

Currently released so far... 12553 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
APECO
ASEC
AMGT
AFIN
APER
ACABQ
AORC
AEMR
AF
AE
AR
AGMT
AU
AY
ABLD
AS
AG
AJ
APCS
AX
AM
AMEX
ATRN
ADM
AMED
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AL
ASUP
AND
ARM
ASEAN
AFFAIRS
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AODE
APEC
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AO
ABUD
AC
ADPM
ADCO
ASIG
ARF
AUC
ASEX
AGAO
AA
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
AIT
AADP
ASCH
AORL
AROC
ACOA
ANET
AID
AMCHAMS
AINF
AMG
AFU
AN
ALOW
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ACS
ADANA
AECL
ACAO
AORG
AGR
BEXP
BR
BM
BG
BL
BA
BTIO
BO
BP
BC
BILAT
BK
BU
BD
BRUSSELS
BB
BF
BBSR
BIDEN
BX
BE
BH
BT
BY
BMGT
BWC
BTIU
BN
CA
CASC
CFED
CO
CH
CS
CU
CE
CI
CM
CMGT
CJAN
COM
CG
CIS
CVIS
CR
CKGR
CHR
CVR
COUNTER
CIA
CLINTON
CY
CPAS
CD
CBW
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CDG
CW
CODEL
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
COE
CN
CARICOM
CB
CONDOLEEZZA
CWC
CACS
CSW
CIDA
CIC
CITT
CONS
CL
CACM
CDB
CDC
CAN
CF
CJUS
CTM
CBSA
CARSON
CT
CLMT
CBC
CEUDA
CV
COPUOS
CTR
CROS
CAPC
CAC
CNARC
CICTE
CBE
ECON
ETRD
EIND
ENRG
EC
ELAB
EAGR
EAID
EFIS
EFIN
EINV
EUN
EG
EPET
EAIR
EU
ELTN
EWWT
ECIN
ERD
EI
ETTC
EUR
EN
EZ
ETC
ENVI
EMIN
ET
ENVR
ER
ECPS
EINT
EAP
ES
ENIV
ECONOMY
EXTERNAL
EINN
EFTA
ECONOMIC
EPA
EXBS
ECA
ELN
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENGR
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
ELECTIONS
EIAR
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
ENERG
EFIM
EAIDS
EK
ETRDECONWTOCS
EINVETC
ECONCS
EUNCH
ESA
ECINECONCS
EUREM
ESENV
EFINECONCS
ETRC
ENNP
EAIG
EXIM
EEPET
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
ERNG
ETRO
ETRN
EINVEFIN
ICTY
IN
IS
IR
IC
IZ
IA
INTERPOL
IAEA
IT
IMO
IO
IV
ID
IRAQI
IEA
INRB
IL
IWC
ITU
ICAO
ISRAELI
ICRC
IIP
IMF
IBRD
ISLAMISTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
ILO
IPR
IQ
IRS
IAHRC
IZPREL
IRAJ
IDP
ILC
ITF
ICJ
IF
ITPHUM
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
IACI
IBET
ITRA
INR
IRC
IDA
ICTR
IGAD
INRA
INRO
IEFIN
INTELSAT
INTERNAL
INDO
ITPGOV
KWMN
KSCA
KDEM
KTFN
KIPR
KCRM
KPAL
KE
KPAO
KPKO
KS
KN
KISL
KFRD
KJUS
KIRF
KFLO
KG
KTIP
KTER
KRCM
KTIA
KGHG
KIRC
KU
KPRP
KMCA
KMPI
KSEO
KNNP
KZ
KNEI
KCOR
KOMC
KCFC
KSTC
KMDR
KFLU
KSAF
KSEP
KSAC
KR
KGIC
KSUM
KWBG
KCIP
KDRG
KOLY
KAWC
KCHG
KHDP
KRVC
KBIO
KAWK
KGCC
KHLS
KBCT
KPLS
KREL
KCFE
KMFO
KV
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KVPR
KTDB
KSPR
KIDE
KVRP
KTEX
KBTR
KTRD
KICC
KCOM
KO
KLIG
KDEMAF
KMRS
KRAD
KOCI
KSTH
KUNR
KNSD
KGIT
KFSC
KHIV
KPAI
KICA
KACT
KHUM
KREC
KSEC
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCMR
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KNAR
KNUC
KPWR
KENV
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KPRV
KOM
KBTS
KCRS
KNPP
KWNM
KRFD
KVIR
KTBT
KAID
KRIM
KDDG
KRGY
KHSA
KWMM
KMOC
KSCI
KPAK
KX
KPAONZ
KCGC
KID
KPOA
KIFR
KFIN
KWAC
KOMS
KCRCM
KNUP
KMIG
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KTLA
KCSY
KJUST
MOPS
MARR
MASS
MNUC
MX
MCAP
MO
MR
MI
MD
MK
MA
MP
MY
MTCRE
MOPPS
MASC
MIL
MTS
MLS
MILI
MAR
MU
MEPN
MAPP
MTCR
MEPI
MZ
MEETINGS
MG
MW
MAS
MT
MCC
MIK
ML
MARAD
MV
MERCOSUR
MTRE
MPOS
MEPP
MILITARY
MDC
MQADHAFI
MUCN
MRCRE
MAPS
MEDIA
MASSMNUC
MC
NZ
NZUS
NL
NU
NATO
NP
NO
NIPP
NE
NH
NR
NA
NPT
NI
NSF
NG
NSG
NAFTA
NC
NDP
NEW
NRR
NATIONAL
NT
NS
NASA
NAR
NV
NORAD
NSSP
NK
NPA
NGO
NSC
NATOPREL
NW
NPG
NSFO
OPDC
OTRA
OIIP
OREP
OVIP
OSCE
OEXC
OIE
OPRC
OAS
OPIC
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OFFICIALS
OECD
OSCI
OBSP
OFDA
OPCW
ODIP
OFDP
OES
OPAD
OCII
OHUM
OVP
ON
OIC
OCS
PHUM
PREL
PGOV
PINR
PTER
PARM
PREF
PM
PE
PINS
PK
PHSA
PBTS
PRGOV
PA
PORG
PP
PS
PGOF
PL
PO
PARMS
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PAK
POL
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PBIO
PINF
PNG
PMIL
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PAO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PTBS
PCUL
PROP
PNAT
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PROG
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
PGOC
PY
PCI
PLN
PDOV
PREO
PGIV
PHUH
PAS
PU
POGOV
PF
PINL
POV
PAHO
PRL
PG
PRAM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLICY
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGGV
PHUS
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PEL
PSI
PAIGH
POSTS
PBT
PTERE
RS
RU
RW
RM
RO
RP
REGION
RSP
RF
RICE
RCMP
RFE
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
RUPREL
RELATIONS
ROOD
REACTION
RSO
REPORT
SENV
SNAR
SCUL
SR
SC
SOCI
SMIG
SI
SP
SU
SO
SW
SY
SA
SZ
SAN
SF
SN
STEINBERG
SG
ST
SIPDIS
SNARIZ
SNARN
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SAARC
SL
SEVN
SARS
SIPRS
SHUM
SANC
SWE
SHI
SYR
SNARCS
SPCE
SYRIA
SEN
SH
SCRS
SENVKGHG
TRGY
TSPL
TPHY
TSPA
TBIO
TI
TW
THPY
TX
TU
TS
TZ
TC
TH
TT
TIP
TO
TERRORISM
TRSY
TINT
TN
TURKEY
TBID
TL
TV
TNGD
TD
TF
TP
TFIN
TAGS
TK
TR
UNSC
UK
UNGA
UN
US
UNHRC
UG
UP
UNMIK
UNHCR
UE
USTR
UNVIE
UAE
UZ
UY
UNO
UNESCO
USEU
USOAS
UV
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNEP
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNDP
UNPUOS
UNC
UNAUS
USUN
UNCHC
UNCHR
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCSD
UNDC
USNC
USPS
USAID
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 03OTTAWA1543, 2003 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #03OTTAWA1543.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
03OTTAWA1543 | 2003-05-30 13:36 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy Ottawa |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 OTTAWA 001543
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EB/IFD/OIA (NEFIRD), L/CID (GLEHNER), AND WHA/CA
TREASURY FOR OASIA/IMI - HARLOW, MATHIEU, AND ITI
DEPARTMENT PASS USTR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV EFIN PGOV KIDE CA
SUBJECT: 2003 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS: CANADA
REF: A. STATE 83098
¶B. 02 OTTAWA 1466
¶1. Mission Canada has updated the the non-NAFTA investment
disputes (Claimants B, F, and H) and will e-mail the text as
requested in ref A. We have not updated the NAFTA Chapter 11
disputes being handled by L/CID (Claimants A, C, D, E, and
G). We are not aware of any new investor-state disputes this
past year.
¶2. Begin updated text:
CANADA
The United States Government is aware of eight (8) claims of
U.S. persons that may be outstanding against the Government
of Canada.
¶1. a) Claimant A
b) 1995
c) In response to a price increase by Claimant A in charges
to landfill customers in Quebec, more than 20 municipalities
formed the La Mauricie Intermunicipal Waste Management
Authority (REGIE) to take control of the landfill. Claimant
A appealed a January 1995 preliminary indemnity order for
$7.5 million (Canadian dollars), but the REGIE took
possession on May 1, 1995 and the $7.5 million was paid. The
claimant was dissatisfied with this amount, and Quebec
Indemnity Court proceedings began in December 1995. On
December 21, 1998, the Quebec Court Expropriation Chamber
awarded Claimant A C$24 million. The Regie appealed this
ruling to the Quebec Court of Appeals in 1999. Claimant's
legal counsel informs the Embassy that the Claimant prefers
to pursue legal remedies through the Quebec courts. Prior to
the court decision of 1998, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, at
Claimant's request, wrote Quebec provincial officials urging
resolution of the dispute. The Quebec Court of Appeals will
not hear the case until
fall 2002 or winter 2003. Claimant A would negotiate an
out-of-court settlement, and is passing this message through
provincial political authorities, but would insist on a
reasonable sum. Since waste management companies and
municipal authorities in Quebec collaborate and compete, the
claimant says he will continue the suit in court because of
the precedent it may set. Interest on the 1998 award of C$24
million has increased the sum to C$30 million.
¶2. a) Claimant B
b) 1993
c) The property in question is an undeveloped 2.29 acre plot
of land, including 220 feet of beachfront on Kingsburg beach
in Nova Scotia. The legal owner of the property is a Nova
Scotia Corporation owned by Claimant B that acquired the
property on March 3, 1993. On March 9, 1993, the provincial
Ministry of Natural Resources declared Kingsburg beach and
its dune system "protected" under the Nova Scotia Beaches
Protection Act. This designation prohibited development of
the property, and Claimant B contends the designation has
reduced the value of the property to zero, and amounts to a
taking of the property without compensation. Claimant B has
not provided the U.S. Government with an estimate of the
property's value.
Claimant B is one of several landowners affected by the
designation that has not resolved his dispute. Claimant B is
prohibited from building on his property because, unlike
other landowners that have been permitted to build, he did
not have required permits in place at the time of the
designation.
In June 1998, the provincial Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
ruled in favor of Claimant B. The Crown appealed that
decision, however. A court hearing date was held in May
1999, and on August 18, 1999, the Nova Scotia Court of
Appeals handed down its decision allowing the appeal and
dismissing Claimant B's action. Claimant was advised by the
Court to offer the provincial government a new proposal for a
development permit that would meet environmental objections.
A new proposal was submitted in 2000, but the Nova Scotia
Ministry of Natural Resources, responding in 2001, did not
concur with the conclusions of the environmental study and
request for construction permit submitted by Claimant B.
At the Claimant's request, Consulate Hallifax arranged a
meeting for the Claimant's representative with the provincial
Minister of Natural Resources. At the meeting, in October,
2002, the Minister conceded that the Ministry's past approach
did seem unfair as it did not provide clear guidance to
landowners. He stated that he would request a follow-up
study/report from the environmental consulting firm that
produced the original study and recommendations for
protection of the beach, with specific guidelines as to what
type of construction and land use should be permitted. This
would provide landowners with a benchmark when submitting
development plans to the Ministry of Natural Resources.
¶3. a) Claimant C
b) 1991
c) In 1990 Claimant C formed a joint venture with a British
Columbia (BC) company to export water from BC streams by
tanker ship to California. According to Claimant C, the BC
Government promised the firm, orally and in writing, that it
could obtain the license required under the BC Water Act for
the purpose of export by tanker. On March 14, 1991, the
Goleta Water District in the Santa Barbara area announced
that Claimant C and its Canadian partner had won the contract
to supply fresh water, in a competition that also included
three BC firms. On March 18, 1991, the BC Government imposed
a moratorium on new bulk water licenses, saying it had to
review its policies; the moratorium was later extended
indefinitely. In 1995, the BC Government enacted a Water
Protection Act that banned water export by tanker ship.
In January 1993, Claimant C and its partner began litigation,
and in July 1995, the BC Government asked the two companies
to submit claims for a negotiated settlement. The claim of
the Canadian Partner was settled by a cash payment in July
¶1996. According to Claimant C, the BC Government has refused
to negotiate a settlement with it, and Claimant continued to
pursue litigation against the BC government until 1999. In
December 1998, Claimant C filed notice of intent to pursue
compensation under NAFTA Chapter 11 provisions.
In April and May 1999, Claimant C consulted with Canadian
government officials but was unable to arrive at a
resolution. In October 1999, Claimant C filed documents
requesting arbitration under Chapter 11. However, the
Canadian government officials found these documents lacked
certain required features that permit the Government of
Canada to organize Chapter 11 arbitration, and requested that
Claimant C resubmit them. Claimant C resubmitted these
documents in May 2000, but the government of Canada has not
been satisfied that the requirements to initiate Chapter 11
arbitration proceedings have been fulfilled.
Estimates of value vary. Claimant C's Canadian partner
reportedly sued for less than $1 million (Canadian Dollars)
and settled for $335,000 (Canadian). In 1998, Claimant C
assessed its damages at between $400 and $500 million. When
filing its claim for arbitration in 1999, Claimant C assessed
its "temporary lost business opportunity" at $1.5 billion
and, in the alternative, damages for permanent lost business
at $10.5 billion.
The Embassy in Ottawa and Consulate in Vancouver have been in
contact sporadically with Claimant C, and the Government of
Canada is aware of USG interest in the case. In keeping with
NAFTA Chapter 11 procedures, however, the Embassy does not
take an active role on behalf of Claimant C while
consultations and dispute resolution measures are proceeding.
¶4. a) Claimant D
b) 1998
c) In 1995, Claimant D solicited contracts with Canadian
companies to provide processing, transportation and disposal
of old electric transformers, which contain significant
quantities of PCB waste. Later that year, the Government of
Canada announced a ban on the export of PCB waste. Because
Claimant D proposed to treat the Canadian waste in the U.S.,
Claimant D believes the export ban imposed a material loss to
the company. The Canadian ban on PCB waste was in place
until February 1997, when Canada adopted new regulations
permitting exports of PCB waste to the U.S. In July 1997,
the U.S. closed its border to imports of PCB waste. On July
22, 1998, Claimant D announced it would seek compensation
from the Government of Canada under NAFTA Chapter 11.
Claimant D requested $20 million in compensation for business
lost due to the over one-year PCB export ban.
This dispute became a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration claim when
Claimant D filed with the Canadian Government on October 30,
¶1988. The Embassy continues to monitor the case, but does
not intervene with Canadian authorities while Chapter 11
dispute resolution measures are proceeding.
In November 2000, the tribunal rendered a partial award
denying claimant's expropriation claim, but finding that
Canada had breached its obligations under the NAFTA's
national treatment and minimum standard of treatment
provisions. A hearing on damages was held in September 2001.
The tribunal has not yet issued its decision on damages.
Canada has petitioned the federal court in Ottawa to set
aside the arbitral award.
¶5. a) Claimant E
b) 1998
c) Claimant E owns and operates lumber operations in British
Columbia. In December 1998, Claimant E announced it intended
to file under NAFTA Chapter 11 provisions for compensation
from the Government of Canada. Claimant E believes Canada
breached its NAFTA national-treatment obligations through its
implementation of the Bilateral Softwood Lumber Agreement,
which governs the export of softwood lumber manufactured in
the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and
Quebec to the United States. The agreement imposed an export
levy once a given quota of lumber has been reached. Claimant
E alleges that the Government of Canada acted in a manner
inconsistent with its NAFTA national-treatment obligations
because it distinguishes between investors in the four
"listed" provinces in the Softwood Lumber Agreement versus
investors in the non-listed provinces, and treated investors
in Quebec more favorably than investors in the other listed
provinces. Claimant E also alleges that Canada failed to
accord it th
e international minimum standard of treatment.
In March 1999, this dispute became a NAFTA Chapter 11
arbitration claim when Claimant E officially filed a claim
with the Canadian government, seeking $382 million in
compensation for damages it claims it suffered. The Tribunal
proceeding rejected two of Claimant E's allegations relating
to expropriation and performance requirements in June 2000,
and in April 2001 the tribunal rejected much of the national
treatment and minimum standard of treatment claims.
On May 31, 2002, the Tribunal issued an award on damages with
respect to Claimant E's minimum standard of treatment claim.
The Tribunal ordered Canada to pay Claimant E U.S. $461,566,
with interest payable from and after May 31, 2002 at the rate
of 5% per annum compounded quarterly and pro rata within a
quarter. Further proceedings are being held on questions as
to costs.
Claimant E has not consulted with the U.S. Embassy or the
U.S. Consulate in Vancouver. In keeping with USG policy, the
Embassy continues to monitor the case, but does not intervene
with Canadian authorities while Chapter 11 dispute resolution
measures are proceeding.
¶6. a) Claimant F
b) 1995
c) Claimant F purchased in good faith a 32 acre parcel of
land on Prince Edward Island in 1995. After the purchase, a
local resident successfully argued in court that he had title
to the land under the principle of adverse possession, or
"squatters' rights." In January 1999, the provincial Supreme
Court of Prince Edward Island ruled against Claimant F.
Claimant F believes this decision constitutes a taking of his
land by government decision. Claimant F said he would appeal
the decision through the court system with a locally-hired
attorney. Claimant F has not provided the U.S. Government
with an estimated value of the claim. U.S. Consulate
personnel have not heard from Claimant F since, 1999, and
attempts to contact him have been unsuccessful.
¶7. a) Claimant G
b) 2000
c) Claimant G operates an express courier delivery service
worldwide, and asserts that the Government of Canada has
allowed the Canadian Post system monopoly unfair advantages
in its competition with private sector service providers.
These advantages, Claimant G believes, take the form of
monetary subsidies from non-courier services Canada Post
provides, and discriminatory treatment by Canada customs.
Claimant G has filed for arbitration alleging the Government
of Canada breached its commitments under articles 1102, 1105,
and 1502 of the NAFTA.
Attorneys for Claimant G have briefed the Ambassador on their
claim, and are in periodic communication with Embassy staff.
They have let the Canadian government know that they are not
averse to a non-judicial settlement of the claim through
negotiations. The Claimant has not put a sum on the amount
of damages it claims due to Canadian government actions.
In keeping with USG policy, the Embassy continues to monitor
the case, but does not intervene with Canadian authorities
while Chapter 11 dispute resolution measures are proceeding.
¶8. a) Claimant H
b) 1999
c) Claimant H says he invested US$600,000 in prospecting for
diamonds at a site 100 miles north of Yellowknife, Northwest
Territories. In early 1999 Claimant H says he requested the
provincial Mining Recorders Office in Yellowknife to "void" a
claim of a competing prospector because they "overstaked" on
his property. An official of the Recorders Office claims
that the Claimant had exceeded his land use threshold, and
had not applied for a land use permit. Claimant was arrested
as a squatter in February, 1999, detained two weeks, and
deported to the United States for overstaying. Provincial
Mining office says Claimant made threats on the staff of the
office. In August 1999 the property of Claimant H was
returned to him through Canada Customs.
In July 2001 Claimant H sent a letter to the Embassy noting
his claim, and in December 2001 he retransmitted the same
information, also alleging that civic authorities conspired
to kill him to prevent his claim to discovery and ownership
of mineral deposits. Claimant H contacted the Department in
May, 2003 to let us know he is running for Congress and to
refer us to his web site that features details of his claim.
Claimant A: NAFTA Chpt 11 - USA Waste (formerly Waste
Management). Claimant's attorney does not believe it has
signed a privacy act waiver.
Claimant B: William Hamilton, a private U.S. citizen who has
not signed a privacy act waiver.
Claimant C: NAFTA Chapter 11- Sunbelt Water, Inc., Santa
Barbara, CA. Has not signed privacy act waiver.
Claimant D: NAFTA Chapter 11 - SD Myers Company, Tallmadge,
Ohio. Has not signed privacy act waiver to Embassy's
knowledge.
Claimant E: NAFTA Chapter 11 - Pope and Talbott, Portland,
Oregon. Has not signed privacy act waiver to Embassy's
knowledge.
Claimant F: David Johnson, a private U.S. citizen. Has not
signed a privacy act waiver.
Claimant G: NAFTA Chapter 11 - United Parcel Service,
Atlanta, Georgia. Has not signed privacy act waiver to
Embassy's knowledge.
Claimant H: Robert Curtis, a private U.S. citizen. Gave a
full verbal privacy act waiver to Consulate officials in
¶1999. His web site is Curtisforcongress.com.
End updated text.
CELLUCCI