Michael Woods was recognized by his colleagues at the Inter-Tribal Trade Investment Organization (IITIO) for his contribution to the organization’s submission to Global Affairs Canada with respect to the upcoming negotiations with the United States and Mexico on the modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The submission draws on recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada and important developments in international law including the adoption of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007 and the more recent reaffirmation of Indigenous rights by the adoption of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP) in 2016. In the submission IITIO, points to these recent developments and the Government of Canada own statements leads to the need to for the participation of Indigenous peoples in the negotiation of international agreements that impact their rights. IITIO submits that this is consistent with international law as well as in line with current international and Canadian domestic policy for Indigenous rights. See the submission endorsed by IITIO executive at this link as well as a letter in support filed by the Shuswap National Tribal Council. ...
Read More“A Diplomacy Vacuum Canada Well Positioned to Fill”
Michael Woods was quoted at length in the June 2017 edition of Lexpert Magazine, a leading Canadian business law publication. In the article, A Siren Call among Shrill Notes by Julius Melnitzer, Michael is one of the leading members of Canada’s international trade bar asked to comment on the implications for Canada of the current U.S. Administration’s protectionist moves on trade. He takes a positive view that that “ … the demand for international business expansion remains alive and well … [Canada] is a G7 country that looks like the global leader in promoting trade liberalization.” The article addresses both NAFTA and Canada’s growing options with respect to Europe and the CETA and Asia on continuing negotiations with TPP partners as well as China. Michael encourages continuing and deepening strategic partnership between Canada’s businesses and government in building the strongest partnership possible – one that will keep Canada “punching above our weight” in terms of global...
Read MoreMichael Woods Participates at Inter-Tribal Trade Conference in Oklahoma
Michael Woods participated in the third Inter-Tribal Trade Investment Organization (IITIO) Conference on June 4-6 hosted by the Faculty of Law of the University of Oklahoma in Norman. The conference itself was proceeded by a visit to the Choctaw Nation and Citizen Potawatomi Nation and trade discussions these two Nations as well as the Chickasaw Nation. Michael chaired two panels at the conference – one on “Optimizing Conditions for Tribal Trade” featuring Miles Richardson O.C. former President of the Council of Haida Nation and Robert Fox, former Chief of the Blood Tribe and current President and CEO of Indian Resource Council of Canada. He also chaired a panel on Trade Agreements and Trading Frameworks in International Trade Law and Inter-Tribal Trade” and led a discussion on the implications of the upcoming NAFTA modernization negotiations. The conference was followed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s 30th Annual Sovereignty Symposium and Michael took an active part in discussion on economic development for Canada’s First Nations and the American Native communities through greater and broader economic co-operation. [ For further details see http://iitio.org/agenda/...
Read MoreResponding to NAFTA Renegotiation
Many are asking what the Trump Administration’s “America First” position on international trade will mean for Canada, how it will affect NAFTA (the world’s largest bilateral trade relationship) and how they can respond. The United States has indicated that it wants to renegotiate the NAFTA. In May 18, 2017 letters, the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) notified Congress that the Administration intends to use renegotiation to modernize the NAFTA. USTR noted “NAFTA was negotiated 25 years ago, and while our economy and businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not.” To this end, USTR is seeking to include new provisions on intellectual property, regulatory practices, state-owned enterprises, services, customs procedures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labour, environment and small and medium sized enterprises. The U.S. should have its negotiating objectives in place by August 16, 2017, the potential start date for the renegotiation and will likely take particular aim at the Canadian and Mexican measure identified as trade barriers in the annual USTR National Trade Estimates Report. For its part, Canada has indicated a willingness to modernize NAFTA and has been taking steps to prepare for the negotiations for some time. Canada will come to the table with its own objectives. Mexican officials have been openly calling for a NAFTA update for some time and should also be ready. Trade negotiations are complex undertakings that are intended to liberalize trade between the parties to the benefit of all Parties. This has been the case with NAFTA. Despite all the NAFTA Parties having protected particular interests and industries, the Agreement has provided greater benefit overall. If the renegotiations succeed, the NAFTA should increase the overall benefit. However, NAFTA renegotiation can raise the spectre of lost markets and lost business for individual businesses and sectors. This is because while NAFTA renegotiation will likely result in new opportunities, trade negotiations are complex and have many moving parts. The Parties may engage in “give and take” that will inevitably result in winners and losers; particularly if the Parties are not aware of the full extent of trade interests that are affected. How should businesses engaged in NAFTA trade or who want to participate...
Read MoreWhat Does “Tweaking” NAFTA Mean for Importers and Exporters?
The February 13, 2017 Washington meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau was a success with respect to trade relations between the two countries. Rather than taking an aggressive anti-NAFTA stance, as some had feared, President Trump noted that the United States has an “outstanding trade relationship with Canada” and stated that his goal was to “tweak” the NAFTA with regard to Canadian trade. The apparent result of the meeting was an implicit agreement to change the NAFTA in a way that increases the benefits for Canada and the United States; the best result that could be expected at this time. While this was a positive outcome, any change to NAFTA will result in winners and losers and more so if the simple tweak is not that simple. President Trump’s positive tone should not have come as a surprise. Although most Canadians tend to see Canada as the weak partner relative to the United States, available data shows that a healthy bilateral trade relationship has developed between Canada and the United States under NAFTA. Canadian officials point out that Canada – U.S. trade is worth approximately $2 billion per day and that Canada is the largest export market for 35 U.S. states. While this is impressive, it is more important to consider the U.S. perspective to gauge its view of the value of Canadian trade. Canada’s value as a trade partner can be gleaned from U.S. – Canada Trade Facts published by the U.S. Trade Representative, which reported that in 2015: Trade in goods between Canada and the U.S. was worth approximately USD $575 billion with Canada enjoying a USD $15 billion trade surplus. Although Canada was the United States’ second largest trade partner, it was the largest export market for U.S. goods with total exports to Canada worth approximately USD $280 billion. Although this was down approximately 10% over 2014 figures, total U.S. exports to Canada since NAFTA have increased 179% and account for approximately 18.5% of total U.S. exports. Trade in services between Canada and the United States was worth approximately USD $87.5 billion with the U.S. enjoying a USD $27.1 billion surplus. The value of...
Read MoreGeography, History, Economic, Necessity … A Comprehensive Plan, Mutually Beneficial and Advantageous to Both Sides
On the eve of an official visit to Canada almost twenty years ago Canada in one of his weekly radio addresses President Ronald Reagan spoke to the American people about and his broad vision for the future. He began by quoting from President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 speech to a joint session of Parliament in Ottawa; Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder. President Kennedy’s words occurred to me when I reflected on the recent American Conference Institute Forum on U.S. Export and Re-Export Compliance in Toronto where Jean-Marc Clément and I were among the presenters. My panel featured two senior representatives of Canada’s aerospace industry whose experience and expertise allowed them to address the specifics of Canada’s Controlled Goods Program (CGP) and the Enhanced Security Strategy (ESS) with great facility. That freed me up to make a few comments on the “big picture” and so I reminded the conference participants – Canadians and Americans engaged in the aerospace, defence, and high-tech sectors – that their work represented a vital element in the $ 2.4 billion a day bilateral trade relationship between our two countries. I was thinking of President Kennedy’s words in the context of both these key sectors and the Canada-U.S. partnership – one that is built on much more than economic self-interest. Geography, history and necessity have created a unique and enduing alliance. At this conference we addressed one important product f that alliance. The “Canadian Exemption” allows U.S. suppliers to export certain export controlled goods to Canadian recipients registered in the CGP. At last week’s conference, I referred to the hard work of business people on both sides of the border that makes these special bilateral measures work and the free trade- driven approach that Professor Michael Hart refers to as “embedded in the industrial structure of both countries.” I also pointed to the hard work of government officials in building the regulatory bridge that accounted the need to maintain and grow bilateral trade and economic integration while addressing...
Read More
