Electronic Communications

Provide consent to receive

Softwood Lumber Exports, Canada to USA

Changes on the Canadian Side:

Beginning October 13, 2015, exports of softwood lumber will require an export permit from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This will enable the Government of Canada to monitor shipments of softwood lumber products (first manufactured in all provinces and territories of Canada) to the United States following the expiry of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement on October 12/15.

Softwood lumber was, and still is listed on the Export Control List (ECL) within the Export and Import Permits Act (EIPA).

New applicants / exporters who do not already have an EIPA file number must contact the Softwood Lumber Division (TNS), Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada at 613-944-2168, by facsimile to 613-944-8950, or by e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to make a request for one.

Complete details of the new monitoring system

Changes on the US Side:

Click to view 

Cole will continue to monitor the situation and will update our website with new information as it becomes available.

Provide consent today to receive more updates like this from our Cole Technical Advisor. 

Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) benefit your business?

On October 5th, 2015, Canada announced that they had successfully concluded negotiations on the largest, most ambitious free trade agreement in history - the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP comprises 12 countries (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam). The TPP will eliminate tariffs on almost all of Canada’s key exports and provide access to new opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region. Tariffs and other barriers on a wide range of Canadian products from various sectors will be cut. Some cuts will be immediate upon the TPP coming into force and other cuts will occur gradually over specified years. Canadian products such as:

  • Agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, forestry and value-added wood products, metals and mining, and industrial goods.

How Will The TPP Benefit Your Business?

Comprehensive details on the TPP tariff outcomes for the sectors key to each province and territory can be found in the “Provincial/Territorial Benefits” document in the link below. Outcomes relating to each of Canada’s key economic sectors can be found in the “Sector Benefits” document.

Interesting Facts About the TPP:


 Trans Pacific Partnership image 1

What do you need to do?

If you are an existing Cole client, please contact your Cole Customer Service Representative. They can refer you to the appropriate person within Cole’s Consulting team who will work with your firm to prepare a detailed impact analysis of the TPP based on your past imports.

If you are not currently a Cole client, we’d appreciate any opportunity to discuss how we can be of service to you!

Provide consent today to receive more updates like this from our Cole Technical Advisor. 

New SIMA Case on Carbon & Alloy Steel Line Pipe From China

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has started an investigation into possible “dumping or subsidizing” of following goods:

Description of Goods Usual HS Classification Country of Origin (or export)

Certain Carbon & Alloy Steel Line Pipe


People’s Republic of China

What does this mean to you?

In addition to the usual duty rate, your imported goods may be assessed an anti-dumping or countervailing duty.  This duty rate will be dependent on the degree of “injury” caused by the dumping or subsidizing.

  • What is Dumping? Dumping occurs when goods are sold to importers in Canada at prices that are lower than the selling price of comparable goods in the country of export, or are sold to Canada at unprofitable prices, thereby causing potential “injury” to Canadian industries.
  • What is subsidizing? Subsidizing occurs when goods imported into Canada have benefited from foreign government financial assistance (i.e. grants, tax incentives, loans at preferential rates) thereby causing potential “injury” to Canadian industries.
  • What is “injury”? A critical factor is whether the dumped or subsidized imports are causing injury or threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.  Injury may be shown by: lost sales, reduced prices, lost market share, decreased profits, etc.
  • The Investigation: The investigation is a twofold process.  The CBSA investigates whether or not dumping or subsidizing has occurred, and the CITT (Canadian International Trade Tribunal) investigates whether or not injury has or will occur as a result of the dumping or subsidizing.  To continue with an investigation, both the CBSA and the CITT must have come to a positive decision.  If not, the investigation is terminated.

What happens next? 

1)      60-90 days after an investigation begins, a Preliminary Decision of dumping or subsidizing  will be issued.  The Preliminary Decision will be either:

Preliminary Decision


Next Step

  • Dumping or Subsidizing has NOT occurred
Investigation terminated

No Further action taken; Case is Closed

  • Dumping or Subsidizing has occurred
Temporary duty will be imposed on imports

Investigation will continue

2)      90-120 days after a positive Preliminary Decision, a Final Decision will be issued. The Final Decision will be either:

Final Injury Decision


Next Step

  • Dumping or Subsidizing has NOT occurred / No Injury
Investigation terminated

Temporary duty imposed will be automatically reimbursed

  • Dumping or Subsidizing has occurred & has caused Injury
Anti-dumping duty &/or Countervailing duty will be imposed on dumped / subsidized goods

This duty is generally assessed for 5 years

What do you need to do? 

Provide a clear, detailed description of the subject goods on all of your invoices.  This will assist in determining whether or not the goods attract the additional duty, and it will enable your broker to properly report them to Customs.

Contact Cole International if you receive any correspondence or a request for documentation from CBSA related to the importation of the above noted commodities. We can deal directly with CBSA on your behalf.

Await additional information (Preliminary Decision), and be prepared for the potential assessment of the additional duty.

More Information:



Traditional View of Declared Value Process Overturned

A recent ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on carrier liability has significant implications for shippers and carriers alike of the shifting legal interpretation regarding declared value on bills of lading, as well as the potential impact on shipper/carrier relationships. Fernandes Hearn LLP, one of Canada’s foremost legal firms specializing in transportation law, reported on this case in its April 2015 newsletter. This case is significant for several reasons, not the least of which is the impact it will have on carriers and relationships with their insurers, but also how transportation service providers in general should educate their employees regarding the pitfalls associated with declared value procedures.

The case, and the positions of the litigants, are a matter of public record so I’ll paraphrase the event, and identify the potential fallout for Ontario buyers and sellers of transportation services, as I interpret it, from a risk management perspective. In brief, a shipper asked a carrier for a rate quotation to move a shipment valued at $263,520.00 from Toronto to Calgary. At that time the carrier was also asked if it could provide sufficient insurance, which it allegedly agreed to do, and was awarded the move. When the carrier’s driver subsequently arrived to pick up the shipment, the shipper offered a bill of lading with its invoice attached. The carrier’s driver then prepared his own bill of lading, referencing the same invoice number. The shipper did not declare a value for the shipment on either bill of lading. Sometime later the shipment was unfortunately stolen, and the shipper sued the carrier for the full value of the shipment, claiming the carrier was aware of the value based on their earlier communication and the value shown on its invoice, which had been referenced on the carrier’s bill of lading.

The court ruled in favour of the shipper in this case, basing its reasoning, in part, on the fact that Ontario’s Carriage of Goods Act (Section 10, Declared Value) refers to a “contract of carriage” rather than a “bill of lading”. In other words, because the shipper’s invoice was accepted by the carrier’s driver, and the invoice number was written on the front of the carrier’s bill of lading, the court reasoned that the invoice formed part of the contract of carriage, and the carrier was therefore liable, even though a declared value related to the shipment was not written in the space provided on the front of the bill of lading.

The fact that the shipper routinely attached its customer invoices to bills of lading became one of the determining factors in this case, and is perhaps one that carriers should review. In my experience, carriers don’t object to shippers attaching copies of their invoices to bills of lading, but this acceptance is performed as a customer service gesture, not an acknowledgement of the invoice value (or whatever else may be included in the invoice terms and conditions). I would submit that the place for a commercial invoice is in the packing slip envelope attached to the goods, but if shippers feel that by attaching the invoice to the bill of lading it will somehow improve the likelihood of their being paid on time, carriers have simply obliged out of a desire to accommodate, not an admission (or acceptance) of liability.

Notwithstanding any future appeal, this court ruling has important implications for carriers in Ontario and how they manage information from their customers. To begin with, carriers are not in business to sell cargo insurance, they are in business to help their customers improve competitive advantage by delivering their shipments in a timely manner, in the same condition they were picked up (subsequent to the shipper’s responsibilities for notification and to package goods suitably for transport, among other things). When carriers perform these services well, they improve their own enterprise by building strong relationships with shippers and earn repeat business as reliable, consistent, trusted suppliers.

Cargo insurance is a value added service-offering that carriers make available to shippers when, and if, they need it. To my recollection, the primary caveats surrounding the process of securing cargo insurance have been that the shipper notify the carrier by indicating a declared value in the space provided on the front of the bill of lading and, related to that notification, obtain pre-authorization from the carrier if the amount to be requested will exceed the threshold limit indicated in the terms and conditions included in the carrier’s bill of lading (for example, “… shipper must obtain advance pre-authorization from the carrier if the amount of insurance required will exceed $50,000.00”). This process has worked well for many years and carriers have designed their internal processes accordingly, i.e. shipper requirements for insurance can be quickly identified when incoming bills of lading are examined by the driver, or the carrier’s loading dock employees, and any amounts exceeding the threshold limit can be verified with operations personnel.

The ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in this case recognizes a broad definition of “contract of carriage” as outlined in Ontario’s Carriage of Goods Act, but it may also have opened a proverbial Pandora’s Box in terms of its impact on shipper-carrier relationships. Imagine a scenario where a shipper engages a carrier in e-mail communication regarding service capabilities and freight rate negotiations over a period of days, weeks, or even months. If the carrier subsequently wins the business, someone may have to be responsible for examining all previous correspondence to ensure there wasn’t even the slightest hint of value mentioned. And what constitutes an intention to request cargo insurance, a mere mention of “a specified value”, a comment that the shipment could be worth “at least” a certain amount, or that someone in the shipper’s (or end customer’s) organization “might want insurance”?

And how will carriers adjust their processes to ensure their customers’ interests, as well as their own, are protected? Should drivers and loading dock personnel be instructed to examine all commercial documents attached to, or referenced on, bills of lading, or included in packing slip envelopes attached to shipments, to determine if they reflect a value? And if a value is identified, should the carrier automatically apply insurance and charge the shipper accordingly? And what recourse will the carrier have if the shipper then refuses to pay for insurance coverage on the grounds that it didn’t specifically request it, or indicate a declared value on the front of the bill of lading? If the carrier delivers the shipper’s invoice, attached to the bill of lading, and the end-customer takes advantage of the shipper’s early payment terms, should the carrier request a percentage of the savings as a commission for providing that service?

Another unknown factor is how this legal interpretation will affect freight forwarders who assign carriage of goods responsibilities to asset-owning carriers who were not party to any of the initial conversations (electronic or otherwise) between the shipper and the forwarder. Forwarders will have to make their suppliers a party to this information and ensure their willingness to acknowledge any implied liability.

The ruling in this case has revealed some insight into how the courts will interpret the meaning of “contract of carriage” as it is used in the Ontario Carriage of Goods Act, even if it did come at significant cost, both in terms of time and litigation. But there is also a potential cost related to carrier-shipper relationships. Regardless of how this particular case turned out, it is doubtful the carrier-shipper relationship would have survived. If the parties had invested considerable time and effort in establishing that relationship, and if it was one that both parties valued (prior to this incident), there is the added impact on the shipper’s ability to continue servicing its customers by finding another acceptable supplier. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this ruling is that it has exposed a need for carriers and shippers to ensure our business processes, including educating our employees regarding legal developments in logistics, are effective and continue to add value to our mutual efforts to provide service to our customers.

Posted by: Laurie Turnbull, CITT, P.MM – Supply Chain Consultant, Cole International

Canada’s New Food Regulations


Months ago, Cole advised our clients that unprecedented changes for food importers, exporters and producers were on the horizon in 2015 (later delayed until 2016). These changes are as a result of the passage of the Safe Foods For Canadians Act. Among the many new requirements, all food importers, exporters and domestic producers will be required to hold a federal license.

As the implementation date is getting closer, we’d like to provide you with an update and more details on the issue.

Who will need a license?

  • Importers of food and food commodities
  • Canadian food exporters
  • Domestic manufacturers
  • Provincial manufacturers who sell to distributors
  • Manufacturers of food for internet sale
  • Warehouses and cold storages for meat

*Current Exclusions: (may change by full 2018 implementation)

Transporters, distributors and warehouses

Commodity Exemptions:

Alcoholic beverages, food additives and some specific agricultural commodities (green coffee beans, green cocoa beans, barley & hops, rice.  More ‘unprocessed bulk’ items may be added at a later date

What is required in order to get / hold a license?

  • Importers must have a fixed place of business in Canada OR;
  • Non-Resident Importers (NRI’s) with a fixed place of business in a foreign state that has a food safety system that provides a similar level of protection to that of Canada
    • If, in the foreign state, they send or convey the food into Canada directly from the foreign state in which the importer has a fixed place of business (see section on NRI’s for more information)
  • Must have a Documented Preventive Control Plan (PCP) (see link for more details)
  • Documented product traceability & recall plan (see link for more details)
  • Establishment registration
  • Pay the license fee - $250 / license
  • Enhanced product data reporting upon licensing and at import
  • No fees owed to CFIA


License Options:

Different licensing options will be available, such as:

  • Single license with each establishment registered
  • License for each establishment
  • License based on activity e.g. importing, exporting, manufacturing
  • Canadian importer may hold multiple licenses – even separate license for each supplier

**Note: It is important to know that if you chose a single license to cover all of your establishments, an issue in any one of those establishments will affect your ability to continue business in ALL of your establishments until the issue is resolved. Evaluate this carefully when applying for your license(s).

More about non-resident importers (NRI’s):

NRI’s wanting to import food from countries without “CFIA-Foreign Food Safety System Recognition” only have 2 options. They are:

  1. Establish a registered business in Canada with employee(s)
  2. The Canadian consignee is the importer of record; holds CFIA license and liability

NRI’s wanting to import food from countries with “CFIA-Foreign Food Safety System Recognition” may:

  1. Maintain registered business in the U.S. & hold CFIA license
  2. Export products to Canada manufactured/sourced from the U.S.A. They are prohibited from exporting directly to Canada from a third country

**Note: Currently only the USA is close to obtaining “CFIA-Foreign Food Safety System Recognition”

What is the implementation schedule?

Food Items:

Meat, Seafood, Dairy & Cheese, Canned & Frozen Fruit & Vegetables, Honey, Maple 

Fresh Fruit & Vegetables; Fresh Herbs & Spices

Processed Foods & Commodities


June 2016

June 2016

June 2017

PCP, Traceability & Recall Plan:

June 2016

June 2017

June 2018


These commodities are already controlled, so little change to industry will be felt

These goods do not currently have substantive food safety provisions 

Most change for industry

What information will be required?

At time of license application:

  • Product types imported (e.g. fish, meat, cheese, processed products)
  • Intended use (e.g. ready to eat, preserved, for further processing)
  • Processing (e.g. canning, pasteurization, freezing, drying, packaging)
  • Annual volume of products imported
  • Typical country of origin of products

At time of importation (“new” data elements highlighted in red):

  • License holders name, address and license number
  • Name & address of the supplier or from whom the food is being imported
  • Name & address of person who manufactured or processed the food
  • Address where the food is to be delivered in Canada
  • Description of the food & the packaging: common name, brand name, lot number
  • Quantity imported
  • Data must be provided prior to import; or at time authorized by the Minister

Have food labelling requirements changed?

Yes. Paragraph 10(3) of the Safe Foods For Canadians Act (link 1) states that it is prohibited for a person to import or export a prescribed food commodity unless the food commodity meets the requirements of the regulations (link 2 below, PART 11).

The only exception will be to label the food “for further preparation only” and then bring the labelling into compliance with the Act within three months of importation. The “for further preparation only” label would also have to remain intact in this scenario.

**Note: This is still under review, but was accurate at the time of this article

What do you have to do?

View Cole’s website regularly for updates. We will publish new information on the issue as it continues to develop and evolve.

Review your business lines and put thought into which license option you will chose.

Links for additional information:

Safe Food for Canadians Act

Safe Food for Canadians Regulation

SFCR Documents Incorporated by Reference

Cole Website Articles (Previous)


Contexte :

Il y a quelques mois, Cole a avisé ses clients de changements sans précédent à venir en 2015 (éventuellement reportés à 2016) pour les importateurs, exportateurs et producteurs de produits alimentaires. Ces changements font suite à l’adoption de la Loi sur la salubrité des aliments au Canada.  Outre les nombreuses nouvelles exigences à respecter, tous les importateurs, exportateurs et producteurs canadiens de produits alimentaires devront posséder une licence fédérale.  

À l’approche de la date d’entrée en vigueur, nous aimerions vous tenir au fait de la situation.

Qui doit détenir une licence?

les importateurs d’aliments et de produits alimentaires;

  • les exportateurs d’aliments canadiens;
  • les fabricants canadiens;
  • les fabricants provinciaux qui vendent à des distributeurs;
  • les fabricants de produits alimentaires destinés à la vente en ligne; et
  • les entrepôts et les chambres froides pour la viande.


*Sont actuellement exclus : (sujet à changement lors de l’application intégrale de la Loi en 2018)

Transporteurs, distributeurs et entrepôts.

Produits exemptés :

Boissons alcoolisées, additifs alimentaires et quelques produits agricoles (grains de café verts, fèves de cacao vertes, orge, houblon et riz). D’autres produits en vrac à l’état brut pourraient être ajoutés ultérieurement.

Quelles sont les exigences pour l’obtention et la détention d’une licence?

  • les importateurs doivent posséder un lieu d’affaires fixe au Canada OU 
  • les importateurs non résidents (INR) doivent avoir un lieu d’affaires fixe dans un pays étranger dont le système de salubrité des aliments offre un niveau de protection similaire à celui du Canada; 
    • les aliments doivent être expédiés au Canada directement du pays étranger où l’importateur possède un lieu d’affaires fixe (pour plus de détails, voir la section sur les INR);
  • posséder un plan de contrôle préventif (PCP) documenté (pour plus de détails, voir le lien);
  • posséder un plan de traçabilité et de rappel documenté (pour plus de détails, voir le lien);
  • enregistrer son établissement; 
  • payer les droits de licence (250 $ par licence);
  • établir des rapports de données avancées lors de l’obtention de la licence et des importations; et 
    • par ailleurs, aucune redevance n’est perçue par l’ACIA. 

Choix de licences :

Différentes licences seront disponibles, notamment :

  • une licence unique qui contient chaque établissement enregistré; 
  • une licence pour chaque établissement; 
  • une licence basée sur l’activité, par ex. l’importation, l’exportation, la fabrication; 
  • par ailleurs, les importateurs canadiens peuvent détenir plusieurs licences, voire des licences distinctes pour chaque fournisseur. 

**Remarque : Il est important de savoir que, si vous choisissez une seule licence pour tous vos établissements et qu’un problème survient dans l’un ou l’autre desdits établissements, votre capacité d’exploiter L’ENSEMBLE de vos établissements sera compromise jusqu’à ce que le problème soit réglé. Tenez bien compte de ce détail lorsque vous faites une demande de licence.

Renseignements additionnels sur les importateurs non résidents (INR) :

Seulement deux choix s’offrent aux INR qui désirent importer des aliments de pays qui ne possèdent pas la « reconnaissance des systèmes de salubrité des aliments d’autres pays » de l’ACIA. Les voici :

  1. Fonder une entreprise enregistrée au Canada avec au moins un employé. 
  2. Le destinataire canadien est l’importateur du dossier; il possède une licence et une assurance de l’ACIA. 

Les INR qui désirent importer des aliments de pays qui possèdent la « reconnaissance des systèmes de salubrité des aliments d’autres pays de l’ACIA » peuvent :

  1. Posséder une entreprise enregistrée aux États-Unis et détenir une licence de l’ACIA. 
  2. Exporter au Canada des produits fabriqués ou provenant des États-Unis. Ces produits ne peuvent être exportés directement au Canada s’ils proviennent d’un troisième pays. 

**Remarque : À l’heure actuelle, seuls les États-Unis sont sur le point d’obtenir la « reconnaissance des systèmes de salubrité des aliments d’autres pays de l’ACIA ».

Quel est le calendrier de mise en œuvre?


Viande, fruits de mer, fromage et produits laitiers, fruits et légumes en conserve ou congelés, miel, sirop d’érable 

Fruits et légumes frais; herbes et épices fraîches

Aliments transformés et produits alimentaires


• Juin 2016

• Juin 2016

• Juin 2017

PCP, plan de traçabilité et de rappel

• Juin 2016

• Juin 2017

• Juin 2018

Remarques : 

Ces aliments sont déjà réglementés; les changements dans l’industrie seront minimes.

Actuellement, ces produits n’ont pas de dispositions substantielles quant à la salubrité alimentaire; ainsi donc 

Principaux changements dans l’industrie.


Quels renseignements seront exigés?

Lors de la demande de licence :

  • types de produits importés (par ex. poisson, viande, fromage, aliments transformés); 
  • utilisation prévue (par ex. consommation immédiate, conserves, transformations additionnelles); 
  • transformation (par ex. mise en conserve, pasteurisation, congélation, séchage, emballage); 
  • volume annuel de produits importés; et 
  • pays d’origine typique des produits. 

Au moment de l’importation (les « nouveaux » éléments requis sont en rouge) :

  • nom, adresse et numéro de licence des propriétaires de la licence; 
  • nom et adresse du fournisseur ou origine des aliments importés; 
  • nom et adresse de la personne qui a fabriqué ou transformé les aliments; 
  • adresse où les aliments seront expédiés au Canada; 
  • description des aliments et de l’emballage : nom usuel, nom de la marque et code de lot;
  • quantité importée; et 
  • par ailleurs, les données doivent être fournies avant l’importation ou au moment autorisé par le ministre.


Les exigences en matière d’étiquetage des aliments ont-elles changé?

Oui. Le paragraphe 10(3) de la Loi sur la salubrité des aliments au Canada (premier lien) stipule qu’une personne ne peut importer ou exporter un produit alimentaire visé à moins que ledit produit alimentaire réponde aux exigences de la Loi (deuxième lien ci-dessous, PARTIE 11).

La seule exception sera pour l’étiquetage de la mention « Pour conditionnement ultérieur seulement » sur les aliments, lesquels devront être rendus conformes dans les trois mois suivant la date d’importation. Dans un tel scénario, la mention « Pour conditionnement ultérieur seulement » doit également demeurer intacte.

**Remarque : cette disposition est toujours en cours d’examen, mais valide au moment de la publication du présent article.

Que devez-vous faire?

Visiter le site Web de Cole pour des mises à jour régulières. Nous publierons tous les nouveaux renseignements sur cette question au fil de l’évolution de la situation.

Passer en revue vos secteurs d’activité et songer à votre choix de licence.

Liens pour obtenir des renseignements supplémentaires :

Loi sur la salubrité des aliments au Canada 

Règlement sur la salubrité des aliments au Canada 

Règlement sur la salubrité des aliments au Canada : documents incorporés par renvoi 

Articles précédents sur le site Web de Cole



Powered by mod LCA
Continue to Site »

Please consent to our electronic communications.