erosion of trust. Can it be rebuilt? “My advice to Secretary Napolitano,” says Rosenzweig, “would be to explore how much of our inability to achieve common objectives with Canada was the product of political issues relating to the Bush administration—and how much of it was fundamental.”
Read more here.
U.S. Food Labelling Unfair and Uneconomical
(Michael J. Armstrong — The ChronicleHerald)
When Canada recently resumed its World Trade Organization challenge of the U.S. Country-Of-Origin Labelling (COOL) laws, we were in effect doing both countries a favour. That’s because COOL in its current form is unfair, uneconomical and unjustified. COOL has more to do with protecting U.S. livestock producers than protecting U.S. consumers.
Signed into law last March, COOL affects certain foods that come from a foreign country but are packaged in the U.S.A. If an American packing plant buys hogs from Canada to make pork chops, U.S. grocery stores selling those chops must identify the meat’s Canadian origin. In principle, this sounds good.
In practice, however, meat packers don’t want the extra work required by COOL, which forces them to track which country the meat in each package comes from. For example, steaks from American cattle must be labelled “Product of the U.S.” whereas steaks from Canadian cattle must be labelled “Product of Canada and the U.S.” Since Washington forbids general labels such as “Made from U.S. and/or Canadian cattle,” packers must change their operating procedures to handle Canadian animals separately from American ones.
U.S. processors are already cutting back on imports. Sales of Canadian cattle and hogs into the U.S. have plunged as more American plants stick to domestic livestock so they simply can label everything “Product of the U.S.” So the labelling law is costly because it affects much more than labels. It is harming Canadian producers. Read more here.
When Canada recently resumed its World Trade Organization challenge of the U.S. Country-Of-Origin Labelling (COOL) laws, we were in effect doing both countries a favour. That’s because COOL in its current form is unfair, uneconomical and unjustified. COOL has more to do with protecting U.S. livestock producers than protecting U.S. consumers.
Signed into law last March, COOL affects certain foods that come from a foreign country but are packaged in the U.S.A. If an American packing plant buys hogs from Canada to make pork chops, U.S. grocery stores selling those chops must identify the meat’s Canadian origin. In principle, this sounds good.
In practice, however, meat packers don’t want the extra work required by COOL, which forces them to track which country the meat in each package comes from. For example, steaks from American cattle must be labelled “Product of the U.S.” whereas steaks from Canadian cattle must be labelled “Product of Canada and the U.S.” Since Washington forbids general labels such as “Made from U.S. and/or Canadian cattle,” packers must change their operating procedures to handle Canadian animals separately from American ones.
U.S. processors are already cutting back on imports. Sales of Canadian cattle and hogs into the U.S. have plunged as more American plants stick to domestic livestock so they simply can label everything “Product of the U.S.” So the labelling law is costly because it affects much more than labels. It is harming Canadian producers. Read more here.
Criminal Conviction for False NAFTA Certificate of Origin
(Susan Kohn Ross — The Journal of Commerce)
The Patriot Act contains a provision which allows the U.S. to prosecute for export violations, see 18 U.S.C. 554. Gerardo Cantu was indicted under 46 counts, one each per shipment. Cantu pled guilty to ten (10) counts agreeing that he imported fabric rolls from China, moved them in-bond and intended to import them into Mexico relying on phony NAFTA Certificates of Origin. Cantu was sentenced to six (6) months in prison, three (3) years probation, and an $8,000 fine for fraudulently and knowingly facilitating the transportation, concealment and sale of Chinese textiles from the United States to Mexico with falsified invoices and NAFTA certificates of origin.
The violations came to light when an outbound shipment was designed [sic] for examination and a NAFTA Certificate of Origin claiming U.S. origin was found. Cantu was interviewed and admitted he was doing so in order to evade Mexican duties.
Any wonder why we keep seeing more export inspections?
Comment on the Roundtable blog.
The Patriot Act contains a provision which allows the U.S. to prosecute for export violations, see 18 U.S.C. 554. Gerardo Cantu was indicted under 46 counts, one each per shipment. Cantu pled guilty to ten (10) counts agreeing that he imported fabric rolls from China, moved them in-bond and intended to import them into Mexico relying on phony NAFTA Certificates of Origin. Cantu was sentenced to six (6) months in prison, three (3) years probation, and an $8,000 fine for fraudulently and knowingly facilitating the transportation, concealment and sale of Chinese textiles from the United States to Mexico with falsified invoices and NAFTA certificates of origin.
The violations came to light when an outbound shipment was designed [sic] for examination and a NAFTA Certificate of Origin claiming U.S. origin was found. Cantu was interviewed and admitted he was doing so in order to evade Mexican duties.
Any wonder why we keep seeing more export inspections?
Comment on the Roundtable blog.
Trade and Hard Times
(The New York Times)
Foreign trade has been a potent force for good over more than half a century. It propelled Japan’s emergence from the ashes of World War II and helped it become an industrial powerhouse. It is the cornerstone of development strategies from China to Brazil. It is what links countries all over the world in a network of production that underpins global prosperity.
Today, trade is collapsing, one more casualty of the global financial crisis. That is especially bad news for countries that are dependent on trade for economic growth, including many developing nations that had nothing to do with the financial mess.
Exports from the United States declined 30 percent and imports 34 percent in the first quarter of the year from the previous three months. Imports into countries that use the euro from outside the area were down 21 percent compared with the first quarter of last year. At this rate, the World Trade Organization’s dire projection in March that global trade would decline 9 percent this year will soon start to look outright boastful.
The drop in trade is spreading economic weakness across the world, as one country’s drop in imports translates into a fall in exports, and production, in another. Read more here.
Foreign trade has been a potent force for good over more than half a century. It propelled Japan’s emergence from the ashes of World War II and helped it become an industrial powerhouse. It is the cornerstone of development strategies from China to Brazil. It is what links countries all over the world in a network of production that underpins global prosperity.
Today, trade is collapsing, one more casualty of the global financial crisis. That is especially bad news for countries that are dependent on trade for economic growth, including many developing nations that had nothing to do with the financial mess.
Exports from the United States declined 30 percent and imports 34 percent in the first quarter of the year from the previous three months. Imports into countries that use the euro from outside the area were down 21 percent compared with the first quarter of last year. At this rate, the World Trade Organization’s dire projection in March that global trade would decline 9 percent this year will soon start to look outright boastful.
The drop in trade is spreading economic weakness across the world, as one country’s drop in imports translates into a fall in exports, and production, in another. Read more here.
Customs Notices: 2010 Olympic & Paralympic Remission Orders
(Canada Border Services Agency)
The following customs notices are now available on the Canada Border Services Agency’s website:
CN09-009: Temporary Importations Using the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Remission Order
CN09-010: Permanent Importations Using the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Remission Order
The following customs notices are now available on the Canada Border Services Agency’s website:
CN09-009: Temporary Importations Using the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Remission Order
CN09-010: Permanent Importations Using the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Remission Order
Winnipeg to Become a Massive “Inland Port”
(Canadian Consulting Engineer)
The Government of Manitoba has introduced legislation to build a huge “inland port” around Winnipeg's international airport. The idea of CentrePort Canada is to take advantage of the city's location close to the geographic centre of North America. Winnipeg is located on the International Mid transportation corridor, which gives access by road and rail south into the U.S. and Mexico via the Emerson Border. To the west are routes into Asia via the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, while to the northeast lie air cargo routes over the North Pole to Europe.
The CentrePort Canada Act enables the creation of a corporation to develop and run the port on 20 acres of land northwest of the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport. The inland port would be a massive trucking and rail depot, as well as having private distribution centres, warehouses and manufacturing plants.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed $100 million in federal funds to help develop the port when he was touring the province to observe flooding in the area in April. The total cost is estimated at $212 million. One of the first jobs is to build a four-lane expressway to link the port to the airport.
Canada Post is already building a new mail distribution plant east of the airport on 11 hectares of land.
The Government of Manitoba has introduced legislation to build a huge “inland port” around Winnipeg's international airport. The idea of CentrePort Canada is to take advantage of the city's location close to the geographic centre of North America. Winnipeg is located on the International Mid transportation corridor, which gives access by road and rail south into the U.S. and Mexico via the Emerson Border. To the west are routes into Asia via the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, while to the northeast lie air cargo routes over the North Pole to Europe.
The CentrePort Canada Act enables the creation of a corporation to develop and run the port on 20 acres of land northwest of the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport. The inland port would be a massive trucking and rail depot, as well as having private distribution centres, warehouses and manufacturing plants.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed $100 million in federal funds to help develop the port when he was touring the province to observe flooding in the area in April. The total cost is estimated at $212 million. One of the first jobs is to build a four-lane expressway to link the port to the airport.
Canada Post is already building a new mail distribution plant east of the airport on 11 hectares of land.
AAEI Says 10+2 Costs Will Mount
(American Shipper)
The American Association of Exporters and Importers [AAEI] in comments filed last week urged caution over the costs of U.S. Customs’ Importer Security Filing interim final rule.
ISF, also known as ‘10+2’, requires cargo information to be transmitted to CBP agents at least 24 hours before goods are shipped to the United States.
“AAEI expressed concern to U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the costs of ‘10+2’ compliance are still unknown,” the association said. “In the first months of implementation, the only cost CBP is capturing is the transaction fee for filing. However, AAEI notes that the true costs are much higher, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. Plus, hidden costs of ‘10+2’ compliance will add up quickly due to delays and slowdowns in the supply chain.
“AAEI is also concerned about the lack of tangible benefits for voluntary participation in the costly C-TPAT program…” Read more here (subscription required).
The American Association of Exporters and Importers [AAEI] in comments filed last week urged caution over the costs of U.S. Customs’ Importer Security Filing interim final rule.
ISF, also known as ‘10+2’, requires cargo information to be transmitted to CBP agents at least 24 hours before goods are shipped to the United States.
“AAEI expressed concern to U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the costs of ‘10+2’ compliance are still unknown,” the association said. “In the first months of implementation, the only cost CBP is capturing is the transaction fee for filing. However, AAEI notes that the true costs are much higher, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. Plus, hidden costs of ‘10+2’ compliance will add up quickly due to delays and slowdowns in the supply chain.
“AAEI is also concerned about the lack of tangible benefits for voluntary participation in the costly C-TPAT program…” Read more here (subscription required).
Monday, May 25, 2009
Use Trade Sanctions to Beat ‘Buy America’: Export Chief
(David Akin — Canwest News Service)
The leader of the country’s biggest industry association wants Ottawa to threaten trade sanctions against U.S. companies to force American officials to work harder at improving a deteriorating economic relationship between the two countries.
Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said he prefers a negotiated end to the economic problems caused by the “Buy America” provision that has stuck itself to much of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package.
As a result, many Canadian firms with a long history of sales to American customers are getting shut out.
“Clearly the threat of retaliation is something that does attract attention in the United States and the retaliatory pressures we’re seeing right now against “Buy America” provisions are certainly causing a lot of concern in the U.S. administration,” Mr. Myers said in a joint interview with Canwest News Service and Global National. “It’s something the Canadian government should use as a negotiating lever here.” Read more here.
The leader of the country’s biggest industry association wants Ottawa to threaten trade sanctions against U.S. companies to force American officials to work harder at improving a deteriorating economic relationship between the two countries.
Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said he prefers a negotiated end to the economic problems caused by the “Buy America” provision that has stuck itself to much of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package.
As a result, many Canadian firms with a long history of sales to American customers are getting shut out.
“Clearly the threat of retaliation is something that does attract attention in the United States and the retaliatory pressures we’re seeing right now against “Buy America” provisions are certainly causing a lot of concern in the U.S. administration,” Mr. Myers said in a joint interview with Canwest News Service and Global National. “It’s something the Canadian government should use as a negotiating lever here.” Read more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
