United States-Canada Trade and Economic
Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Ian F. Fergusson
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
September 2, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33087
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Summary
The United States and Canada conduct the world’s largest bilateral trade relationship, with total
merchandise trade (exports and imports) exceeding $429.7 billion in 2009. The U.S.-Canadian
relationship revolves around the themes of integration and asymmetry: integration from
successive trade liberalization from the U.S.-Canada Auto Pact of 1965 leading to North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and asymmetry resulting from Canadian dependence
on the U.S. market and from the disparate size of the two economies.
The economies of the United States and Canada are highly integrated, a process that has been
accelerated by the bilateral U.S.-Canada free trade agreement (FTA) of 1988 and the NAFTA of
1994. Both are affluent industrialized economies, with similar standards of living and industrial
structure. However, the two economies diverge in size, per capita income, productivity and net
savings.
Canada is the largest single-country trading partner of the United States. In 2009, total
merchandise trade with Canada consisted of $224.9 billion in imports and $204.7 billion in
exports. In 2007, China displaced Canada as the largest source for U.S. imports for the first time,
a trend that has continued since then. While Canada is an important trading partner for the United
States, the United States is the dominant trade partner for Canada, and trade is a dominant feature
of the Canadian economy. Automobiles and auto parts, a sector which has become highly
integrated due to free trade, make up the largest sector of traded products. Canada is also the
largest exporter of energy to the United States. Like the United States, the Canadian economy is
affected by the transformation of China into an economic superpower. The United States and
Canada also have significant stakes in each other’s economy through foreign direct investment.
Both countries are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and both are partners with
Mexico in the NAFTA. While most trade is conducted smoothly, several disputes remain
contentious. Disputes concerning the 2006 softwood lumber agreement are under arbitration, and
Canada has sought WTO consultations over country-of-origin-labeling requirements. In addition,
the United States has placed Canada on its Special 301 priority watch list over intellectual
property rights enforcement issues. Canada has also vigorously protested the implementation of
the “Buy American” provisions of the economic stimulus package.
The terrorist attacks of 2001 focused attention on the U.S.-Canadian border. Several bilateral
initiatives have been undertaken to minimize disruption to commerce from added border security.
The focus on the border has renewed interest in some quarters in greater economic integration,
either through incremental measures such as greater regulatory cooperation or potentially larger
goals such as a customs or monetary union. Congressional interest has focused mostly on trade
disputes, and also on the ability of the two nations to continue their traditional volume of trade
with heightened security on the border.

Congressional Research Service

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Contents
The Economies of the United States and Canada ......................................................................... 1
The Trade and Investment Relationship ....................................................................................... 3
Autos .................................................................................................................................... 4
Energy .................................................................................................................................. 6
China .................................................................................................................................... 6
Trade Deficit ......................................................................................................................... 8
Services ................................................................................................................................ 9
Investment .......................................................................................................................... 10
Canadian FDI Policy..................................................................................................... 11
Disputes.................................................................................................................................... 13
Softwood Lumber ............................................................................................................... 13
Arbitration .......................................................................................................................... 14
Country of Origin Labeling ................................................................................................. 16
Buy American Stimulus Provisions ..................................................................................... 16
Intellectual Property Rights ................................................................................................. 17
Security and Trade .................................................................................................................... 18
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) .................................................................... 18
Action Programs and Initiatives .......................................................................................... 19
Prospects and Policy Options .................................................................................................... 21
NAFTA Plus ....................................................................................................................... 22
Security Perimeter............................................................................................................... 23
Customs Union ................................................................................................................... 23
Common Market or Economic Union.................................................................................. 23
Monetary Union.................................................................................................................. 24

Figures
Figure 1. Canadian Dollar per U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate ........................................................... 9
Figure 2. Merchandise U.S. Trade Deficit with Canada.............................................................. 10
Figure 3. FDI Flows 2001-2008 ................................................................................................ 11
Figure 4. FDI Stock 2005-2009 ................................................................................................. 12

Tables
Table 1. Selected Comparative Statistics, 2009 ............................................................................ 2
Table 2. U.S. Merchandise Trade With Canada, 2009 .................................................................. 7

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 24
Congressional Research Service

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

The Economies of the United States and Canada
The economies of the United States and Canada are highly integrated, a process that has been
accelerated by the bilateral U.S.-Canada free trade agreement (FTA) of 1989 and the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994. The two countries are natural trading
partners, given their geographic proximity and their (partial) linguistic and cultural similarities.
Because 80% of the Canadian population lives within 200 miles of the U.S. border and due to the
impediments of Canadian geography, trade with the United States is often easier and less
expensive than Canadian inter-provincial trade. Both are affluent industrialized economies, with
similar (though not identical) standards of living.
However, the economies of the two countries diverge in numerous ways. First, the U.S. economy
dwarfs that of Canada. U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is nearly 11 times that of Canada in
nominal terms and over 11 times as large in terms of purchasing power parity.1 (See Table 1.)
This large and historic disparity has presented opportunities and challenges for Canada. NAFTA
provides Canada with a large market for its exports at its doorstep, however it has also led to
increased import competition for small-scale Canadian businesses. The Canadian economy is also
disproportionately impacted by a U.S. economic slowdown or changes in the bilateral exchange
rate.
From 2000, the average annual real GDP growth rate has been slightly higher for Canada (2.1%)
than for the United States (1.9%). Per capita average annual growth rates over the period have
shown a similar, if anemic trajectory (1.06% v. 0.93%). Canadian per capita income, in terms of
PPP, has remained relatively constant at around 82% of U.S. per capita income. The persistent per
capita income gap has proven worrisome to Canadian policymakers as it raises questions about
Canadian productivity and competitiveness.
In terms of sectoral components of GDP, the United States and Canada are similar. Over two-
thirds of both economies are devoted to the services sector, although the sector is slightly larger
as a percentage of GDP in the United States (76.9%-74.7%). The manufacturing sector’s
composition of GDP has fallen in both countries over time, but it is still relatively more important
to the Canadian economy (26.4%-21.9%). Agriculture makes up the remaining 2.3% of the
Canadian economy and 1.2% of the U.S. economy.
In terms of savings and investment, Canada and the United States have diverged. Canada’s
experience with fiscal profligacy in the 1970s and 1980s caused the country to eschew deficit
spending in the 1990s. Parliament consistently passed balanced budgets from 1997-2008, and
Canada has lowered its ratio of public debt-to-GDP from 100% of GDP in 1996 to 61.3% of GDP
in 2008. Yet, deficit spending returned in the 2009 stimulus budget and public debt-to-GDP is
now back to 75.5%. The United States has a lower ratio of debt-to-GDP, but it has been trending
upwards, reaching 47.3% of GDP in 2009, after years of deficit spending.


1 Purchasing power parity (PPP) is a economic theory which holds that exchange rates between currencies are in
equilibrium when their purchasing power is the same in each of the two countries. PPP is useful for cross-country GDP
comparisons because its measurement excludes exchange rate volatility and speculation.
Congressional Research Service
1

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Table 1. Selected Comparative Statistics, 2009
Indicator United
States
Canada
GDP


Nominal PPP (billion US$)
14,258
1,274
Nominal (billion $)
14,258
1,338
Per Capita GDP


Nominal PPP ($)
46,480
37,800
Nominal ($)
46,480
39,700
Real GDP Growth
-2.4%
-2.6%
Recorded Unemployment Rate
9.3%
8.3%
Exports G&S(%GDP)
11.0%
30.4%
Imports G&S (%GDP)
13.7%
30.6%
Sectoral Components of GDP (%)


Industry
21.9%
26.4%
Services
76.9%
74.7%
Agriculture
1.2%
2.3%
Current Account Balance (% GDP)
-2.9%
-2.7%
Public Debt/GDP
47.3%
75.5%
Sources: Economist Intelligence Unit; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Statistics Canada.
Some of the differences between U.S. and Canadian economic performance may be traced to the
differences in the role and structure of the government in economic life. While both countries can
be identified as generally free-market capitalist economies, at times Canada has adopted more
interventionist economic policies. Prior to the FTA with the United States, Canada protected her
small-scale manufacturing enterprises that produced solely for the domestic market with high
tariffs. While these plants provided jobs to Canadian workers, they resulted in higher prices for
Canadian consumers and led to a relatively inefficient allocation of national economic resources.
Canada has also provided its citizens with a more generous social safety net including a
government-run national health service. Canadian citizens pay higher taxes to receive these
benefits, but private industry is relieved of providing health care coverage.
A different relationship between the Canadian federal government and the provinces also affects
economic dynamics. Canadian provinces have relatively more power vis-à-vis Canada’s federal
government than that of states with the U.S. government. For example, natural resources are
under the policy control (and in many cases, ownership) of Canadian provincial governments. In
the softwood lumber dispute, provincial ownership and management of forests have made the
provincial governments key players in the negotiations. Alberta’s vast energy reserves may also
cause friction between it and other “have-not” provinces without similar resource endowments.
The Canadian federal government attempts to provide a uniform level of services across the
provinces by providing “equalization” payments to poorer provinces; however, these payments
are a source of continuous squabbling between the provinces, on one side, and the federal
government.
Congressional Research Service
2

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

The Trade and Investment Relationship
Canada is the largest single nation trading partner of the United States, yet trade between them
dropped due to the global economic downturn. In 2009, total merchandise trade with Canada was
$429.7 billion (a 28.0% decrease from 2008), consisting of $224.9 billion (-33.0% from 2008) in
imports and $204.7 billion (-21.5% from 2008) in exports.2 In 2009, slightly less than $1.2 billion
in goods crossed the border each day. Trade with Canada represented 16.4% of U.S. total trade in
2009, with Canada purchasing 19.4% of U.S. exports and supplying 14.4% of total U.S. imports.
While Canada is an important trading partner for the United States, the United States is the
dominant trade partner for Canada. The United States supplied 51.1% of Canada’s imports of
goods and purchased 75.0% of Canada’s merchandise exports in 2009.
While the absolute value of trade continues to increase between the two nations, each nation’s
share of trade with the other has decreased in recent years. As a share of U.S. total trade, trade
with Canada dropped from 20%-16.4% between 2003-2009. Conversely, trade with the United
States dropped from 74% to 66% of Canada’s global trade in the same period.
Trade is a dominant feature of the Canadian economy. While in the United States, the value of
trade (exports + imports) as a percentage of GDP was about 18.3% in 2009, the comparable
figure for Canada was 47.7%. Canada’s goods exports totaled $316.5 billion in 2009, which
represented 23.7% of Canadian GDP. Exports to the United States alone represent 17.8% of
Canadian GDP, and a further 12.3% of Canadian GDP was used to purchase U.S. goods. In 2009,
Canada imported $321.5 billion from all destinations, 24.0% of its GDP. In 2009, Canada’s
merchandise trade balance fell into deficit for the first time since 1975. Canada is relatively more
exposed to the world economy and to the fortunes of other economies, foremost the United
States’, than most other countries.
Autos and auto parts represent the top U.S. exports to, and second-largest imports from, Canada.
Agriculture and construction machinery, computer equipment, general purpose machinery,
aerospace product and parts, basic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and medicines, iron and steel, and
precision instruments are other major U.S. exports. Primary U.S. imports from Canada outside the
automotive sector are energy (natural gas, petroleum products, electricity); pulp, paperboard, and
paperboard mill products; aerospace products and parts; nonferrous metal and processing (ex
aluminum); and basic chemicals.
That the United States and Canada trade substantial volumes of the same goods bespeaks the
economic integration of the two economies. This integration has been assisted by trade
liberalization over the past 40 years, beginning with the Automotive Agreement of 1965 (which
eliminated tariffs on shipments of autos and auto parts between the two countries), through the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989 (FTA), and NAFTA. Under the FTA (which was
incorporated into NAFTA), bilateral tariffs except for certain agricultural products were phased
out over a 10-year period culminating in 1998.


2 Trade figures are expressed in terms of general imports (customs value), and total exports (FAS value) as compiled by
the U.S. International Trade Commission. Canadian figures are from Statistics Canada.
Congressional Research Service
3

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Canada’s Economic Stimulus Program
In January 2009, the government introduced a C$258.6 billion budget, which called for C$40 billion in stimulus
spending and tax cuts for FY2009-2011. The stimulus consists of a package of income tax cuts, employment insurance
(EI) benefit extensions, job retraining, ‘hard’ infrastructure spending, tax credits for home renovation, retrofits for
social housing, and investments in First Nation’s health programs.3 In all, the C$40 billion represents a stimulus of
about 1.5% of GDP in the first year and 1.1% in the second year. Increased spending represents approximately 72% of
this package and tax cuts contribute the remaining 28%. The March 2010 budget allocated the remaining C$19 billion
in stimulus.
The 2009 budget also marked a return to deficit spending for Canada after 12 successive budgets in balance or
surplus. The 2009 budget contemplated a deficit of C$34 billion the first year, and predicted a total of C$81 billion in
borrowing over five years before the budget is expected to return to surplus in 2013. The March 2010 Budget revised
upward the 2009 deficit to C$53.8 billion, proposed a C$49.2 billion deficit in 2010, and envisaged the budget
returning to balance in 2015 with a total C$158.4 billion increase in the national debt. The Harper government plans
to return to budget balance by winding down the stimulus measures, targeted spending reductions, and identification
of additional opportunities for administrative savings. The government has pledged not to raise taxes and not cut
transfer payments to individuals or equalization payments to the provinces. 4 Opposition leaders have expressed
skepticism that the budget could return to balance through economic growth and with the scope of spending cuts
envisioned in the budget.
The return to deficit spending, while acknowledged as necessary by most of the political spectrum to combat the
severe economic recession, was not undertaken lightly. Prior to the “austerity” budget of 1995, Canada had wracked
up 27 straight years of deficit spending. At its peak in 1996, Canada’s public debt represented 101.6% of GDP, and
government sector spending reached 53.6% of GDP in 1993. Realizing this course was unsustainable, the Liberal
government of then Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his Finance Minister Paul Martin embarked on a financial
austerity plan using such politically risky measures as cutting federal funding for health and education transfers,
applying a means test to those eligible for Seniors Benefits, and cuts in defense. A nationwide goods and services tax
was introduced to help close the gap. Under this budget discipline, the government submitted a balanced budget in
1998 and a political consensus emerged not to resort to deficit spending, at least until now.
The elimination of tariffs and the reduction of nontariff barriers have contributed to the process of
specialization, as each country is able to produce goods for a larger continent-wide market. Thus,
firms are able to improve productivity through increased economies of scale and coordinated
production. Such specialization led to increased bilateral trade, much of it in intermediate
products. One study estimated that about 45% of U.S.-Canadian trade was intra-firm trade,
reflecting the substantial integration of the two economies and contributing to increased
efficiency and competitiveness of firms on both sides of the border.5
Autos
Integration of the U.S. and Canadian automotive industries is an example of the benefits of
specialization and economies of scale. Before the mid-1960s, each country’s industry produced
for its own market, due largely to tariffs imposed by both countries. Canadian auto firms (mostly
subsidiaries of U.S. firms) were considerably less productive than their U.S. counterparts because
Canadian firms produced a variety of differentiated products for a relatively small domestic
market in an industry characterized by economies of scale.

3 “Tories to Aggressively Implement Budget Spending Measures,” The Hill Times, February 2, 2009.
4 “Budget 2010 in Brief” http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/glance-apercu/brief-bref-eng.html.
5 World Trade Organization, Trade Policy Review: Canada, Report by the Secretariat, October 6, 1996,
(WT/TPR/S/22), p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
4

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

The Automotive Agreement of 1965 (Auto Pact) between the United States and Canada began the
process of integration by eliminating tariffs on shipments of autos and auto parts between the two
countries. Thus, each country’s industry could specialize in a smaller number of products and use
longer production runs. Coordinated production on both sides of the border increased
significantly, as did bilateral automotive trade. Coordinated automotive production has raised
living standards in both the United States and Canada, and has strengthened the global
competitiveness of producers on both sides of the border.
Motor vehicles, vehicle parts, and engines made up 15.6% of U.S. exports to Canada and 14.6%
of U.S. imports from Canada in 2009 (see Table 2). Although vehicles and parts flow in both
directions, the primary trajectory is that of U.S. parts exported to Canada for assembly, and
vehicles exported back to the United States. U.S. vehicles imports from Canada plummeted
27.6% to 1.2 million vehicles in 2009. U.S. vehicles exports to Canada fell 40.7% to 427,000 in
2008. One notable feature of this trade is the increasing composition of trade in so-called “new
domestic” manufactures, foreign-owned companies with manufacturing and assembly plants in
the United States and Canada. While the value of Canadian “Big 3” exports to the U.S. has
declined 32% since 2000, the value of the primarily Japanese new domestics has increased by
45%, and in 2006 these new domestics made up 31.5% of Canadian imports into the United
States. The value of Canada’s imports of U.S.-produced new domestics has also increased by
about one-third from 2000, and made up about 21% of the value of U.S. vehicle exports to
Canada in 2006. 6
While Canada suffers from productivity problems in other sectors of its economy, its automotive
plants are among the most competitive in North America. Part of the cost advantage traditionally
had been due to the weak Canadian dollar, but that advantage diminished with the loonie’s rise to
parity with the U.S. dollar. Another major competitive advantage is Canada’s national health
system, which reportedly relieves Canadian automakers of approximately $1,400 in costs per
vehicle.7
The global economic recession that has hit the U.S. domestic auto industry especially hard is also
having an effect on Canada, especially Ontario. Approximately 20% of the plant capacity of the
domestic Big Three (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) is located in Canada. The government
of Canada and the Ontario provincial government have sought to match in proportion to
production capacity the loans given by the U.S. government to General Motors and Chrysler. The
Canadian authorities provided $4 billion in bridge loans to GM and Chrysler to match the $17.4
billion provided by the Bush Administration in December 2008. Following Chrysler’s bankruptcy
on April 30, 2009, the United States and Canada promised a $10.5 billion package of assistance
based on a 3:1 ratio contribution: $8.08 billion from the United States and $2.42 billion from
Canada and Ontario. In return, the U.S. government will hold 8% share of the restructured
company and Canada and Ontario will own 2%. GM declared bankruptcy on June 1, 2009. Forty
days later, it emerged from bankruptcy with the U.S. government owning 60.8% of the new
company, Canada and the Province of Ontario taking an 11.7% stake, and the remainder owned
by the United Autoworkers retiree trust fund and the former company’s bondholders.8 Ford,
which also has extensive Canadian operations, did not ask either government for loans.

6 “Canada’s Changing Auto Industry,” by Francine Roy and Clerance Kimanyi, Canadian Economic Observer, May
2007, figures extrapolated from Table 2, p. 3.7.
7 “Ontario to Overtake Michigan As Auto Kingpin,” The New York Times, November 29, 2004.
8 “GM Exits Bankruptcy,” Reuters, July 10, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Energy
Canada is the largest supplier of energy (including petroleum, natural gas, and electricity) to the
United States. The value of oil and natural gas imports increased 47% between 2007 and 2008;
however, the volume of oil imports in terms of barrels shipped increased only 3.8%, the amount
of cubic meters of natural gas decreased by 0.8%, and the volume of liquid natural gas imported
fell by 48%.
In 2009, the value of U.S. energy imports from Canada dropped precipitously from $111.3 billion
to $63.7 billion. In the case of crude oil, however, the 40% drop in the value of export from $62.2
billion in 2008 to $36.8 billion in 2009 was almost entirely reflective in the drop of oil prices
during the period. Imports in terms of barrels were virtually unchanged at 679.5 million. Canada
provides 24.5% of U.S. crude oil imports and supplies 31% of U.S. natural gas imports.9 In 2005,
oil and gas displaced motor vehicles as the United States’ largest import from Canada. Canada has
traditional sources of crude oil in Alberta and off the coasts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
As the price of crude oil increases, petroleum extracted from Albertan oil sands is becoming a
major part of Canadian energy supplies. Oil sands are surface mined, and the oil is extracted
through pressurization. The process itself is energy intensive, water dependent, and not all that
environmentally friendly. However, it is estimated that the potential oil extracted from the oil
sands represent reserves second only to those held by Saudi Arabia.10 Provisions of the FTA and
NAFTA assure U.S. supplies of energy from Canada by prohibiting the imposition of minimal
export prices or export taxes, and by restricting the imposition of supply restrictions.
China
China’s emergence as an economic superpower and the United States’ response has become a
major issue in the United States. In Canada, political discussion has been more muted, but some
of the same issues are present. China is now Canada’s second-largest trading partner, and is
growing rapidly. However, most of this increase is import-based. In 2008, Canada imported $39.9
billion in goods from China, primarily a typical array of labor intensive products: apparel,
footware, consumer electronics, toys, and telecommunications equipment. Meanwhile, Canada’s
exports to China totaled $9.9 billion of primarily natural resources: forest products, metals,
petroleum, and agriculture, but also aviation equipment and telecommunications equipment.
Canadians and Americans have similar concerns over the loss of manufacturing jobs in import-
competing industries to low-wage producers such as China. Perhaps more important, from the
Canadian perspective, is the concern that Canadian producers will be pushed out of the U.S.
market by low-wage competition. One study found that while such a threat is real, China now
competes more with Mexico in labor intensive sectors than does Canada in the U.S. market.11

9 2009 statistics from U.S. International Trade Commission, http://dataweb.usitc.gov.
10 For more information on the oil sands, see CRS Report RL34258, North American Oil Sands: History of
Development, Prospects for the Future
, by Marc Humphries.
11 Wendy Dobson, “Taking A Giant’s Measure: Canada, NAFTA, and an Emergent China,” C.D. Howe Institute,
September 2004.
Congressional Research Service
6

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Table 2. U.S. Merchandise Trade With Canada, 2009
Amount

Amount

Export Category
billion $
billion $
(% change
Import Category
(% change
from 2008)
from 2008)
Motor Vehicle Parts
16.1 (-31.5)
Oil and Gas
51.0 (-44.8)
Motor Vehicles
15.9 (-31.0)
Motor Vehicles
24.5 (-32.4)
Special Classification, NESOI
7.1 (-25.4)
Petroleum and Coal Products
10.0 (-32.7)
Agriculture/ Construction
7.0 (-28.7)
Motor Vehicle Parts
8.3 (-38.3)
Machinery
Computer Equipment
6.5 (-20.2)
Returned/Reimported
10.4 (-4.0)

General Purpose Machinery
6.1 (-23.6)
Pulp, Paper, Paperboard
7.3 (-28.4)
Aerospace Products/Parts
5.6 (-11.8)
Aerospace Products and Parts
6.8 (-13.4)
Chemicals
5.5
(-20.0) Nonferrous
Metal
and
6.4
(-38.4)
Processing
Pharmaceutical/Medicines
4.9
(38.1)
Special
Classification,
NESOI
6.4
(-36.5)
Iron/Steel/Ferroal oy
4.9
(-39.5) Basic
Chemicals
5.2
(-30.9)
Navigation/Electrical/ Medical/Control
4.9
(-17.2) Pharmaceutical/
Medicines
5.1
(4.6)
Instruments
Resin, Synthetic Rubber, artificial fibers
4.7 (-27.0)
Aluminum
4.7 (-38.7)
Miscel aneous Manufactured Products
4.5 (-11.7)
Plastic Products
3.7 (-19.6)
Oil and Gas
4.5 (-32.7)
Other General Purpose
3.6
(-27.7)
Machinery
Plastics
Products

4.5(-13.5)
Iron/Steel/Ferroal oy
3.5
(-49.3)
Semiconductors
4.2 (-14.2)
Resin, Synthetic Rubber, artificial 3.5
(-39.3)
fibers
Fabricated Metal
4.1 (-20.0)
Pesticides, Fertilizer, Agriculture 3.3
(-36.5)
Chems.
Petroleum / Coal Products
4.0 (-46.9)
Communications Equipment
2.8 (-17.8)
Engines/Turbines/ Power Transmission
4.0 (-16.1)
Agriculture and Construction
2.7
(-33.4)
Equipment
Machinery
Converted Paper Products
3.7 (-8.5)
Converted Paper Products
2.5 (.-7.6)
Al Other
82 (-16.6)
Al Other
56.0 (-23.5)
Total
$204.7
Total
$224.9
(-21.5)
(-33.0)
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. (Figures are NAIC-4, Total Exports and General Imports.)
Note: May not total due to rounding.
China’s near unquenchable thirst for natural resources to fuel its economic boom has led it to
attempt to purchase natural resource assets abroad, including a controversial bid for Unocal in the
United States. Two Chinese oil companies, including CNOOC, have purchased stakes in Alberta’s
oil sands projects, and a pipeline is to be constructed in conjunction with PetroChina from Alberta
to the West Coast. An attempted Chinese purchase of Noranda (now Falconbridge), one of the
Congressional Research Service
7

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

world’s largest zinc, nickel, and copper concerns, by China Minmetals was called off in 2004 due
to rising share prices. However, the proposed deal did spark concern about purchase of Canadian
resources by a subsidiary of the Chinese Metals Ministry and about the company’s human rights
and Communist party ties.12
Trade Deficit
As Canada ran its first overall trade deficit since 1995, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada sharply
narrowed to $20.2 billion from $74.7 billion in 2008. As imports generally grew faster than
exports in the free trade era, the bilateral trade deficit increased from 3.5% of the value of total
trade in 1991 to 15.3% in 2005, yet the constriction of trade dropped that ratio to 4.7% in 2009.
(See Figure 2.) The persistent trade deficit with Canada has been blamed on many factors. Up
until 2003, the deficit was attributed, in part, to the weakness of the Canadian dollar. The loonie
had steadily depreciated in value in the decade prior to 2003. Worth approximately $0.84 at the
time of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1989, the currency briefly sank to $0.63 in
2002. Since then, the loonie has steadily appreciated and reached parity for the first time in 31
years on September 20, 2007, before peaking at an intra-day high of $1.10 on November 7. From
that date, the loonie crossed the parity line three times in its relation to the U.S. dollar. However,
from May 2008, the currency gradually declined, in part due to the end of the commodity and
energy boom and the onset of the recession, to a low of $.77 in March 2009. Since then, stronger
commodity prospects and an earlier exit from recession has led the loonie to flirt with parity again
in 2010.


12 “Canada Welcomes China’s Cash—Hospitality Toward Investments Run Counter to Mood in U.S.,” The Wall Street
Journal
, July 15, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
8


United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Figure 1. Canadian Dollar per U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate
2001-2010

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, IndexMundi.com site.
Services
The United States also conducts a substantial services trade with Canada. In 2008, Canada
remained the second-largest consumer of U.S. services, and dropped to the fourth-largest supplier
of services to the United States after the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. That year, the
United States exported $45.8 billion worth of private services to Canada and imported $24.4
billion, for a surplus of $22.4 billion. Private services exports to Canada accounted for 8.7% of
U.S. private service exports overall; imports represented about 6.7% of total U.S. service imports.
In 2008, U.S. service exports represented 57.1% of Canadian service imports, and Canadian
service exports to the United States represented 54.7% of total Canadian service exports.13
Commercial services made up 47.8% of overall two-way Canadian service trade in 2008 and
travel and tourism totaled another 28.4%. Since 2004, Canada’s overall service sector trade deficit
has nearly doubled from C$11.5 billion to C$22.5 billion; likewise, the service sector deficit with
the United States also nearly doubled from C$7.3 to C$14.5. U.S. travelers accounted for 48% of
Canada’s travel and tourism receipts in 2008; Canadians spent 57% of their tourist dollars in the
United States that year.14

13 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, October 2009; Statistics Canada, Balance of
International Payments—Fourth Quarter 2008, Table 18, available at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/67-001-x/67-001-
x2008004-eng.pdf.
14 Statistics Canada, Balance of International Payments, Table 17, Table 60.
Congressional Research Service
9

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Figure 2. Merchandise U.S. Trade Deficit with Canada
2000-2009
20
13
14
13.5
13.9
15.4
15.3
13.7
11.5
12.5
4.7
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
-20
-20.2
-40
-49.8
-52.8
-53.2
-60
-54.7
-64.7
-68.2
-73.1
-80
-76.5
-74.7
Trade Balance ($)
Trade Deficit/% Total Trade

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
Investment
The U.S.-Canada economic relationship is characterized by substantial ownership interests in
each nation by investors of the other. The United States is the largest single investor in Canada
with a stock of $259.8 billion in 2009, a figure representing 7.4% of U.S. direct investment
abroad (DIA). U.S. investors accounted for 52.5% of the stock of inbound foreign direct
investment (FDI) in Canada in 2009, down from 64.1% in 2004.15 Manufacturing, finance/
insurance, and mining/energy are the three largest categories of U.S. FDI in Canada. Canada had
a prominent (though not the largest) FDI position in the United States at $225.8 billion, 9.7% of
the total FDI stock in the United States in 2009. The United States is the most prominent
destination for Canadian DIA, with a stock of 44.0% of total Canadian DIA in 2009, a percentage
virtually unchanged from five years earlier.

15 BEA, Survey of Current Business, July 2010; Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, State of
Trade 2010
, http://www.international.gc.ca/economist-economiste/performance/state-point/state_2010_point/2010_toc-
tdm.aspx?lang=eng.
Congressional Research Service
10

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Figure 3. FDI Flows 2001-2008
40
33
32
30
21
20
14.8
13.6
10
11
5
4
0
-2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
-10
-14
-20
FDI: Can to US
FDI: US to Can

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
Canada is also highly dependent on FDI. In 2009, FDI represented 37.0% of Canada’s GDP, and
Canadian DIA represented 43.1% of GDP,16 both figures up from about 20.0% in 1995. Flows of
FDI, which stagnated during the global economic slowdown and actually resulted in net
disinvestment in the United States by Canadians in 2008, began to increase again in 2009.
Canadian FDI Policy
Foreign investment has played a large part in the development of the Canadian economy. British
and American capital was instrumental in building Canada’s railways in the 19th century and in
exploiting its resources in the 20th century. Although Canada is generally open to foreign
investment, certain restrictions do exist on some forms of FDI. Investment is monitored and some
types of FDI are reviewed. “Significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians” are reviewed
under the Investment Canada Act to insure “net benefit” to Canada. The review threshold for
parties to the World Trade Organization (WTO), including the United States, is C$312 million.
All transactions involving uranium production, financial services, transportation services, or
cultural business17 must be reviewed. Net benefit is assessed on such factors as effect on level of
economic activity in Canada including employment; the degree or significance of participation by
Canadians; the effect of productivity and technological development; the effect on competition;

16 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Data Series.
17 Cultural business refers to the publication of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers; production, distribution,
or sale or exhibition of film, video recordings, audio or video musical recordings; publication or dissemination of print
music; or radio, television, cable, or satellite broadcasting.
Congressional Research Service
11

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

the effect on Canadian competitiveness on world markets; and compatibility with national,
industrial, or cultural policies. No investment by a non-resident has been rejected under this
authority, but in some instances investments have been altered pursuant to Investment Canada
guidance.18
Figure 4. FDI Stock 2005-2009
300
260
250
232
230
234
239
226
208
194
200
175
166
150
100
50
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
US in Can
Can in US

Source: BEA.
In 2007, the government began subjecting acquisitions by foreign state-owned enterprises (SOE)
to additional scrutiny to assess whether they meet the “net benefit” test. The additional criteria
include whether the SOE adheres to Canadian standards of corporate governance and whether the
Canadian business acquired will continue to have the ability to operate on a commercial basis. In
2009, Parliament approved an amendment to the Investment Canada Act to allow for review of
transactions potentially “injurious to national security.” The Industry Minister may order such
reviews of either proposed or implemented transactions if they raise national security concerns. If
the review does not resolve the concerns, the Federal Cabinet would be able to block such
transactions, or order the divestment of an implemented transaction. Neither the act nor the
implementing regulations define “injurious to national security.”19

18 C.D. Howe Institute, “A Capital Story: Exploding the Myths Around Foreign Investment in Canada,” p. 21.
19 Peter Franklyn and Peter Glossop, “Regulation of Foreign Investment in Canada,” in Doing Business in Canada,
April 2010, pp. 15-18, http://www.osler.com/uploadedFiles/News_and_Resources/Publications/Guides/
Doing_Business_in_Canada/DBIC_2009_April.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Disputes
Both the United States and Canada are considered to have relatively open and transparent trading
regimes. Both are signatories to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and are bound together by
the North American Free Trade Agreement. However, irritants in the relationship do exist and
each party has issues with the way the other conducts the bilateral trade relationship. Some
disputes have been adjudicated by WTO and NAFTA dispute settlement procedures and others
have been the subject of regulatory actions by the United States or Canada.
Softwood Lumber
On April 27, 2006, the United States and Canada reached an agreement to resolve the long-
standing softwood lumber dispute, perhaps the most intractable trade dispute between the two
nations.20 This agreement, however, has now become the subject of arbitration between the two
countries. The 2006 agreement was signed in Ottawa on September 12 by USTR Susan Schwab
and Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson. The agreement was implemented on October 12,
2006. This follows a summer in which the Canadian government of Prime Minister Stephen
Harper enlisted support for the agreement among Canadian provinces and among what he called
“a clear majority” of the Canadian lumber industry.21 The Canadian Parliament approved
legislation implementing the agreement on December 14, 2006.
The present incarnation of the dispute began when the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA)
between the United States and Canada expired on April 1, 2001. This agreement, implemented in
1996, set a tariff rate quota on exports of softwood lumber to the United States from four
Canadian provinces at 14.7 billion board feet per year and set fees for exports in excess of that
amount. U.S. lumber producers contend that Canadian provinces subsidize their lumber industry
by charging less than market value for lumber harvested in the form of stumpage fees and other
practices. U.S. timber and environmental groups have also expressed concern about Canadian
forestry management and clear-cutting practices and allege that such practices lead to dumping.
The Canadian government has rejected these allegations and has demanded free trade in lumber.
It has asserted that Canadian mills have modernized and are more efficient than U.S. operations.
The SLA ends all antidumping and countervailing duty litigation and return $4 billion of the
estimated $5 billion in antidumping and countervailing duties collected since 2002 to the
Canadian lumber industry. The remaining $1 billion was split; half went to U.S. lumber
companies and the rest was used for a joint North American lumber initiatives and other
“meritorious initiatives,” such as possible Katrina rebuilding efforts.
The Canadian government implemented a supply management system for its lumber exports
involving export taxes and quotas based on the price of lumber. Under the agreement, if the price
of lumber remains above $355/thousand board feet, no quotas or tariffs would be imposed. If
prices fall below this threshold, each province could either choose to pay a sliding-scale export
tax that would increase as the price falls, or pay a smaller tax along with agreeing to a market
share limitation based on a province’s share of total exports to the United States. Under the

20 For more information, see CRS Report RL33752, Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada: Issues and Events, by
Ross W. Gorte and Jeanne J. Grimmett.
21 “Canadian Softwood Industry Support Enough for Deal to Proceed,” International Trade Reporter, August 24, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
13

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

former, provincial producers would pay a sliding-scale export tax of 5% if prices fall below $350,
10% if prices fall below $335, and 15% if prices fall below $315. Under the hybrid methodology,
each province has a share of the U.S. market. Thus, if the benchmark price falls below $355, each
province’s exports would be capped at its share of 34% of the U.S. market with an export tax of
2.5%, its share of 32% of the U.S. market combined with a tax of 3% at prices below $335, and
its share of 30% of the U.S. market with a 5% tax at prices below $315.
The agreement lasts for seven years with an option of a two-year renewal. Maritime provinces
(which have private timber ownership) and other producers not engaged in the litigation are
exempt from the agreement. The agreement also provides for a surge mechanism if exports from
a Canadian province exceed 110% of its allocated share. Conversely, if third country exports to
the United States increase by 20% in two consecutive quarters, Canadian market share decreases,
and U.S. market share increases, Canada is authorized to refund any export taxes collected in that
quarter.
Generally, proponents of the agreement view it as the best deal that could be obtained by
negotiation. To proponents, the alternative was continuing litigation, with its inherent risk and
uncertainty to each side. Through various restrictive mechanisms, U.S. producers would be able
to avoid free trade in lumber with Canada, which, they maintain, continues to subsidize its
producers through provincial ownership of Crown lands. U.S. producers would also able to keep
about 10% of the duties collected by the U.S. government despite a Court of International Trade
ruling that the Byrd Amendment did not apply to duties collected from NAFTA countries (see
below). Canadian proponents point out that Canadian producers would get most (80%) of their
antidumping and countervailing duties back. They contend that while trade is still managed,
proceeds of an export tax would be retained in Canada, rather than paying antidumping and
countervailing duties to the United States. Proponents in Canada noted that unless lumber prices
drop below the $355 benchmark, there will be no restrictions on the U.S. market. While prices
were above that level around the time the agreement was proposed, subsequently, lumber prices
have fallen dramatically. With lumber prices around $270 on the date of implementation (October
12, 2006), and have fallen further since due to the housing industry collapse, the full 15% export
tax has always been applied.
Opponents of the deal include consumers of softwood lumber, such as U.S. homebuilder and
homebuyer groups, and Canadian opposition parties. The former claim that the deal will hurt
consumers through higher prices for new homes and materials for renovation. Canadian
opposition leaders attacked the deal as a “sell-out”22 to U.S. lumber interests. Some claim that the
agreement scuttles that NAFTA dispute settlement process, which they believe would have
provided Canada with an eventual victory in the dispute.
Arbitration
In April 2007, the United States requested consultations with Canada on various aspects of the
agreement. The United States sought clarification of several forest sector assistance programs
providing grants, loans, and tax credits by the Canadian federal government and the provinces of
Quebec and Ontario. The United States has also expressed concern about the administration of the
surge mechanism, claiming that Canada has not adjusted its export level triggers to reflect actual

22 New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, in “Revised Deal Ends Lumber Dispute,” Toronto Star, April 28, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
14

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

consumption in the United States market. If Canada had done so, the United States claims,
additional export taxes would have been collected from lumber producers in British Columbia
and Alberta, provinces subject only to export taxes, and the quota would have been lowered for
provinces using the mixed quota-export system (Ontario and Quebec). On August 13, 2007, the
United States made a formal request for arbitration on the export tax-quota issue and submitted its
first written arguments on October 19. On March 4, 2008, the London Court of International
Arbitrators agreed with the United States that Canada had not adjusted the trigger (surge) levels in
a timely manner, disagreeing with Canada’s contention that the adjustment triggers were intended
to take effect on July 1, 2007, rather than January 1 of that year. However, the arbitrators also
decided that the western provinces that collect only export taxes did not have to adjust their
trigger volumes based on a reading of the SLA. Because of this, Canada did not have to collect an
extra $75 million in export taxes from B.C. and Alberta. The arbitrators, whose ruling is final,
rejected the U.S. position that such adjustments had to be made regardless of whether the
provinces used the export tax or export tax and quota option.23
To cure the breach for the failure of Canada to operate its adjustment mechanism from January 1,
2007, the parties again resorted to arbitration. On February 26, 2009, LCIA decided that Canada
must impose an extra 10% ad valorem tariff on Eastern Canadian shipments until C$68.26
million) is collected as compensation. After failing to ‘cure the breach’ within the time allotted by
LCIA (March 28, 2009), Canada offered C$46.7 million ($36.66 million)—the amount the United
States claimed as its industry’s loss—directly to the United States. In response, the United States
levied 10% tariffs on affected softwood shipments to raise the amount of compensation ordered
by the LCIA. Meanwhile, Canada has sought arbitration over its offer to cure the breach.24 In
January 2008, the United States also requested arbitration over six provincial forest sector
assistance programs in Quebec and Ontario, programs that the United States believes contravene
the anti-circumvention provision of the SLA. The results of this arbitration have yet to be
announced.
U.S. lumber producers and some members of Congress have urged the Administration to seek
consultations under the SLA over certain timber grading practices in British Columbia. They
claim that the BC government has been classifying an increasing amount of its cut as salvage
Grade 4 lumber and charging less for it than better grades, resulting in a subsidy for Canadian
timber processors. Canada attributes this increase to an infestation of mountain pine beetles, but
U.S producers dispute this, claiming that BC has changed its grading procedures and is heating
lumber prior to grading, resulting in greater cracks and defects. On August 6, 2010, USTR Ron
Kirk announced that he would make a decision within a month on whether to launch consultation
on the matter, and he met with Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer on August 14. It was announced
that U.S. and Canadian officials would meet on September 1 to try to resolve the issue.25
Some members of Congress have criticized the enforcement of the SLA. For example, Senator
Snowe has called for a licensing system to require that importers of Canadian lumber certify that

23 “Softwood Lumber Arbitration on Surge Provisions Yield Split Decisions,” Inside U.S. Trade, March 7, 2008;
“Canada, U.S. Continue to Disagree Over Arbitration Ruling on Softwood Lumber,” International Trade Reporter,
March 6, 2008.
24 “United States to Impose Customs Duties on Some Softwood Lumber from Canada,” International Trade Reporter,
April 7, 2009.
25 “U.S. Holding Off on Softwood Lumber Complaint, to Meet with Canada September 1,” Inside U.S. Trade, August
27, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
15

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

shipments are entering in compliance with the SLA.26 On April 17, 2008, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection issued a final rule that prescribes the collection of certain entry data for lumber
imports to the United States in order to monitor compliance with the SLA.27 The 2008 farm bill
(P.L. 110-246, Title III) requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish a program for
importers to declare on customs forms that their imports comply with the relevant softwood
lumber import programs.
Country of Origin Labeling
The 2002 farm bill required retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh
produce, red meats, seafood, and peanuts. The requirements for seafood were implemented on
September 30, 2004, but COOL requirements for other products were delayed until September
30, 2008. The 2008 farm bill, The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246),
reaffirmed this timetable and added goat meat, chicken, ginseng, pecans, and macadamia nuts as
covered commodities. A final rule was issued on January 15, 2009, effective March 16, 2009. In
November 2009, the WTO established a dispute settlement panel to hear challenges to COOL
from Canada and Mexico. Canada claims the rule is a non-tariff barrier that has led to a steep
drop in beef and hog shipments to U.S. processors.
Buy American Stimulus Provisions
The Buy American provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA,
Sec. 1605, P.L. 111-5) states that no funds shall be appropriated for building projects or public
works projects unless all the iron, steel, and manufactured goods are made in the United States.
This provision was subject to three discrete waivers: (1) applying this policy would not be in the
public interest, (2) the iron, steel, or manufactured products are not produced in sufficient
quantities or of a satisfactory quantity in the United States, or (3) the inclusion of the applicable
U.S. products would increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25%. The Senate added
language to ensure that the provisions are applied in a manner consistent with U.S. trade
obligations.
With regard to Canada, the United States has undertaken government procurement obligations
under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (AGP)
and under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The AGP is a plurilateral
agreement that only binds those WTO members that agreed to undertake obligations under it.
Furthermore, the AGP only applies to the sectors and the procurement agencies that the national
government and sub-national agencies includes in its schedule of national commitments. NAFTA
contains similar commitments on the national level, but excluded sub-national entities.
Both the United States and Canada have undertaken extensive obligations to open their
government procurements at the national level under both agreements. Thus Canada firms may
bid on ARRA-related federal procurement under the provisions of the AGP. Under the AGP, 37
U.S. states as well as other government entities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have made commitments under the AGP. By

26 “Snowe Discusses Softwood Lumber Issues at Pleasant Valley Lumber Facility in Dover-Foxcroft,” Press Release,
March 17, 2008
27 “Entry of Softwood Lumber Products from Canada,” 73 Federal Register 20782, April 17, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
16

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

contrast, Canada has not undertaken any government procurement obligations on behalf of its
provinces. Likely for this reason, guidance from the Office of Management Budget implementing
the Buy American provisions excluded Canadian firms from bidding on ARRA-financed
contracts that are tendered by the states that are party to the agreement.28
The United States and Canada started negotiations to resolve this dispute over ARRA
procurement access in August 2009. The resulting agreement, which became effective on
February 16, 2010, waives the Buy American provisions for Canadian firms bidding for ARRA
contracts tendered from seven federal programs in the 37 states that participate in the AGP until
September 30, 2011. In return, Canada’s provinces and territories will become signatories to the
AGP, opening procurement opportunities to U.S. firms. This agreement will only affect
procurement tenders yet to be awarded; this action will not reopen existing contracts. The
agreement also commits the parties to begin negotiations reciprocally to expand commitments for
market access in procurement between the two countries. The ability of Canadian firms to benefit
from the immediate terms of the agreement may depend on the value of the stimulus projects that
have yet to be awarded.
Intellectual Property Rights
In 2010, the U.S. Trade Representative again listed Canada on its Special 301 report on
intellectual property rights protections to the priority watch list for intellectual property rights
protections.29 The priority watch list indicates that the listed trading partner has problems with
respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual
property and that these problems merit “increased bilateral attention.” In this designation, Canada
joins such notorious IPR violators as China and Russia. The United States again urged Canada to
implement the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright treaty, which has been
signed but not ratified by Canada. 30 The United States also expressed concern about trade in
pirated and counterfeit goods in Canada, as well as weak enforcement and relatively lax penalties
for IPR. infringement. The United States urged Canada to adopt tougher border security measures
to crack down on this trade, including allowing for the seizure of pirated and counterfeit goods by
customs agents without a court order.
The government introduced a new Copyright Modernization Act (C-32) in June 2010, which is
intended to bring Canadian copyright law into conformance with the WIPO Internet treaties and
allow for some format shifting and fair-dealing (fair-use) exceptions, but would prohibit the
circumvention of digital protection measures. It would clarify the rights and responsibilities of
internet service providers for infringement of their subscribers. While the business community
and entertainment industries generally have supported these measures, opponents claim that any
benefits derived from fair-use or format shifting are nullified by the prohibition on breaking
digital locks.31

28 Office of Management and Budget, “Updated Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, April 3, 2009. pp. 160-166.
29 United States Trade Representative, 2010 Special 301 Report, p. 25, available at http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/
1906.
30 The WIPO Copyright treaty updates existing copyright protections for Internet and other electronic media.
31“Bill Would Update Canadian Copyright Act To Respect Needs of Digital Age, Official Says,” International Trade
Reporter
, June 10, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
17

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Security and Trade
The aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, has increased
scrutiny of the Canadian border as a possible point of entry for terrorists or for weapons of mass
destruction. The potential for economic disruption caused by a terrorist attack on border
infrastructure or as a result of a border closure is large. For example, the Ambassador Bridge that
links Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, is the largest trade link in the world, with more than 7,000
trucks crossing daily carrying goods worth more than $120 billion per year.
The cost of the border to carriers, manufacturers, and governments in terms of delays and
compliance has been estimated by one survey at $7.5 billion to $13.2 billion annually.32 Using the
survey’s midpoint estimate, they estimate that costs related to transit time and uncertainty total $4
billion and trade policy related costs were estimated at $6.28 billion.33 The total midrange figure,
$10.3 billion, reflected 2.3% of cross-border trade in 2004. Another report claims that average
processing times have increased 200% from 45 seconds in December 2001 to 2.15 minutes in
December 2004. This report also claims that additional reporting, compliance, and delays add
approximately $800 to the cost of every North American-produced vehicle and that the border
“threatens to become the greatest non-tariff barrier the world has ever seen.”34 However, a July
2007 study indicated that increased border security has not affected Canadian export volumes to
the United States through most land ports, although the study found evidence that substitution
between ports may have occurred.35
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
A provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), the
WHTI required all travelers from Canada and Mexico to present a passport or another form of
secure documentation to enter the United States starting January 1, 2007, for air travelers, and
starting a year later for land passage. Currently, most land travelers enter with a driver’s license or
other form of government identification. While travelers could use existing passports to cross the
border, estimates vary widely on how many citizens of each country hold them. In response, the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) announced the
establishment new form of identification known as the People Access Security Service (PASS)
card. This card would resemble many current driver’s licenses, but would contain a biometric
identifier and provide documentation of citizenship. Concerns have been expressed by the
Canadian government, by some business organizations on both sides of the border, and by some
members of Congress that the measure will impede travel and trade on the northern border. Some
fear that many border-area residents will not obtain the PASS card and will no longer make
routine trips across the border as they do currently.
WHTI came into effect on June 1, 2009. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been
working with the Canadian government to develop a secure, alternative document such as a

32 George Jackson, Douglas Robideaux, and John Taylor, “The U.S.-Canada Border: Cost Impacts, Causes, and Short
to Long Term Management Options,” available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/uscanada/studies/taylor/costrpt_2003.pdf.
33 Ibid.
34 Coalition for Secure and Trade-Efficient Borders, “Rethinking Our Borders: A New North American Partnership,”
July 2005, available at http://www.cme-mec.ca/pdf/Coalition_Report0705_Final.pdf.
35 Conference Board of Canada, Tighter Border Security and Its Effect on Canadian Exporters, June 2007.
Congressional Research Service
18

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

driver’s license containing enhanced biometric information. Currently, such enhanced licenses are
being issued by the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and by the
states of Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Although comprehensive travel data for
2009 is not yet available, anecdotally, single-day trips by U.S. residents to Canada appear to be
the most adversely affected by the new regulations.36
Action Programs and Initiatives
In order to address what became a threat of border disruptions, the two governments agreed on
December 12, 2001, to a (now) 32-point Smart Border Action Plan consisting of four pillars: the
secure flow of people, the secure flow of goods, a secure infrastructure, and coordinated
enforcement and information sharing. The pillar concerned with the flow of goods consists of
initiatives on harmonized commercial processing, clearance away from the border, joint or shared
customs facilities, enhancement of information sharing, container targeting at seaports, and
infrastructure improvements. This initiative was updated in the NAFTA context by the Security
and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)
. The SPP was launched at a summit of the
leaders of the three countries at Crawford, TX, on March 24-25, 2005. The initial harvest of
security results included border improvements, land preclearance measures, and joint port
security exercises, many of which are follow-on to the 32-point Action Plan.37 The leaders met
again in Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006, Montebello, Quebec in August 2007, and New Orleans,
LA, in April 2008.38 The Obama Administration has affirmed its commitment to continue past
efforts on North American cooperation in meeting with neighboring leaders but under a different
approach from the SPP framework.
The Free and Secure Trade (FAST) is a joint program implementing the harmonized
commercial processing initiative. It is open to participants in the U.S. Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection’s (CBP) Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the
Canadian Border Security Agency’s Partners in Protection (PIP) Program. Participants of these
programs undertake audit-based compliance measures to enhance security along the supply chain
and receive certification as low-risk shippers. Since 2003, CBP has validated over 6,900
companies in the C-TPAT program.39 The FAST program provides for dedicated inspection lanes
to goods carried by approved lower-risk shippers, to goods purchased from pre-authorized
importers, and to goods transported by pre-authorized drivers and carriers. FAST transit points are
operational at 21 high-volume land ports of entry on the northern border. According to CBP, more
than 87,000 commercial drivers were enrolled in the program as of April 2008.40
A complementary program to expedite the secure movement of people has also been established.
The NEXUS program provides an identification card and dedicated traffic lanes to frequent

36 “U.S. Tourists Staying Away from Canada,” Bangor Daily News, April 6, 2010; International Association of
Amusement Parks and Attractions, “Rules of the Road,” April 2010, http://www.iaapa.org/industry/funworld/2010/apr/
features/RuleRoad/index.asp.
37 “NAFTA Ministers to Review Proposals for Integrating Economies,” Inside U.S. Trade, May 13, 2005.
38 For further information, see CRS Report RS22701, Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: An
Overview and Selected Issues
, by M. Angeles Villarreal and Jennifer E. Lake.
39 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism: A Year in Review,
January 31, 2008
40 CBP, Free and Secure Trade Factsheet, http://www.customs.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/travel/fast/
fast_fact.ctt/fast_fact.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

travelers who have undergone security clearances on both sides of the border. The NEXUS is
seen as especially important to minimize the disruption of cross-border trade in services, which
relies on the free movement of skilled labor. NEXUS was utilized by 265,000 participants and
was operational in 16 high-volume border land crossings, 8 airports in Canada, and 33 marine
crossings by January 2009.41 Also, according to CBP, the NEXUS card will constitute a valid
form of identification for the WHTI.
The 32-point action plan also called for increased monitoring and targeting of containers off-
loaded at Canadian and U.S. ports in transit to the other nation. The U.S. Container Security
Initiative (CSI) is designed to prescreen high risk containers entering the United States at
overseas ports of departure. The program is working to develop security criteria to identify high
risk cargo, to develop and utilize technology to pre-screen high risk containers and to encourage
the use of secure containers. U.S. customs agents work alongside Canadian agents in the CSI
ports of Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver to identify cargo for screening. Canadian customs
agents are stationed in the ports of Newark and Seattle-Tacoma. These agents have no
enforcement power on the other country’s territory; they serve in an advisory capacity.
The Canadian government has implemented a package of port security initiatives that included
increased screening of marine traffic, “real-time” identification and monitoring of vessels in
Canadian waters, radiation screening equipment for containers, and enhancements to portside
Emergency Response Teams of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These initiatives respond to
concerns within Canada that differences in port security were affecting the ability of Canadian
ports to compete as entry points for goods eventually entering the U.S. market. The United States
and Canada have also reached agreement on a program of increased screening and monitoring of
railway shipments between the two countries. Under this program, railcar cargo detection
equipment known as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS) has been installed at
seven rail crossings in the United States and one in Canada.
Land preclearance away from the border by U.S. and Canadian customs agents working in each
other’s territory remains a contentious issue. Although a jointly commissioned study has detailed
the operational benefits of cross-border operations, several legal and institutional issues remain
unresolved, including land ownership, the enforcement powers of such agents and their ability to
carry firearms. However, negotiations to implement a pilot program at the Peace Bridge crossing
at Buffalo-Fort Erie broke down in April 2007. A 2008 GAO report cited disagreements over
arrest authority, fingerprinting practices, and the right of individuals to withdraw an application to
enter the United States while at the preclearance station. The Obama administration reviewed this
decision, but in August 2009 Secretary Napolitano announced that negotiations to construct a
preclearance site adjacent to the Peace Bridge would not be reopened.
A related issue is the ability of the transportation infrastructure to cope with increased security
measures. The aging condition and limited capacity of the land border infrastructure preceded the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel,
which together carry 25% of total U.S.-Canada cross-border traffic, both opened in 1930. The
Peace Bridge linking Buffalo, NY, and Niagara, Ontario, was opened in 1927 and is three lanes
wide. Approaches to the bridges, often city streets, have been criticized as inadequate to the
commercial needs of the 21st century.

41 CBP, NEXUS Factsheet, http://www.customs.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/travel/nexus_fact.ctt/
nexus_fact.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

This issue, in turn, affects the efficient implementation of security measures. The FAST system
provides for dedicated lanes at land border ports for expedited preclearance. However, these lanes
will not save time if the FAST participant cannot access this lane due to congestion or delays at
the points of access. The SPP completed a pilot program that attained a 25% improvement in
border crossing times at the Detroit-Windsor gateway in December 2005, yet the aging and
adequacy of the border infrastructure may affect whether such improvements are sustainable. The
new Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) south of the Ambassador Bridge between Zug
Island on the Michigan shore and Brighton Beach, Windsor, received the approval of the Federal
Highway Administration on January 14, 2009. The DRIC proposal is supported by the Canadian
government, which believes the a new span should not be privately held. To this end, Canadian
Transport Minister John Baird has offered to loan the state of Michigan $550 million to fund its
share of the new bridge, the total cost of which is expected to be $5.3 billion. The Michigan
House of Representatives approved the DRIC proposal on May 27, 2010, and the bill is awaiting
Michigan Senate consideration. Meanwhile, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge has brought a
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) investor-state dispute over his contention that
the proposed rival bridge would divert traffic (and tolls) from his bridge.42
Prospects and Policy Options
The terrorist attack of September 11, and its aftermath, have sparked a wide-ranging debate in
Canada over its relationship with the United States, including the feasibility or desirability of
furthering the process of North American integration. The extent to which the two economies are
integrated was dramatized by the adverse impact that border closings had on trade flows after the
terrorist attacks. While concerns in the United States over the U.S.-Canada border are focused
primarily on border security and immigration issues, the debate in Canada has become much
broader, encompassing such issues as the nature of sovereignty, the desirability and feasibility of
further economic integration with the United States, and even the adoption of the U.S. dollar. This
discourse is not unusual in Canada; questions concerning relations with the United States
continually loom large in policy discussions. Such discussions are unusual in the United States,
and at this point they are generally confined to the types of security measures described in the
preceding section.
Certain aspects of increased cooperation with the United States on border and immigration issues
have proved controversial to some Canadians. These questions generally have taken the form of
resistance in some quarters to the notion of harmonization of U.S. and Canadian regulations. A
segment of Canadian public opinion fears that, due to the wide disparity in population and
economic power of the two nations, harmonization of customs and immigration regulations
would inevitably lead to adoption of U.S. standards, and implicitly, the policies behind them.
Moreover, according to this view, Canadian resistance to this harmonization could imperil the
economic relationship with the United States. However, others contend that Canadian and U.S.
regulations affecting the border are more similar than different and would be for the most part

42 “Ottawa’s $550 Million Loan Offer For New Bridge Launches War of Words in Michigan,” The Globe and Mail,
April 29, 2010; “Bridge Q&A: Your DRIC Questions (Mostly) Answered,” by Bill Shea, April 30, 2010,
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/section/c?template=profile&uid=140106&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&
plckUserId=140106&plckPostId=Blog%3A140106Post%3A5aa9652e-9d0a-41b2-83ed-ce3522d9b54e&
plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest.
Congressional Research Service
21

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

compatible. Hence, the scope of coordination in certain areas of border management may be
acceptably encompassed by mutual recognition of each other’s regulations.
Others in Canada believe the lesson from September 11 is that increased cooperation with the
United States is both necessary and inevitable, given the reality of Canadian trade flows and
economic interdependence. Yet, they believe such integration must be managed to assure Canada
protects its interests and its sovereignty. Several economic options have received renewed
attention in Canadian policy circles, from greater regulatory harmonization to more long-term
options including a security perimeter, a customs union, a common market, or a monetary union.
The latter also received attention due to the long-term slide of the Canadian dollar up to 2002.
However, the appreciation of the Canadian currency by 30% against the U.S. dollar since has
eclipsed such discussions. These concepts are not new, and they have been discussed in
conjunction with “deepening” the North American Free Trade Agreement. Consequently, these
discussions often involve Mexico as well.
NAFTA Plus
There has been renewed discussion of ways to enhance cooperation between the three NAFTA
partners. The concept of deepening NAFTA—“NAFTA plus”—has taken on added salience, in
some quarters, since most of the gains resulting from tariff reduction of the agreement have been
realized. In addition, FTAs negotiated by the United States and Canada with other trading
partners have diminished the relative advantage of NAFTA. In addition, since the 2001 terror
attacks there has been a perception by some in Canada and Mexico that continued economic
access to the U.S. market is dependent on greater security cooperation with the United States.
Former U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci notably said in 2003 that “security trumps trade” in the
U.S.-Canada relationship.43 This realization has led to many border initiatives described above.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), contains many initiatives that could lead to some
measure of regulatory harmonization among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In addition
to calling for implementation of common border security strategies, the SPP initiates cooperation
in energy, the transportation network, financial services, and standards harmonization. Ten
ministerial working groups were formed and were required to report after 90 days, and semi-
annually thereafter. Reportedly, the scope of SPP activity is in the realm of regulatory changes,
actions that do not require legislative activity.44
The initial report was released on June 27, 2005. The Prosperity component of the SPP intends to
enhance competitiveness by developing proposals to streamline regulatory processes among the
three partners, enhance detection and prevention of counterfeiting and piracy, and liberalize rules
of origin. Sectoral initiatives on steel, autos, energy, air transport, and e-commerce are also
envisioned. Quality of life cooperative initiatives on pollution, agriculture and food supply, and
health issues were also launched.45 Since the initial report, the United States and Canada have
agreed to facilitate the exchange of information on infectious disease outbreaks, concluded an
open sky agreement, and signed a memorandum of understanding on pipeline safety. In June

43 “Cellucci’s Message,” National Post, March 26, 2003.
44 “NAFTA Ministers to Review Proposals for Integrating Economies,” Inside U.S. Trade, May 13, 2005.
45 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, Report to Leaders, June 2005, http://www.spp.gov/
report_to_leaders/index.asp?dName=report_to_leaders.
Congressional Research Service
22

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

2006, the three nations launched a North American Competiveness Council, which is made up of
business leaders from each nation who will examine proposals and provide recommendations to
improve the competitiveness of North American business in global markets.
Security Perimeter
One approach envisioned by some U.S. and Canadian business leaders and policy advocates is to
create a North American security perimeter. This proposal responds to U.S. fears of terrorism by
removing the security functions from the border to the point of first contact of a good or person to
North America. Thus, the container landing at the Canadian port of Halifax headed for the United
States would be inspected in Halifax, not at the U.S. border, thereby avoiding delays at border
choke-points. Pre-screening of passengers would also take place at the point of landing, not at the
border. However, a completely seamless border for goods would also require standards
harmonization or acceptance of the inspecting party’s standards, information sharing on threat
assessments, and trust in each party’s screening procedures. It also makes the assumption that
there are no terrorist threats indigenous to the North American security perimeter.
Customs Union
Another step discussed in policy circles regarding the further integration of the North American
economy is the creation of a customs union. Members of a customs union commonly eliminate
tariffs among themselves, and erect common barriers against the rest of the world. Both the U.S.
and Canada have already eliminated all tariffs between each other under NAFTA, and have
similar, though not identical, tariff schedules with third countries. Because all customs duties
would be paid at port of entry at the perimeter of the customs union, the need for customs agents
on the U.S.-Canadian land border to collect revenue would be obviated. However, border agents
also enforce immigration, sanitary and phytosanitary, and environmental laws. A customs union
does not imply a harmonization or mutual recognition of each nation’s regulations. Thus, a
national presence at the border would continue to be necessary. It is also unclear in what form
current trade remedy practices could be continued under a customs union. Such actions against
third countries could continue relatively easily if both sides found it necessary; however, actions
against each other would require the continued payment of duties at the border.
Common Market or Economic Union
Deeper integration of the North American economic space would imply some form of common
market or economic union. A common market area would add free movement of labor and
capital; thus, immigration and investment regulations would need to be harmonized or mutually
recognized. In addition to a common tariff policy and free trade in goods and services, a common
market would imply free movement of capital and labor. At this point, harmonization of certain
investment and immigration issues would need to be agreed upon. A type of economic union
approaching that of the European Union would also require harmonized or mutually recognized
standards and regulations and perhaps some supranational institutions. Although the United States
and Canada share many developed country level standards, this form of integration would still
need to be meticulously worked out. For example, would the United States adopt the metric
system to fulfill its obligations to harmonize standards? Could the two nations adopt common
forestry prices and management policies and thereby help resolve the softwood lumber dispute?
Would either nation allow supranational entities to overrule laws passed by Congress or
Congressional Research Service
23

United States-Canada Trade and Economic Relationship: Prospects and Challenges

Parliament? These questions illustrate the extent to which North American economic integration
would affect the governance of the United States, Canada, and possibly Mexico.
Monetary Union
Another discussion recurrent in many Canadian policy circles is that of monetary union with the
United States. This potential goal has been discussed in many forms. The Canadian dollar could
be linked in value to the U.S. dollar; Canada could adopt the U.S. dollar; or a new North
American currency (called the Amero by one proponent) could replace the U.S. and Canadian
dollars, and perhaps the Mexican peso. Generally, talk of monetary union north of the border is
strongest during times of relative weakness of the loonie vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar. The recent
strength of the loonie has diminished such discussion, although the idea still has some
proponents.
Those who support monetary union argue that it would force Canada to make the necessary
structural adjustments that would make it more competitive with the United States. In other
words, dollarization or a currency union would remove the ability to cushion adverse economic
conditions through depreciation of the currency. By tying the loonie to the U.S. dollar or by
adopting the dollar outright, Canada would be making the unmistakable commitment to converge
with U.S. macroeconomic policy. Then Canada would be able to reap the benefits of U.S. policy,
which traditionally have been lower inflation, lower interest rates, and higher levels of growth
than Canada has experienced. In addition, the savings in trade transaction costs would be
significant for the volume of trade the two nations conduct.
Canadian opponents of monetary union contend that it would lead to an unacceptable loss of
political and economic sovereignty. Monetary policy would be dependent on (or tied to) actions
of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Thus, the Canadian government would be left with fewer levers to
combat inflation or fight recession. In a monetary union in which macroeconomic convergence is
reached, this point may not be important. To opponents of monetary union, however, the two
economies respond differently to events, and thus need to utilize different adjustment
mechanisms. Furthermore, with a population and economy smaller than some Federal Reserve
districts, Canada’s ability to influence U.S. monetary policy in a monetary union likely would be
small.

Author Contact Information

Ian F. Fergusson

Specialist in International Trade and Finance
ifergusson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4997


Congressional Research Service
24