(CBC News – Associated Press)
Undercover American investigators who snuck duffel bags across the U.S.-Canada border have concluded that a smuggler could easily carry radioactive material or other contraband from one country to the other.
The Government Accountability Office, an investigative branch of the U.S. Congress, sent out investigators to test how hard it would be to transfer large red duffel bags at unguarded and unmonitored spots along the 8,000-kilometre border.
The tests were done from four northern states, which were not identified. The exercises were videotaped and photographed.
During one of the tests, a citizen noticed the unusual activity and alerted a border official, but by the time authorities came to the scene, they could not locate the undercover investigators.
“Our work shows that a determined cross-border violator would likely be able to bring radioactive materials or other contraband undetected into the United States by crossing the U.S.-Canada border at any of the locations we investigated,” the accountability office report states.
The details of the investigation were outlined in a 13-page report that was given to Congress on Thursday.
“It’s extremely troubling,” said New York Senator Chuck Schumer during a U.S. Senate hearing into the report’s findings.
‘Obviously, we have to be concerned’: Harper
Investigators determined that the Canadian border with the United States “presents more of a challenge” than the U.S.-Mexico border.
When asked Thursday about the report, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his government has made significant investments in border security through increasing the number of border guards and boosting co-operation with their U.S. counterparts.
“As you know, the particular materials were admitted through American security on the American side of the border,” the prime minister told reporters.
“But obviously, we have to be concerned. We work hand in glove with American authorities dealing with any kind of threats.”
The report notes that as of May, there were only 972 U.S. Border Patrol agents on the Canadian border, while 11,986 agents patrolled the Mexican border.
Investigators examined the southern border and said they observed a significant number of U.S. National Guard troops and U.S. Border Patrol personnel while driving on state roads, but found little law-enforcement presence on vast stretches of surrounding lands managed by the U.S. government.
Investigators said for security reasons they did not conduct the duffel bag tests at the U.S.-Mexico border.
It is illegal to cross the border at any place other than an official port of entry.
Video: CBC News Report (Real Audio Format: 4:10 min.)
Update: “The borders are as porous as they’ve ever been and I don't see any resolution to making the borders more secure anytime soon,” said security expert and ABC News consultant Jerry Hauer, a former emergency management official. More from ABC News.
“At a Capitol Hill hearing, U.S. Senator Ken Salazar from Colorado says there's been far too much focus on the border with Mexico and not enough on the Canadian line. Mr. Salazar claims there are more international terrorist organizations in Canada than anywhere else in the world.” More from the Globe & Mail.
September 27, 2007
Customs Union Wants Changes After One in Five Border Guards Flunk Firearms Course
(Canadian Press)
The union representing Canada’s border guards says it is concerned about the relatively high number of officers who are flunking the firearms training program.
Ron Moran, national president of the Customs and Excise Union, said slightly more than 20 per cent of the guards who have taken the course on precision shooting have failed, possibly jeopardizing their careers with the Canada Border Services Agency.
“As it stands now, a little more than one in five don’t pass,” Moran said in an interview.
“It’s a huge concern for those who are next in line for those classes and basically see their employment hanging in the balance.”
Moran said the union has hired an expert to review the training program, which he described as a condensed version of the same course given to RCMP recruits.
The border guards are being asked to master precision shooting in just eight days, compared with the 16 weeks RCMP recruits have to achieve the same level of accuracy, he said.
“They (the border guards) have to qualify at 25 metres and shoot, I think, it’s 250 rounds and hit the target with 80 per cent accuracy - it’s something along those lines,” Moran explained.
“It becomes an endurance challenge. Some of our people don’t have the physical endurance to keep their arms straight with the weight of the sidearm when they get into second half of shooting their rounds. They lose their precision.”
He said the failure rate is making guards who have yet to take the course nervous.
The federal government has announced that about 4,800 border officers - including those working at land and marine ports of entry, and inland enforcement officers - will be trained and equipped with firearms over the next few years.
Melisa Leclerc, a spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, said the department will be interested in any recommendations the union’s expert makes about the firearms training program.
But she said Monday improvements already have been made to the program as a result of the first two groups of trainees who went through the course.
One hundred and four volunteer trainees took the course in July and August and there are now 80 armed border guards at some of Canada’s busiest crossings.
Ottawa hopes to have at least 350 guards manning ports of entry by this time next year.
“We have made some adjustments,” Leclerc said in an interview.
“Some more will graduate at the end of this month and we will gather feedback from them. We’re always looking at ways to improve it.”
Leclerc said the Canada Border Services Agency has taken several measures to improve the training program, including more coaching on shooting fundamentals to better prepare guards for their qualification sessions.
As well, she said the program has been adjusted to provide 12 additional hours of range time spread out over 14 days.
The guards who failed will have a second opportunity to pass the shooting test, but Moran believes they should have at least two more chances since he does not believe they were properly prepared for the rigorous course.
“They were guinea pigs,” he said.
Moran said the border guards are pleased to see the training program finally underway. It is something many of them have wanted for a long time, he said.
The move to arm Canadian border guards grew after a spate of incidents where agents were forced to flee their posts after warnings of armed criminals approaching the border from the U.S. side.
Last September, about 60 border guards in B.C.’s Lower Mainland fled their posts after it was rumoured armed fugitives were heading from the U.S. into Canada.
U.S. border guards have been armed for many years. Full implementation of the initiative is expected to take place over a period of 10 years.
The union representing Canada’s border guards says it is concerned about the relatively high number of officers who are flunking the firearms training program.
Ron Moran, national president of the Customs and Excise Union, said slightly more than 20 per cent of the guards who have taken the course on precision shooting have failed, possibly jeopardizing their careers with the Canada Border Services Agency.
“As it stands now, a little more than one in five don’t pass,” Moran said in an interview.
“It’s a huge concern for those who are next in line for those classes and basically see their employment hanging in the balance.”
Moran said the union has hired an expert to review the training program, which he described as a condensed version of the same course given to RCMP recruits.
The border guards are being asked to master precision shooting in just eight days, compared with the 16 weeks RCMP recruits have to achieve the same level of accuracy, he said.
“They (the border guards) have to qualify at 25 metres and shoot, I think, it’s 250 rounds and hit the target with 80 per cent accuracy - it’s something along those lines,” Moran explained.
“It becomes an endurance challenge. Some of our people don’t have the physical endurance to keep their arms straight with the weight of the sidearm when they get into second half of shooting their rounds. They lose their precision.”
He said the failure rate is making guards who have yet to take the course nervous.
The federal government has announced that about 4,800 border officers - including those working at land and marine ports of entry, and inland enforcement officers - will be trained and equipped with firearms over the next few years.
Melisa Leclerc, a spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, said the department will be interested in any recommendations the union’s expert makes about the firearms training program.
But she said Monday improvements already have been made to the program as a result of the first two groups of trainees who went through the course.
One hundred and four volunteer trainees took the course in July and August and there are now 80 armed border guards at some of Canada’s busiest crossings.
Ottawa hopes to have at least 350 guards manning ports of entry by this time next year.
“We have made some adjustments,” Leclerc said in an interview.
“Some more will graduate at the end of this month and we will gather feedback from them. We’re always looking at ways to improve it.”
Leclerc said the Canada Border Services Agency has taken several measures to improve the training program, including more coaching on shooting fundamentals to better prepare guards for their qualification sessions.
As well, she said the program has been adjusted to provide 12 additional hours of range time spread out over 14 days.
The guards who failed will have a second opportunity to pass the shooting test, but Moran believes they should have at least two more chances since he does not believe they were properly prepared for the rigorous course.
“They were guinea pigs,” he said.
Moran said the border guards are pleased to see the training program finally underway. It is something many of them have wanted for a long time, he said.
The move to arm Canadian border guards grew after a spate of incidents where agents were forced to flee their posts after warnings of armed criminals approaching the border from the U.S. side.
Last September, about 60 border guards in B.C.’s Lower Mainland fled their posts after it was rumoured armed fugitives were heading from the U.S. into Canada.
U.S. border guards have been armed for many years. Full implementation of the initiative is expected to take place over a period of 10 years.
Comprehensive Tariff Data Now Available on WTO Website
(World Trade Organization)
Information on customs duties has been upgraded on the WTO website in a new standardized format and in greater detail. This includes new data on the tariffs that governments actually charge on imports, which have a direct impact on trade.
The upgrade is designed to improve the website’s ability to serve WTO member governments and the public in general. For the first time, visitors to the website will be able to obtain and compare the legally bound commitments on customs duty rates, which act as ceilings on the tariffs that member governments can set and are known as “bound rates”, with the rates that governments actually charge on imports, which can be lower and are known as “applied rates”.
To achieve that the new data on applied duty rates are for individual products. They therefore provide more detail than the World Tariff Profiles 2006 published in June 2007, where the figures were for broader categories of products.
The standardized information The data are standardized by making them available at the same level of detail. This is achieved by identifying products by 6-digit codes under the World Customs Organization’s internationally agreed “Harmonized System” (HS) for defining product categories.
Under the system, the broadest categories of products are identified by two digits (e.g. 04 is dairy products, eggs and other edible animal products). These are then sub-divided by adding more digits: the higher the number of digits, the more detailed the categories. For example the four-digit code 0403 is a group of products derived from milk. At six digits, 0403.10 is yoghurt; at the eight-digit level, 0403.10.11 could be low-fat yoghurt.
The codes are standard up to six digits. For that reason, the WTO’s data are presented at six digits, the most detailed level that can be compared internationally. Beyond that, countries are free to use their own definitions according to their individual requirements.
The data are in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet files (to see which products are covered by the six-digit codes, scroll over to the right of the table), which can be downloaded on each member country’s page on the WTO website (see for example Argentina). These pages can be reached from the list of members.
The original lists of members’ bound commitments remain available. The digit-level of the bound duty rates in these “schedules of commitments”, can vary from country to country. The new files on bound rates present the information in a uniform consolidated form for all member countries. Since they identify products at the six-digit level of detail, they can be used to compare the legally bound ceilings with the rates that are actually applied. They also show which product categories (or tariff subheadings) have no commitments (i.e. are “unbound”).
Data Sources
The information on bound rates is based on the WTO’s Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database, which covers the legal commitments on tariffs that member governments have made in the WTO.
The information on applied rates is drawn from the WTO’s Integrated Database (IDB). This is data that member governments supply annually on the tariffs they apply normally under the non-discrimination principle of most-favoured nation (MFN). This means it does not cover lower preferential duties under free trade agreements or preferential schemes for developing countries. For each country, data for the most recent year are presented in one file, with the complete historical series from 1996 in another larger file.
Where available, data on imports are also presented alongside an indicative calculation of average unit values (essentially an estimated indication of the average price) for each of the product categories at the Harmonized System’s 6-digit code level.
How to obtain the information
Links to this information are available on each WTO member country’s information page on the WTO website. To reach these, go to the list of members and click a country’s name.
For each country, under the section “Goods schedules and tariff data”, the following three new items have been added: Bound tariffs at the 6-digit subheading level; Latest available MFN applied tariffs at the same 6-digit subheading level; Historical applied tariffs at the 6-digit Harmonized System subheading level (these are large files).
Information on customs duties has been upgraded on the WTO website in a new standardized format and in greater detail. This includes new data on the tariffs that governments actually charge on imports, which have a direct impact on trade.
The upgrade is designed to improve the website’s ability to serve WTO member governments and the public in general. For the first time, visitors to the website will be able to obtain and compare the legally bound commitments on customs duty rates, which act as ceilings on the tariffs that member governments can set and are known as “bound rates”, with the rates that governments actually charge on imports, which can be lower and are known as “applied rates”.
To achieve that the new data on applied duty rates are for individual products. They therefore provide more detail than the World Tariff Profiles 2006 published in June 2007, where the figures were for broader categories of products.
The standardized information The data are standardized by making them available at the same level of detail. This is achieved by identifying products by 6-digit codes under the World Customs Organization’s internationally agreed “Harmonized System” (HS) for defining product categories.
Under the system, the broadest categories of products are identified by two digits (e.g. 04 is dairy products, eggs and other edible animal products). These are then sub-divided by adding more digits: the higher the number of digits, the more detailed the categories. For example the four-digit code 0403 is a group of products derived from milk. At six digits, 0403.10 is yoghurt; at the eight-digit level, 0403.10.11 could be low-fat yoghurt.
The codes are standard up to six digits. For that reason, the WTO’s data are presented at six digits, the most detailed level that can be compared internationally. Beyond that, countries are free to use their own definitions according to their individual requirements.
The data are in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet files (to see which products are covered by the six-digit codes, scroll over to the right of the table), which can be downloaded on each member country’s page on the WTO website (see for example Argentina). These pages can be reached from the list of members.
The original lists of members’ bound commitments remain available. The digit-level of the bound duty rates in these “schedules of commitments”, can vary from country to country. The new files on bound rates present the information in a uniform consolidated form for all member countries. Since they identify products at the six-digit level of detail, they can be used to compare the legally bound ceilings with the rates that are actually applied. They also show which product categories (or tariff subheadings) have no commitments (i.e. are “unbound”).
Data Sources
The information on bound rates is based on the WTO’s Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database, which covers the legal commitments on tariffs that member governments have made in the WTO.
The information on applied rates is drawn from the WTO’s Integrated Database (IDB). This is data that member governments supply annually on the tariffs they apply normally under the non-discrimination principle of most-favoured nation (MFN). This means it does not cover lower preferential duties under free trade agreements or preferential schemes for developing countries. For each country, data for the most recent year are presented in one file, with the complete historical series from 1996 in another larger file.
Where available, data on imports are also presented alongside an indicative calculation of average unit values (essentially an estimated indication of the average price) for each of the product categories at the Harmonized System’s 6-digit code level.
How to obtain the information
Links to this information are available on each WTO member country’s information page on the WTO website. To reach these, go to the list of members and click a country’s name.
For each country, under the section “Goods schedules and tariff data”, the following three new items have been added: Bound tariffs at the 6-digit subheading level; Latest available MFN applied tariffs at the same 6-digit subheading level; Historical applied tariffs at the 6-digit Harmonized System subheading level (these are large files).
World Leaders Express New Optimism on Doha Deal
(Reuters)
World leaders signalled on Tuesday that a long-awaited global trade deal could soon be within reach, reviving some hopes that the Doha trade talks may finally move beyond years of deadlock and discord.
“Brazil will spare no effort for a successful conclusion of those negotiations, which must above all benefit the poorest countries,” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
“What I can tell you is that we are closer to a breakthrough than ever before ... I am convinced that we can close this deal still this year, for the joy of all of us,” he later told reporters.
Strong words of support from Lula, U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath -- some of the leading players in the World Trade Organization talks -- came as negotiators report slow, steady progress in efforts to reach a real breakthrough.
The talks, which began in 2001 in Doha, Qatar, have been mired in acrimony over issues often pitting rich nations against poor and putting Washington on the defensive over generous farm supports.
Bush, also speaking at the United Nations, shared Lula’s optimism that a “good Doha agreement” was within reach, but he squarely shifted much of the burden to other countries.
“The world’s largest trading nations, including major developing countries, have a special responsibility to make the tough political decisions to reduce trade barriers,” he said.
“America has the will and flexibility to make those necessary decisions ... I urge other leaders to direct their negotiators to do the same,” he added.
Last week, negotiators wrapped up the latest round of farm talks in Geneva.
BRIGHTER PROSPECTS
One senior U.S. trade official, speaking anonymously, described India’s engagement in those talks as “constructive,” a marked shift from recent months when the two countries squared off over farm subsidies and Washington’s demands for lower industrial tariffs in emerging economies.
“There is a greater comprehension of India’s sensitivities, comprehension that was not there before,” said India’s Nath, in New York for a U.S.-Indian business summit. “On manufacturing tariffs, we have flexibility and in the end we have to see what is a package deal,” he added.
But India and Brazil show few signs of backing down on demands to bring U.S farm subsidy limits far lower than its official offer of $22.5 billion a year.
The mood has brightened recently after reports Washington would be willing to discuss capping subsidies as low as $13 billion, provided other countries make their own concessions.
Another top Indian official, Commerce Secretary Gopal Pillai, pressed the United States to go even farther and lower its subsidy cap below $11 billion -- where spending has been in the past year or so. He also said the talks needed to devote more attention to other trade issues, like services.
But a reduction of that order could threaten to torpedo a deal in the U.S. Congress, where agriculture holds wide sway.
Pillai, who described a “tremendous sense of urgency” in Geneva and said he was 75 percent optimistic a deal could happen in 2008, said top negotiators could gather for a ministerial meeting around March 2008 if things go well.
Still, some close to the Geneva negotiations say consensus on even technical issues is still elusive. Timing is likewise tricky. Many believe the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign could drown the round if a breakthrough doesn’t occur soon.
A senior official in Europe said a balanced agreement could still be done, despite difficulties Bush might face in pushing a deal through the Democrat-controlled Congress.
“I believe such a deal is within grasp, and therefore I would be very surprised if the U.S. Congress should say no,” said David O’Sullivan, the head of the European Commission’s trade directorate in Brussels.
Not all observers were as hopeful. “The reason you have mixed messages is because everyone wants a deal, there is some minor movement, and so the spin is positive,” said Gary Blumenthal, a former farm and trade official in Washington.
World leaders signalled on Tuesday that a long-awaited global trade deal could soon be within reach, reviving some hopes that the Doha trade talks may finally move beyond years of deadlock and discord.
“Brazil will spare no effort for a successful conclusion of those negotiations, which must above all benefit the poorest countries,” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
“What I can tell you is that we are closer to a breakthrough than ever before ... I am convinced that we can close this deal still this year, for the joy of all of us,” he later told reporters.
Strong words of support from Lula, U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath -- some of the leading players in the World Trade Organization talks -- came as negotiators report slow, steady progress in efforts to reach a real breakthrough.
The talks, which began in 2001 in Doha, Qatar, have been mired in acrimony over issues often pitting rich nations against poor and putting Washington on the defensive over generous farm supports.
Bush, also speaking at the United Nations, shared Lula’s optimism that a “good Doha agreement” was within reach, but he squarely shifted much of the burden to other countries.
“The world’s largest trading nations, including major developing countries, have a special responsibility to make the tough political decisions to reduce trade barriers,” he said.
“America has the will and flexibility to make those necessary decisions ... I urge other leaders to direct their negotiators to do the same,” he added.
Last week, negotiators wrapped up the latest round of farm talks in Geneva.
BRIGHTER PROSPECTS
One senior U.S. trade official, speaking anonymously, described India’s engagement in those talks as “constructive,” a marked shift from recent months when the two countries squared off over farm subsidies and Washington’s demands for lower industrial tariffs in emerging economies.
“There is a greater comprehension of India’s sensitivities, comprehension that was not there before,” said India’s Nath, in New York for a U.S.-Indian business summit. “On manufacturing tariffs, we have flexibility and in the end we have to see what is a package deal,” he added.
But India and Brazil show few signs of backing down on demands to bring U.S farm subsidy limits far lower than its official offer of $22.5 billion a year.
The mood has brightened recently after reports Washington would be willing to discuss capping subsidies as low as $13 billion, provided other countries make their own concessions.
Another top Indian official, Commerce Secretary Gopal Pillai, pressed the United States to go even farther and lower its subsidy cap below $11 billion -- where spending has been in the past year or so. He also said the talks needed to devote more attention to other trade issues, like services.
But a reduction of that order could threaten to torpedo a deal in the U.S. Congress, where agriculture holds wide sway.
Pillai, who described a “tremendous sense of urgency” in Geneva and said he was 75 percent optimistic a deal could happen in 2008, said top negotiators could gather for a ministerial meeting around March 2008 if things go well.
Still, some close to the Geneva negotiations say consensus on even technical issues is still elusive. Timing is likewise tricky. Many believe the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign could drown the round if a breakthrough doesn’t occur soon.
A senior official in Europe said a balanced agreement could still be done, despite difficulties Bush might face in pushing a deal through the Democrat-controlled Congress.
“I believe such a deal is within grasp, and therefore I would be very surprised if the U.S. Congress should say no,” said David O’Sullivan, the head of the European Commission’s trade directorate in Brussels.
Not all observers were as hopeful. “The reason you have mixed messages is because everyone wants a deal, there is some minor movement, and so the spin is positive,” said Gary Blumenthal, a former farm and trade official in Washington.
Free Trade a Key to Canadian Prosperity: Alberta Premier
(Steven Macleod – Globe & Mail)
In a speech delivered at Toronto’s Empire Club, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach urged Canada to remove internal trade barriers within the country.
Stelmach spoke to the crowd amidst an Ontario provincial election, but his message had little to do with individual provinces and focused on the energy sector, the environment and free trade within Canada.
“Internal barriers reduce our competitiveness, and pick the pockets of ordinary Canadians,” said Stelmach. “They are a holdover from the 19th century, and have no place in the 21st.”
Stelmach insisted Alberta’s positive contribution to national prosperity, and its role in building a strong, united Canada is critical to the future of the country; and provincial governments need to stop talking about internal free trade, and start implementing it.
Stelmach pointed to Alberta’s trade agreement with B.C. as a roadmap for removing internal barriers. Alberta entered into a landmark agreement with its neighbouring province – the Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) – to remove barriers between the provinces.
“The agreement creates the second-largest economic market in Canada,” stated Stelmach. “It will build on the prosperity in both provinces by giving businesses and workers seamless access to a larger range of opportunities. Frankly, TILMA should be a template for free trade within Canada.”
The roadblocks brought down through TILMA effect transportation, energy, labour mobility, business registration and government procurement.In each sector the agreement aims to streamline business registration and reporting requirements so that businesses registered in one province are automatically recognized in the other; enhance labour mobility by recognizing occupational certifications of workers in both provinces; provide open and non-discriminatory access to government procurement; and create a clear, comprehensive and enforceable dispute avoidance and dispute resolution mechanism.
In a speech delivered at Toronto’s Empire Club, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach urged Canada to remove internal trade barriers within the country.
Stelmach spoke to the crowd amidst an Ontario provincial election, but his message had little to do with individual provinces and focused on the energy sector, the environment and free trade within Canada.
“Internal barriers reduce our competitiveness, and pick the pockets of ordinary Canadians,” said Stelmach. “They are a holdover from the 19th century, and have no place in the 21st.”
Stelmach insisted Alberta’s positive contribution to national prosperity, and its role in building a strong, united Canada is critical to the future of the country; and provincial governments need to stop talking about internal free trade, and start implementing it.
Stelmach pointed to Alberta’s trade agreement with B.C. as a roadmap for removing internal barriers. Alberta entered into a landmark agreement with its neighbouring province – the Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) – to remove barriers between the provinces.
“The agreement creates the second-largest economic market in Canada,” stated Stelmach. “It will build on the prosperity in both provinces by giving businesses and workers seamless access to a larger range of opportunities. Frankly, TILMA should be a template for free trade within Canada.”
The roadblocks brought down through TILMA effect transportation, energy, labour mobility, business registration and government procurement.In each sector the agreement aims to streamline business registration and reporting requirements so that businesses registered in one province are automatically recognized in the other; enhance labour mobility by recognizing occupational certifications of workers in both provinces; provide open and non-discriminatory access to government procurement; and create a clear, comprehensive and enforceable dispute avoidance and dispute resolution mechanism.
September 26, 2007
Deal Ends GM Strike
(Guardian Unlimited)
General Motors resumed production in the US today after round-the-clock negotiations led to a pre-dawn deal ending a two-day strike by 73,000 workers.
In Detroit, the United Auto Workers’ Union emerged from talks at 3.05am to declare that it had secured sufficient concessions for its members to return to their jobs.
Key to the agreement is the establishment of an independent trust that will shoulder the burden of more than $50bn in healthcare liabilities for retired workers. The trust will cover medical costs for 80 years and GM will contribute 70 cents for every dollar of funding.
Although details were held back, the UAW also said it had secured “job security guarantees” - a major sticking point in an industry that has shed more than 268,000 jobs in six years. Industry commentators suggested that GM may have pledged that production of certain new vehicles would be in US plants.
If the deal is approved in a ballot this weekend, every worker will receive a $3,000 bonus.
“It’s an agreement we’re proud to recommend to our membership,” the UAW’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, told a hastily convened press conference in the early hours. “This contract will be better in some ways; it will be different in some ways. Our retirees will be exceptionally pleased with this contract.”
Among the declarations of support for the US’s biggest strike in seven years was a message of solidarity from Britain’s Unite union, which represents some of the 5,500 people employed at GM’s Vauxhall factories in Luton and Ellesmere Port.
Neither GM nor the union made an all-out declaration of victory after a stoppage that added to the financial problems of an already cash-strapped industry. GM made a $2.2bn (£1.1bn) loss last year and this week Mr Gettelfinger admitted that the strike was a sign that “both sides have failed at the bargaining table”.
GM has been anxious to close a chasm between its costs and those of Asian rivals such as Toyota, which recently overtook GM to become the world’s biggest carmaker.
Rebecca Lindland, an analyst at Global Insight, estimated that the creation of a healthcare trust would close about half of a $25-an-hour production disparity with Toyota. She said Wall Street would expect GM to show the benefits.
“This means GM doesn’t have a lot of excuses any more,” she said. “They can’t point to spiralling healthcare costs or a disparity in retirement benefits. They have to perform.”
The strike was costing GM an estimated $100m a day and knock-on effects were already causing the closure of plants in Canada that rely on US supplies. Independent companies supplying parts to GM were also feeling the pinch.
Some labour experts suggested that the UAW never anticipated a long strike and was engaging in “theatre” to win a final few concessions. The nationwide stoppage was eating into the union’s strike fund at a rate of $14.6m a week and experts suggested that if the leadership anticipated digging in they would have chosen to strike at only certain targeted factories.
GM’s chief executive, Rick Wagoner, said the deal would close “fundamental competitive gaps”. “The projected competitive improvements in this agreement will allow us to maintain a strong manufacturing presence in the United States along with significant future investments.”
General Motors resumed production in the US today after round-the-clock negotiations led to a pre-dawn deal ending a two-day strike by 73,000 workers.
In Detroit, the United Auto Workers’ Union emerged from talks at 3.05am to declare that it had secured sufficient concessions for its members to return to their jobs.
Key to the agreement is the establishment of an independent trust that will shoulder the burden of more than $50bn in healthcare liabilities for retired workers. The trust will cover medical costs for 80 years and GM will contribute 70 cents for every dollar of funding.
Although details were held back, the UAW also said it had secured “job security guarantees” - a major sticking point in an industry that has shed more than 268,000 jobs in six years. Industry commentators suggested that GM may have pledged that production of certain new vehicles would be in US plants.
If the deal is approved in a ballot this weekend, every worker will receive a $3,000 bonus.
“It’s an agreement we’re proud to recommend to our membership,” the UAW’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, told a hastily convened press conference in the early hours. “This contract will be better in some ways; it will be different in some ways. Our retirees will be exceptionally pleased with this contract.”
Among the declarations of support for the US’s biggest strike in seven years was a message of solidarity from Britain’s Unite union, which represents some of the 5,500 people employed at GM’s Vauxhall factories in Luton and Ellesmere Port.
Neither GM nor the union made an all-out declaration of victory after a stoppage that added to the financial problems of an already cash-strapped industry. GM made a $2.2bn (£1.1bn) loss last year and this week Mr Gettelfinger admitted that the strike was a sign that “both sides have failed at the bargaining table”.
GM has been anxious to close a chasm between its costs and those of Asian rivals such as Toyota, which recently overtook GM to become the world’s biggest carmaker.
Rebecca Lindland, an analyst at Global Insight, estimated that the creation of a healthcare trust would close about half of a $25-an-hour production disparity with Toyota. She said Wall Street would expect GM to show the benefits.
“This means GM doesn’t have a lot of excuses any more,” she said. “They can’t point to spiralling healthcare costs or a disparity in retirement benefits. They have to perform.”
The strike was costing GM an estimated $100m a day and knock-on effects were already causing the closure of plants in Canada that rely on US supplies. Independent companies supplying parts to GM were also feeling the pinch.
Some labour experts suggested that the UAW never anticipated a long strike and was engaging in “theatre” to win a final few concessions. The nationwide stoppage was eating into the union’s strike fund at a rate of $14.6m a week and experts suggested that if the leadership anticipated digging in they would have chosen to strike at only certain targeted factories.
GM’s chief executive, Rick Wagoner, said the deal would close “fundamental competitive gaps”. “The projected competitive improvements in this agreement will allow us to maintain a strong manufacturing presence in the United States along with significant future investments.”
September 24, 2007
GM Workers Strike in U.S.
More than 73,000 unionized workers at General Motors have gone on strike in the United States.
United Auto Workers (UAW) workers launched the strike at noon today after an 11 a.m. deadline passed to reach a settlement with management at GM. The strike affects every GM plant in the U.S.
About 19,000 GM workers in Canada will be affected by the strike action as well, as vehicle parts south of the border stop arriving to car and truck assembly plants in Windsor, St. Catharines and Oshawa.
Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) president Buzz Hargrove will discuss the potential implications for the Canadian industry later on Monday. He is expected to meet with the media in Toronto today at 1:30 p.m.
It is the first national strike by UAW since 1976. GM, thought to be in the best shape of the Big Three North American manufacturers, nevertheless exemplifies the state of the domestic car industry, reporting losses of $12.3 billion over the past two years.
United Auto Workers (UAW) workers launched the strike at noon today after an 11 a.m. deadline passed to reach a settlement with management at GM. The strike affects every GM plant in the U.S.
About 19,000 GM workers in Canada will be affected by the strike action as well, as vehicle parts south of the border stop arriving to car and truck assembly plants in Windsor, St. Catharines and Oshawa.
Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) president Buzz Hargrove will discuss the potential implications for the Canadian industry later on Monday. He is expected to meet with the media in Toronto today at 1:30 p.m.
It is the first national strike by UAW since 1976. GM, thought to be in the best shape of the Big Three North American manufacturers, nevertheless exemplifies the state of the domestic car industry, reporting losses of $12.3 billion over the past two years.
September 23, 2007
Pitfalls in Shopping for Car Deals in U.S.
(Derrick Penner – CanWest News/Vancouver Sun)
Canadian Gerry Pyke is being stymied in his efforts to engage in a bit of freelance “free trade” by buying a new Toyota Tacoma pickup truck in Washington state and saving himself, in his estimation, about $6,000.
It’s not because there is a ban on purchasing and importing autos from the United States - with the Canadian dollar hitting par with U.S. currency, the number of Canadians car shopping across the border is skyrocketing.
The roadblock is Toyota’s regional distribution agreements, which forbid dealers in one region from selling to customers who are going to register their cars in another dealer’s territory.
That policy doesn’t sit well with Pyke, of Delta, B.C.. He said that Toyota enjoys the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which allows it to manufacture cars in Canada and the U.S. and ship them across the border in either direction without tariffs, “while not giving us the benefits of an equalizing dollar.”
It may be “unfair,” as Pyke puts it - but it’s not unique to Toyota.
Manufacturers can’t stop Canadians from buying used cars and importing them. But several manufacturers ban dealers from selling to customers who plan on registering their vehicles in Canada, preventing Canadians from taking advantage of lower list prices in the U.S..
Glen Ringdal, CEO of the New Car Dealers Association of B.C., said while cross-border sales may look attractive in price, they aren’t always easy to pursue, and come with their own pitfalls.
For new sales, he said, Canadians who buy in the U.S. often run into problems getting warranties honoured. Also, if they run into difficulties that require going back to the dealer, “they have a long way to go to see him.”
When buyers import cars, he said, they also have to spend money making modifications to ensure they comply with Canadian vehicle safety laws.
Along with Toyota, both GM and Acura refuse to let new cars sold in the U.S. cross the border into Canada. But Canadians should have no problems buying Fords, Subarus or Nissans for import.
At Skagit Subaru in Burlington, Wash., Canadian sales “have been a lot more active recently,” according to Joe Thurmond, the dealership’s sales manager. “We’ve seen a few (Canadians) each week.”
Randy Carlton, sales manager at Lynwood Acura, said he sees a lot of Canadians too, but directs their attention to the used-car side of his lot. Selling new vehicles across the border has always been a violation of his dealership’s sales agreement.
“We didn’t realize it until it was brought to our attention,” Carlton said.
The cross-border market is growing as the value of the Canadian dollar remains high against U.S. dollar. Canadians bought a record 112,826 cars in the U.S. during 2006, according to the North American Automobile Trade Association, and the trend is still on the upswing.
However, brokers in the business of importing vehicles for Canadians report that the manufacturers are getting more strict about clamping down on sales to Canadians.
“It is getting harder for people to buy new (cars to import),” Randal Reid, owner of Kelowna-based PNT Registered Importers Inc. “The manufacturers are stepping up to the program a little more, making sure there’s not a carte blanche influx (of cars into Canada).”
Reid said for Canadians, finding an American dealer can be hit or miss, and depends on whether they find a “friendly dealer.” He added that his company used to work with a friendly Toyota dealer in Montana until a while ago, when Toyota stepped in and stopped the practice.
Toyota U.S.A. spokesman Xavier Dominicis said the border ban has been a long-standing company policy.
“This isn’t a Canada-specific directive,” Dominicis said. “This is the way our distributorships work throughout the world.”
“The purpose... is the efficiency of allocation of product. Each distributorship has its own territory that it services, and you have to maintain the integrity of the territory, or distributorship.”
Toyota Canada spokeswoman Nicole Grant added that on pricing, “in the long run, it’s always our goal to be as competitive as we can in the marketplace.”
She added that often “unseen differences” between components in Canadian and U.S. models will influence some of the difference in price.
GM Canada spokeswoman Patty Faith said GM doesn’t encourage people to buy vehicles in the U.S. and take them north. GM won’t honour a vehicle’s warranty for six months after it crosses the border.
“We price to the Canadian marketplace,” she added.
While GM does monitor the exchange rate, “it’s not something we would look at in determining prices. Exchange rates are volatile. They go up and down on a regular basis. You wouldn’t have seen prices change the other way when the Canadian dollar was low.”
NAATA president Brian Osler said that, generally, manufacturers will tell their dealers in the U.S. not to sell new cars to Canadians.
There is a way for Canadian buyers to get around that rule. Osler said that there are brokers, or independent auto dealers, with operations based in the U.S. that will buy new cars from American dealers. Those cars are registered in the U.S., Osler said, effectively making them used cars that the broker or dealer can pass on to a Canadian buyer.
But Ringdal said many states “don’t have anywhere near the used-vehicle history reporting that we have here,” which can cause buyers difficulties.
Canadian Gerry Pyke is being stymied in his efforts to engage in a bit of freelance “free trade” by buying a new Toyota Tacoma pickup truck in Washington state and saving himself, in his estimation, about $6,000.
It’s not because there is a ban on purchasing and importing autos from the United States - with the Canadian dollar hitting par with U.S. currency, the number of Canadians car shopping across the border is skyrocketing.
The roadblock is Toyota’s regional distribution agreements, which forbid dealers in one region from selling to customers who are going to register their cars in another dealer’s territory.
That policy doesn’t sit well with Pyke, of Delta, B.C.. He said that Toyota enjoys the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which allows it to manufacture cars in Canada and the U.S. and ship them across the border in either direction without tariffs, “while not giving us the benefits of an equalizing dollar.”
It may be “unfair,” as Pyke puts it - but it’s not unique to Toyota.
Manufacturers can’t stop Canadians from buying used cars and importing them. But several manufacturers ban dealers from selling to customers who plan on registering their vehicles in Canada, preventing Canadians from taking advantage of lower list prices in the U.S..
Glen Ringdal, CEO of the New Car Dealers Association of B.C., said while cross-border sales may look attractive in price, they aren’t always easy to pursue, and come with their own pitfalls.
For new sales, he said, Canadians who buy in the U.S. often run into problems getting warranties honoured. Also, if they run into difficulties that require going back to the dealer, “they have a long way to go to see him.”
When buyers import cars, he said, they also have to spend money making modifications to ensure they comply with Canadian vehicle safety laws.
Along with Toyota, both GM and Acura refuse to let new cars sold in the U.S. cross the border into Canada. But Canadians should have no problems buying Fords, Subarus or Nissans for import.
At Skagit Subaru in Burlington, Wash., Canadian sales “have been a lot more active recently,” according to Joe Thurmond, the dealership’s sales manager. “We’ve seen a few (Canadians) each week.”
Randy Carlton, sales manager at Lynwood Acura, said he sees a lot of Canadians too, but directs their attention to the used-car side of his lot. Selling new vehicles across the border has always been a violation of his dealership’s sales agreement.
“We didn’t realize it until it was brought to our attention,” Carlton said.
The cross-border market is growing as the value of the Canadian dollar remains high against U.S. dollar. Canadians bought a record 112,826 cars in the U.S. during 2006, according to the North American Automobile Trade Association, and the trend is still on the upswing.
However, brokers in the business of importing vehicles for Canadians report that the manufacturers are getting more strict about clamping down on sales to Canadians.
“It is getting harder for people to buy new (cars to import),” Randal Reid, owner of Kelowna-based PNT Registered Importers Inc. “The manufacturers are stepping up to the program a little more, making sure there’s not a carte blanche influx (of cars into Canada).”
Reid said for Canadians, finding an American dealer can be hit or miss, and depends on whether they find a “friendly dealer.” He added that his company used to work with a friendly Toyota dealer in Montana until a while ago, when Toyota stepped in and stopped the practice.
Toyota U.S.A. spokesman Xavier Dominicis said the border ban has been a long-standing company policy.
“This isn’t a Canada-specific directive,” Dominicis said. “This is the way our distributorships work throughout the world.”
“The purpose... is the efficiency of allocation of product. Each distributorship has its own territory that it services, and you have to maintain the integrity of the territory, or distributorship.”
Toyota Canada spokeswoman Nicole Grant added that on pricing, “in the long run, it’s always our goal to be as competitive as we can in the marketplace.”
She added that often “unseen differences” between components in Canadian and U.S. models will influence some of the difference in price.
GM Canada spokeswoman Patty Faith said GM doesn’t encourage people to buy vehicles in the U.S. and take them north. GM won’t honour a vehicle’s warranty for six months after it crosses the border.
“We price to the Canadian marketplace,” she added.
While GM does monitor the exchange rate, “it’s not something we would look at in determining prices. Exchange rates are volatile. They go up and down on a regular basis. You wouldn’t have seen prices change the other way when the Canadian dollar was low.”
NAATA president Brian Osler said that, generally, manufacturers will tell their dealers in the U.S. not to sell new cars to Canadians.
There is a way for Canadian buyers to get around that rule. Osler said that there are brokers, or independent auto dealers, with operations based in the U.S. that will buy new cars from American dealers. Those cars are registered in the U.S., Osler said, effectively making them used cars that the broker or dealer can pass on to a Canadian buyer.
But Ringdal said many states “don’t have anywhere near the used-vehicle history reporting that we have here,” which can cause buyers difficulties.
Five Questions: Dalton McGuinty
(James Menzies – Truck News)
Truck News recently submitted five trucking industry-related questions to each of the candidates vying for the spot of Ontario Premier in the Oct. 10 provincial election.
Although no responses had been received before the October issue’s press deadline, current Premier Dalton McGuinty recently submitted his answers to Truck News. Responses from Conservative leader John Tory and NDP leader Howard Hampton will also be posted on trucknews.com, if and when they are received.
1. The current Ontario government is proceeding with a controversial plan that would require heavy trucks to activate mechanical speed governors limiting their speed to 105 km/h. What is your party’s position on this policy?
McGuinty: This government has been a leader in road safety and will keep looking for ways to make our highways safer. On July 2, our government became a national leader when we announced that we would mandate speed limiters. Quebec has since followed suit. Speed limiters help to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, and can help improve safety on our roads. The Ontario Trucking Association supports this initiative.
2. Ninety percent of Ontario’s exports are destined for the US and at least 80% of the value of Ontario’s trade with the US is transported by truck. If elected, how will your government improve border infrastructure and help facilitate the smooth flow of goods across Ontario/US border crossings?
McGuinty: Our highways and border crossings are vital to sustaining and supporting economic growth by carrying goods to market and large values of trade to the US. This government has partnered with the federal government and other stakeholders to invest more than $800 million in highways and roads to improve border crossings at Windsor, Sarnia-Point Edward, Sault Ste. Marie and the Niagara frontier. The governments of Canada, the United States, Ontario and Michigan are working together on the planning for a new border crossing, access road, and plazas in the Windsor-Detroit area. Finally, we are developing an Action Plan for an Intelligent Border Crossing with the federal government to apply innovative technology at Ontario’s border crossings and optimize the use of the existing infrastructure.
3. Ontario’s professional drivers, and professional drivers passing through the province often complain about a lack of suitable rest stops in the province. If elected, will your government invest in providing the province’s professional drivers with more, and better-equipped, rest areas?
McGuinty: Our government recently announced the beginning of a procurement process to redevelop all 23 of Ontario’s service centres. These rest areas are part of a commitment to road safety, truck safety and the prevention of driver fatigue. This project will lead to improved amenities along two of the busiest highways in North America.
4. A recent study by NRCan has suggested that allowing Long combination vehicles in eastern Ontario has the potential to reduce fuel use by 54 million litres per year while eliminating 151 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Quebec and some Western Canadian provinces already allow the use of LCVs. Where does your party stand on the issue of allowing LCVs on Ontario’s roads?
McGuinty: Our Liberal government is always working to help the trucking industry become more efficient and to improve road safety. We continue to monitor the use of LCVs in other jurisdictions. We need to balance the concerns that auto users have about sharing the road with longer trucks, and the need for the efficient and sustainable movement of goods across this province and into the US.
5. A common complaint within the trucking industry is that not all fuel tax revenue collected by the federal and provincial governments is actually reinvested into highway infrastructure. What is your party’s position in terms of the collection and disbursement of fuel taxes?
McGuinty: In 2007/08, our Liberal government will invest more than $1.7 billion in highway infrastructure across Ontario. This will enable the ministry to maintain, improve and expand the province’s highway network. Since 2003, we have invested over $6 billion in our highways and roads, repairing or building over 2,200 kilometres of highways and roads. If re-elected, we will continue to make major investments in our road infrastructure in the future. Our platform commits to a $60-billion, 10-year infrastructure plan that includes roads and bridges.
Truck News recently submitted five trucking industry-related questions to each of the candidates vying for the spot of Ontario Premier in the Oct. 10 provincial election.
Although no responses had been received before the October issue’s press deadline, current Premier Dalton McGuinty recently submitted his answers to Truck News. Responses from Conservative leader John Tory and NDP leader Howard Hampton will also be posted on trucknews.com, if and when they are received.
1. The current Ontario government is proceeding with a controversial plan that would require heavy trucks to activate mechanical speed governors limiting their speed to 105 km/h. What is your party’s position on this policy?
McGuinty: This government has been a leader in road safety and will keep looking for ways to make our highways safer. On July 2, our government became a national leader when we announced that we would mandate speed limiters. Quebec has since followed suit. Speed limiters help to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, and can help improve safety on our roads. The Ontario Trucking Association supports this initiative.
2. Ninety percent of Ontario’s exports are destined for the US and at least 80% of the value of Ontario’s trade with the US is transported by truck. If elected, how will your government improve border infrastructure and help facilitate the smooth flow of goods across Ontario/US border crossings?
McGuinty: Our highways and border crossings are vital to sustaining and supporting economic growth by carrying goods to market and large values of trade to the US. This government has partnered with the federal government and other stakeholders to invest more than $800 million in highways and roads to improve border crossings at Windsor, Sarnia-Point Edward, Sault Ste. Marie and the Niagara frontier. The governments of Canada, the United States, Ontario and Michigan are working together on the planning for a new border crossing, access road, and plazas in the Windsor-Detroit area. Finally, we are developing an Action Plan for an Intelligent Border Crossing with the federal government to apply innovative technology at Ontario’s border crossings and optimize the use of the existing infrastructure.
3. Ontario’s professional drivers, and professional drivers passing through the province often complain about a lack of suitable rest stops in the province. If elected, will your government invest in providing the province’s professional drivers with more, and better-equipped, rest areas?
McGuinty: Our government recently announced the beginning of a procurement process to redevelop all 23 of Ontario’s service centres. These rest areas are part of a commitment to road safety, truck safety and the prevention of driver fatigue. This project will lead to improved amenities along two of the busiest highways in North America.
4. A recent study by NRCan has suggested that allowing Long combination vehicles in eastern Ontario has the potential to reduce fuel use by 54 million litres per year while eliminating 151 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Quebec and some Western Canadian provinces already allow the use of LCVs. Where does your party stand on the issue of allowing LCVs on Ontario’s roads?
McGuinty: Our Liberal government is always working to help the trucking industry become more efficient and to improve road safety. We continue to monitor the use of LCVs in other jurisdictions. We need to balance the concerns that auto users have about sharing the road with longer trucks, and the need for the efficient and sustainable movement of goods across this province and into the US.
5. A common complaint within the trucking industry is that not all fuel tax revenue collected by the federal and provincial governments is actually reinvested into highway infrastructure. What is your party’s position in terms of the collection and disbursement of fuel taxes?
McGuinty: In 2007/08, our Liberal government will invest more than $1.7 billion in highway infrastructure across Ontario. This will enable the ministry to maintain, improve and expand the province’s highway network. Since 2003, we have invested over $6 billion in our highways and roads, repairing or building over 2,200 kilometres of highways and roads. If re-elected, we will continue to make major investments in our road infrastructure in the future. Our platform commits to a $60-billion, 10-year infrastructure plan that includes roads and bridges.
Canada, US Trim Cross-Border Taxes
(Associated Press)
Canada and the U.S. formally agreed Friday to eliminate the so-called withholding tax on investment interest that businesses have long said curtails investment between the two countries.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty praised the initiative, which they said had been 10 years in the making, saying it will further trade as well as investment.
The change eliminates the 10 percent tax on interest paid by borrowers in one country to lenders across the border in arm's-length transactions.
"We share not only a 5,500-mile border, we share a commitment to trade and open investment," Paulson said. "By further reducing barriers to cross-border activities for U.S. and Canadian taxpayers, this updating of our treaty enables to us to move even more swiftly in the dynamic global economy."
The update to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty was promised in Canada's last federal budget and estimated to cost Ottawa $70 million in the current fiscal year and $180 million in 2008-2009.
The withholding tax in non-arm's-length arrangements — usually between corporate subsidiaries — also will be phased out over three years.
Some economists have predicted the move could increase capital investment in Canada by $18 billion.
The treaty still must be approved by the U.S. Senate and the Canadian Parliament.
Other changes in it include:
-- Permitting taxpayers to ask for arbitration in disputes involving double taxation.
-- Giving mutual tax recognition on pension contributions.
-- Clarifying how stock options are to be taxed.
-- And ensuring that emigrants from either country will not face double taxation on gains.
Canada and the U.S. formally agreed Friday to eliminate the so-called withholding tax on investment interest that businesses have long said curtails investment between the two countries.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty praised the initiative, which they said had been 10 years in the making, saying it will further trade as well as investment.
The change eliminates the 10 percent tax on interest paid by borrowers in one country to lenders across the border in arm's-length transactions.
"We share not only a 5,500-mile border, we share a commitment to trade and open investment," Paulson said. "By further reducing barriers to cross-border activities for U.S. and Canadian taxpayers, this updating of our treaty enables to us to move even more swiftly in the dynamic global economy."
The update to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty was promised in Canada's last federal budget and estimated to cost Ottawa $70 million in the current fiscal year and $180 million in 2008-2009.
The withholding tax in non-arm's-length arrangements — usually between corporate subsidiaries — also will be phased out over three years.
Some economists have predicted the move could increase capital investment in Canada by $18 billion.
The treaty still must be approved by the U.S. Senate and the Canadian Parliament.
Other changes in it include:
-- Permitting taxpayers to ask for arbitration in disputes involving double taxation.
-- Giving mutual tax recognition on pension contributions.
-- Clarifying how stock options are to be taxed.
-- And ensuring that emigrants from either country will not face double taxation on gains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)