

Currently released so far... 12404 / 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
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 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 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
ASEC
AE
AF
AM
AR
AJ
AU
AORC
AG
AEMR
AMGT
APER
AGMT
AL
AFIN
AO
AMED
ADCO
AS
ABUD
ABLD
ASUP
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APECO
AID
AND
AMBASSADOR
AN
ARM
AY
AODE
AMG
ASCH
AMCHAMS
ARF
APCS
APEC
ASEAN
AGAO
ANET
ADPM
ACOA
ACABQ
AORL
AFFAIRS
ATRN
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ADANA
ASIG
AA
AX
AUC
AC
AECL
AADP
AGRICULTURE
AMEX
ACAO
ACBAQ
AQ
AORG
ADM
AINF
AIT
ASEX
AGR
AROC
ATFN
AFGHANISTAN
AFU
AER
ALOW
AZ
AVERY
BA
BY
BU
BR
BE
BL
BO
BK
BM
BILAT
BH
BEXP
BF
BTIO
BC
BBSR
BMGT
BTIU
BG
BWC
BB
BD
BX
BP
BRUSSELS
BN
BIDEN
BT
CW
CH
CF
CD
CV
CVIS
CM
CE
CA
CJAN
CLINTON
CIA
CU
CASC
CI
CO
CACM
CDB
CN
CMGT
CS
CG
CBW
CIS
CR
CONDOLEEZZA
CPAS
CAN
CWC
CY
COUNTER
CDG
CL
CT
CIC
CIDA
CSW
CHR
CB
CODEL
COUNTERTERRORISM
CTR
COM
CICTE
CFED
CJUS
CKGR
CBSA
CEUDA
CARSON
CONS
CITEL
CLMT
CROS
CITT
CAC
CVR
CDC
CAPC
COPUOS
CBC
CBE
CARICOM
COE
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CACS
CTM
CNARC
ECON
EFIN
ETRD
EUN
EFIS
EG
ETTC
EZ
EPET
EAID
EAGR
ENRG
ECUN
EU
ELAB
ECPS
EAIR
EINV
ELTN
EWWT
EIND
EMIN
EI
ECIN
ENVR
ELECTIONS
EINVEFIN
EN
ES
ER
EC
EUC
EINT
EINVETC
ENGR
ET
EK
ENIV
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ECONOMY
EAP
EFTA
EUR
EUMEM
EXIM
ERD
ENERG
EUREM
ESA
ERNG
EXTERNAL
EPA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
ECONOMICS
ELN
EINN
EFINECONCS
ENNP
EEPET
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ENVI
ETRO
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ECONOMIC
EAIDS
EDU
ETRA
ETRN
EFIM
EIAR
ETRC
EAIG
EXBS
EURN
ECIP
EREL
ECA
ENGY
ECONCS
ECONEFIN
ETC
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINDETRD
IR
IZ
IS
IAEA
INRB
IRAJ
IQ
IN
IT
IMO
INTERPOL
ICAO
IO
IC
ITALY
ITALIAN
IRAQI
ICTY
ID
IPR
IWC
ILC
INTELSAT
IL
IBRD
IMF
IA
IRC
ICRC
ILO
ITU
ITRA
IV
IDA
IAHRC
ICJ
ISRAELI
IRS
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
IZPREL
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITF
IBET
IEFIN
INR
IACI
INTERNAL
IDP
IGAD
IEA
ICTR
IIP
INRA
INRO
IF
KJUS
KSCA
KNNP
KU
KCOR
KCRM
KDEM
KTFN
KHLS
KPAL
KWBG
KACT
KGHG
KPAO
KTIA
KIRF
KWMN
KS
KG
KZ
KN
KMDR
KISL
KSPR
KHIV
KPRP
KAWK
KR
KUNR
KDRG
KCIP
KGCC
KTIP
KSUM
KPKO
KVIR
KAWC
KPIN
KGIC
KRAD
KIPR
KOLY
KCFE
KMCA
KE
KV
KICC
KNPP
KBCT
KSEP
KFRD
KFLU
KVPR
KOCI
KBIO
KSTH
KMPI
KCRS
KOMC
KTBT
KPLS
KIRC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFLO
KBTS
KSTC
KTDB
KFSC
KX
KFTFN
KNEI
KIDE
KREC
KMRS
KICA
KPAONZ
KCGC
KSAF
KRGY
KCMR
KRVC
KVRP
KSEO
KCOM
KAID
KTEX
KNUC
KNAR
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KLIG
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCRCM
KHDP
KGIT
KNSD
KOMS
KWMM
KPAI
KHSA
KTLA
KO
KMFO
KRCM
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KPWR
KID
KWNM
KRIM
KPOA
KCHG
KOM
KSCI
KFIN
KMOC
KESS
KWAC
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KPRV
KBTR
KERG
KTER
KDDG
KPAK
KRFD
KHUM
KDEV
KCFC
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KJUST
MARR
MOPS
MU
MTCRE
MNUC
MY
MASS
MCAP
MOPPS
MAR
MPOS
MO
ML
MR
MASC
MX
MD
MP
MA
MTRE
MIL
MCC
MZ
MK
MDC
MRCRE
MAPS
MV
MI
MEPN
MAPP
MEETINGS
MAS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTCR
MG
MC
MARAD
MIK
MILITARY
MEDIA
MEPI
MUCN
MEPP
MT
MERCOSUR
MW
MASSMNUC
MQADHAFI
NZ
NATO
NG
NI
NO
NATIONAL
NU
NPT
NIPP
NL
NPG
NS
NA
NGO
NP
NSG
NDP
NAFTA
NR
NC
NH
NE
NSF
NPA
NK
NSSP
NRR
NATOPREL
NSC
NT
NW
NORAD
NEW
NV
NSFO
NAR
NASA
NZUS
OTRA
OVIP
OPRC
OPDC
OSCE
OAS
ODIP
OIIP
OFDP
OVP
OREP
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OIC
OFDA
OSCI
OPIC
OBSP
OECD
ON
OCII
OHUM
OES
OCS
OMIG
OPAD
OTR
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PSOE
PINS
PARM
PK
PBTS
PEPR
PM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PREF
PBIO
PROP
PA
PSI
PINT
PO
PKFK
PL
PAK
PE
POLITICS
PINL
POL
PHSA
PU
PF
POV
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PARMS
PRGOV
PNAT
POLINT
PRAM
PMAR
PG
PAO
PROG
PRELP
PPA
PCUL
PSEPC
PSA
PREO
PAHO
PGIV
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POSTS
PTBS
PGOVLO
PORG
PGOVE
PLN
PINF
PAS
PUNE
POLICY
PDEM
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PHUMPGOV
PMIL
PNG
PP
PS
PHUH
PECON
POGOV
PY
PHUMPREL
PHUS
PRL
PGOC
PNR
PGGV
PROV
PTERE
PGOF
PHUMBA
PEL
RS
RU
RW
REGION
RP
RICE
ROBERT
RSP
RUPREL
RM
RO
RCMP
RSO
RELATIONS
REACTION
REPORT
RIGHTS
ROOD
RF
RFE
RIGHTSPOLMIL
SP
SA
SY
SF
SYR
SENV
SCUL
SOCI
SNAR
SO
SU
SG
STEINBERG
SHUM
SW
SMIG
SR
SZ
SIPRS
SI
SAARC
SPCE
SARS
SN
SYRIA
SANC
SL
SCRS
SC
SENVKGHG
SAN
SNARCS
SHI
SWE
SNARIZ
SIPDIS
SEN
SNARN
SPCVIS
SEVN
SSA
SH
SOFA
SK
ST
TPHY
TU
TRGY
TI
TX
TS
TW
TC
TFIN
TD
TSPA
TH
TT
TIP
TBIO
TSPL
TZ
TERRORISM
TRSY
TN
THPY
TINT
TF
TL
TV
TK
TO
TP
TURKEY
TNGD
TBID
TAGS
TR
UP
US
UNSC
UK
UZ
UE
UNESCO
UV
UNGA
UN
UNMIK
UNO
UY
UAE
UNEP
UG
UNHCR
UNHRC
USUN
UNAUS
USTR
USNC
USOAS
UNCHR
UNCSD
UNDP
USEU
USPS
UNDC
UNDESCO
UNCHC
UNFICYP
UNC
UNODC
UNPUOS
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCHS
UNVIE
USAID
UNIDROIT
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 13:01 | 2011-04-28 00:12 | 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