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