Posted by Woods LaFortune LLP on Jun 29, 2015

On June 25th the Forum for International Trade Training (FITT) announced that Michael Woods, founding partner at Woods, LaFortune LLP, has been re-appointed to the Board of Directors for his third consecutive term.  FITT is a Canada based not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing international business training, resources and professional certification to individuals and businesses. It offers the only international business training programs and related professional designation (CITP/FIBP) endorsed by the World Trade Centers Association and the Canadian government.  Michael is honoured to have been elected to his post by the FITT membership and looks forward to continuing his work with an organization whose international business training solutions have set the standard of excellence for global trade professionals across Canada and around the world.  To learn more about how the International Business Program—FITTskills can help you and your organization see –   ...

Posted by Woods LaFortune LLP on Jun 18, 2015

The U.S. is now seeking WTO arbitration in response to Canada’s earlier request for retaliatory trade measures in the country-of-origin labelling (COOL) dispute. The retaliatory tariffs sought by Canada are estimated to amount to just over CAD $3 billion. The WTO, which was set to examine the approval of the proposed retaliatory tariff amounts by Canada this week must now wait for the completion of the arbitration process to deal with Canada’s retaliation request.  Minister of International Trade, Ed Fast, and Gerry Ritz, Canada’s Agriculture Minister have made it clear that the U.S. will not be able to simply avoid retaliation by drawing out the process through the arbitration. In their joint statement, both Ministers stated that “the only way for the United States to avoid billions in retaliation by late summer is to ensure legislation repealing COOL passes the Senate and is signed by the President.” Although there is no set timetable for action by the U.S. Senate, a hearing on COOL has been announced for June 25,...

Posted by Woods LaFortune LLP on Jun 15, 2015

In response to the WTO’s latest ruling on COOL, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation (H.R. 3293), otherwise known as the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act,  to repeal country of origin labeling requirements for pork, beef and chicken with a resounding 300-131 vote. With Canada and Mexico having announced their intentions to implement retaliatory measures against the U.S. amounting to approximately $3.6 billion in annual tariffs on U.S. products including wine, cherries, beef, pork and corn, the U.S. has a rather big incentive to move quickly to bring its legislation into compliance with the WTO ruling (which made clear that COOL requirements for beef and pork were discriminatory against Canada and Mexico). As it stands, the proposed repeal legislation is now in the hands of the U.S. Senate. Lack of action or slow movement from the Senate at this point may result in the imposition of retaliatory tariffs by Canada and Mexico as soon as late...

Posted by Woods LaFortune LLP on Jun 10, 2015

The newest in the ongoing dispute over dolphin-safe labels on tuna cans between Mexico and the U.S. is that the U.S. government has now decided to pursue an appeal of certain parts of the WTO ruling which considers dolphin-safe labelling on tuna cans discriminatory towards Mexican tuna. The impugned U.S. tuna measures were found to be inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT”) Agreement because they imposed differing certification and verification requirements based on the fishery where the tuna was caught. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement clearly states that regulations must be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner, so that foreign products are treated no less favourably than domestic products. The U.S. is basing their appeal on an erroneous legal interpretation in the WTO Panel’s report. As a result of the U.S.’ measures, the Mexican fishing industry is estimated to have lost over USD 680 million in 2014 alone. Mexico has alluded to the fact that it may eventually take retaliatory measures against the...

Posted by Woods LaFortune LLP on Jun 3, 2015

The WTO Appellate Body issued its final ruling on May 18, 2015 to the effect that COOL, otherwise known as the U.S. mandatory Country of Origin Labeling, is discriminatory against Canadian cattle and hog imports into the U.S. and is a clear violation of the U.S.’ international trade obligations. The Canadian government has sought the WTO’s authority to move to impose retaliatory tariffs on key U.S. exports. According to Canada’s Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, targeted U.S. imports will likely include pork, beef, California wines, mattresses, cherries and office furniture. The U.S. may be able to avoid retaliatory tariffs if they move quickly to repeal the impugned laws which currently require retailers to list the country of origin on meat. Although U.S. lawmakers seem to have signaled that they intent to repeal the laws, higher tariffs may be in place by late summer if the U.S. doesn’t move fairly...

Posted by Woods LaFortune LLP on Jun 1, 2015

Gregory So, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development recently and his Canadian counterpart, the Honourable Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade in Canada), recently announced the singing of the Canada-Hong Kong Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (otherwise known as a FIPA) during the APEC meeting on May 23, 2015. Canada-HK negotiations for a FIPA have been ongoing since 2014 and Hong Kong is a clear priority market under the Global Markets Action Plan. The main purposes of a FIPA are to establish clear investment rules and measures to protect foreign investors against discriminatory or arbitrary government practices, to provide effective compensation in the event of an expropriation and to enhance the overall predictability of the policy framework governing foreign investments. The existence of a FIPA has often proven to be useful in terms of promoting the parties’ respective markets as a stable destination for investment with clearly defined and enforceable rules. In fact, foreign investors often look to the existence of a strong investment protection agree­ment as a key consideration in their decision-making process. For more information please see the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada website....