Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 27
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
(1) INTRODUCTION
1. Since its last Trade Policy Review in 2000, Canada has continued to liberalize its trade
regime on unilateral, multilateral, and preferential bases.  This has included the introduction of
simplified customs procedures both to facilitate trade and reinforce border security.  In addition, MFN
tariffs have been slightly reduced on an array of products.  As a result, the average MFN tariff hasdeclined from 7.2% to 6.8% and the number of duty-free items has increased.  However, considerably
higher tariffs continue to apply to agri-food, cl othing, and boats and ships.  Tariff concessions
previously provided under the Auto Pact were eliminated in February 2001 in consequence of afinding by a WTO dispute settlement panel.
2. Among preferential partners, tariffs applicable to imports from Chile and Mexico were further
reduced. As of November 2002, tariffs on imports from Costa Rica also benefited from preferences
under an  FTA concluded in 2001.  Each  FTA negotiated by Canada contains specific origin rules,
which adds complexity to its trade regime (see also Chapter II(5)).  Duty-free and quota-free
treatment for least developed countries was announced, effective in January 2003.
3. Through anti-dumping (AD) actions, Canadian producers have continued to seek protection
from imports considered to be dumped.  In 2000 and 2001, 32 new final measures and one
undertaking were imposed, mostly on steel products.  In December 2001, 91 AD measures plus three
price undertakings were in force, but the number went down to 87 by June 2002.  Canada applies its
AD legislation on a non-discriminatory basis, except on imports from Chile, which has been excluded
from the application of the legislation since the en try into force of the Canada-Chile Free Trade
Agreement.  Since Canada's last Review, the dur ation of AD actions has declined, but some 9% of
measures have been in place for ten years or more.  Canada's first safeguard investigation since theestablishment of the WTO, concerning steel products, was initiated in March 2002.
4. Quantitative restrictions maintained under the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing to
protect domestic producers against foreign competition, are being removed gradually.  These quotas
affect several non-preferential partners, mostly in Asia, and are due to be eliminated at the end of2004.  Other import controls are in place for health and sanitary reasons.  Although a large number of
technical regulations are in place, Canada's Standards Strategy is aimed at promoting the use of
(voluntary) adopted or adapted internationally accepted standards to the greatest extent possible.
5. Local-content, performance or purchasing requirements are still maintained by certain
provinces.  They mainly affect alcoholic beverages and the mining sector.   Canada limits exports of anumber of items to ensure sufficient supplies for domestic industries.  Products affected include logs,and fish from certain provinces.
6. Canada has gone a long way towards setting up a transparent government procurement
regime.  However, access conditions to its procurement market at the federal level are based onreciprocity;  Canada grants MFN and national treatment only as required by the WTO Agreement on
Government Procurement.  Canada has yet to table an offer at the sub-federal level under this
Agreement.  Provinces have their own procurement agencies, and some grant regional preferences to
procurement not falling within the scope of the domestic Agreement on Internal Trade.  For other
procurement, provinces grant similar access conditions to suppliers from the rest of Canada, but donot extend this automatically to foreign suppliers.
7. Federal and provincial assistance is extended to selected economic activities (assistance to
agriculture is discussed in Chapter IV(2)).  In particular, support to the aircraft sector remains a sourceWT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 28
of friction with trading partners.  Federal and provincial government-owned enterprises with special
or exclusive privileges are involved in dairy, alcoholic beverages and wheat trade.  Since 2000,
Canadian competition law has been amended to put in place a special regime for domestic airlines,
and to add further provisions regarding predatory behaviour in the airline industry (Chapter IV(7)).  A
bill was passed by Parliament in 2002, giving the Canadian Competition Tribunal significant new
powers.
8. Canada has shown an active interest in intellectual property-related work at the WTO, where
its own legislation has faced a number of legal challenges. Canadian patent law was amended in 2001
to bring its legislation into conformity with an Appellate Body decision.  Canada signed the Patent
Cooperation Treaty in May 2001, which required amendments to Canadian patent rules.  In December
2002, the Supreme Court ruled that higher life forms cannot be patented.  A bill to amend the
compulsory licence provisions of the Copyright Act is under consideration.
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS
(i) Customs procedures
9. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) is in charge of customs operations.
Carriers must report shipments using an approved cargo control document or "electronic data
interchange" (EDI)1  Any shipment may be examined.  The frequency of examinations depend on the
importer's past compliance record, as well as the type of goods that are being imported.  Goods
examined more systematically include food products  that may carry disease (e.g. foot and mouth),
hazardous products or waste, explosives, chemicals,  nuclear or atomic or biological goods. Supply-
managed goods (mainly dairy and poultry, see Chapter IV(2)) may also be examined more
systematically, to ensure compliance with tariff quotas.
10. Since 1999, the CCRA has undertaken a number of reforms to streamline and facilitate the
import process.  The Customs Action Plan 2000-2004 is designed to ease the movement of legitimate
trade and, at the same time, stop the entry of illegal goods.  It is based on the principles of risk
management, advance information, pre-approval, and self-assessment in border management.2  Part of
the Action Plan is a new system for traders known as Customs Self-Assessment (CSA).  The system's
main elements were brought into law by Bill–23, which received Royal Assent in October 2001.
11. CSA is designed to ensure the smooth flow of  trade and avoid delays at the border, for
example through dedicated lanes at major border crossings, while preserving security.  CSA involves
screening, risk-assessing, and pre-approving importers, carriers, and drivers that are deemed to be
low-risk.  Under CSA, shipments entering Canada will be cleared immediately at the border, upon the
identification of the importer, the carrier, and the driver who will all have been pre-approved.  In
mid-2002, CSA was at the pilot stage;  in May 2002, four importers were participating in CSA, and
15% of total imports into Canada were expected to be covered at year-end.  The qualification
procedure is explained in detail in CCRA's online information.3  All pre-approved carriers (by late
2002) are involved in trade with the United States carried by road.
12. An array of risk-management techniques will be used to process traders who are not approved
under the CSA and to target shipments of higher and unknown risk.  These include electronic
                                                     
1 Details on how to participate in the various electro nic data interchange procedures for customs release
are contained in the CCRA's online information.  Av ailable at:  http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/customs/business/
importing/ecommerce-e.html.
2 The Customs Action Plan has been described in a communication from Canada on trade facilitation
(WTO document G/C/W/238, 31 October 2000).
3 For documents and procedures required for the Customs Self Assessment Program see
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/customs/business/importing/csa/menu-e.html.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 29
targeting, increased exchanges of information a nd intelligence with other law enforcement and
customs agencies, analysis of compliance records and pre-arrival information, as well as pre-
registration of drivers;  greater use of technology, such as ion scanners and x-ray equipment;  and
modernized cargo control for goods requiring more data before they arrive at the border.  According
to the authorities, these measures will not prejudice legitimate trade that is not pre-approved under the
CSA;  they have noted that the more information provided in advance of the shipment, the better theassessment of shipments and the lower their risk.
13. In October 2001, the Minister of National Revenue announced additional border security
measures to fight the threat of terrorism.
4  The December 2001 budget also contained a commitment
to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians, and allocated resources to the CCRA as part of a
five-year security package.  These commitments have entailed investment by the CCRA in new
technology at borders, including inspection of whole containers and other large masses of cargo
quickly and safely.  In addition, Canada and the United States have stationed officers in each other's
high volume ports to target containers that are in-transit to the other.  No details were available on theimpact, if any, of Canada's additional border security measures on its trade with other countries.
14. To revise the penalty structure applied for infractions of the Customs Act or the Customs
Tariff, the CCRA introduced a new Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS) in late 2001.
The enforcement starts with warnings, which, if unheeded, may lead to increasingly large fines.  TheAMPS entered into force on 1 October 2002.
(ii) Rules of origin
15. Canada maintains both preferential and non-preferential rules of origin.  MFN (non-
preferential) rules of origin are in place to distinguish MFN imports from those under the General
Tariff (see below (iii)).  At least 50% of the cost of production of the goods must have been incurredin one or more MFN partners for them to be considered of MFN origin.  In addition, a separate rule,
which applies to only a limited number of imported goods, exists for marking purposes. Other MFN
rules apply for textiles and clothing:  for textiles, the origin is deemed to be where the fabric was
woven;  clothing originates where the parts of the garment are first sewn together, or where a knitted
garment is first fitted to shape.
16. Preferential rules of origin ensure that preferential trading conditions are reserved for
products originating in countries that are members of Canada's respective agreements.  Preferential
rules of origin are based on a certain percentage of the price or cost of production of the goods
originating in beneficiary countries or Canada.  Since its last Review, in December 2000, Canada has
notified the WTO of the rules of origin under the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA), aswell as the regulations amending the General Preferential Tariff and Least-Developed Country Tariff
(section(iii) below).
5  Canada's rules of origin have been described in earlier reviews.6
17. Origin under the NAFTA is determined accord ing to the rules of origin specified in
Chapter IV of the agreement.  In general, a good incorporating non-originating materials originates in
the NAFTA territory if each of these components undergoes an applicable change in tariffclassification, specified for each good in an annex of 168 pages (Annex 401).  For textiles and
clothing the "yarn forward" rule is applied to trade partners under the NAFTA, and under the FTAs
with Chile and Costa Rica.  In most cases, it determines that the only textiles and clothing items to
fully benefit from the free trade between the signatories are items produced from inputs originating in
the respective FTA partner, starting with yarn/fibre and including all transformations.
                                                     
4 Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, News Room, 11 October 2001.
5 WTO document G/RO/N/31, 13 March 2001.
6 See WTO (1998) Chapter III;  and GATT (1995), Chapter IV.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 30
18. The NAFTA also introduced stricter rules of origin in the automotive sector.  While under the
Auto Pact and the former Canada-U.S. FTA, duty-free trade between participants was contingent on a
50% Canadian or U.S. content;  the threshold increased to 56% on 1 January 1998 and to 62.5% on
1 January 2002 for passenger cars, light trucks, small buses (transport of 15 or fewer persons), their
engines and transmissions.  The corresponding level for heavy-duty vehicles, large buses and all other
parts is 60% since 1 January 2002.  Thus, companies operating in Canada are required to meet theseincreased regional content levels in order to export to the Mexico and United States at preferential
rates of duty.
19. Given the large proportion of Canadian trade that is subject to NAFTA rules of origin
(Canada trades over 86% of its exports and 70% of its imports with NAFTA partners), these have
come under close scrutiny by third countries.  As noted in Canada's previous Reviews, the rules mayhave increased trade diversion in favour of NAFTA partners, notably in the clothing sector (the yarn
forward rule) and the motor vehicle component sector;  they may have also penalized Canadian
clothing manufacturers using inputs from MFN source s, thus leading to the establishment of "Tariff
Preference Levels" to allow preferential access to other NAFTA partners (see section (3)(i) for a
description of this mechanism).
20. The number of preferential rules of origin expanded in 2002 as a result of the entry into force
of the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement  (CCRFTA).  Rules of origin under the CCRFTA are
largely modelled on those of the NAFTA and the FTA with Chile.  In general, origin under theCCRFTA is conferred when goods are produced in the free-trade area entirely from materials wholly
obtained or produced in the area or, for goods incorporating non-originating materials, if these
materials undergo a change in tariff classification under the Harmonized System (HS) as set out in a
detailed annex.  Where no change in tariff classification occurs (and except for goods of Chapters 39
(plastics) and 50 through 63 (textiles and clothing)), a good may still be considered as originating ifits regional content value is not less than 35% or 25%, depending on the method of calculation used
(transaction value or net cost.)  The authorities consider that the CCRFTA origin conferring rules are
more liberal than those in other FTAs).
7
21. Rules of origin for Least Developed Country Tariff (LDCT) treatment were amended in
September 2000.  As a result, 40% of the ex-factory price of the goods packed for shipment to Canada
may include up to 20% of the ex-factory price of the goods from other developing countries.
According to the authorities, this measure allowed for an expansion of the products imported from
countries benefiting from the LDCT.
(iii) Tariffs
22. Responsibility for tariff matters continues to be shared between the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency (CCRA-tariff collection)8, Finance Canada (tariff determination)9, and the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (international tariff matters).10
(a) Most favoured nation (MFN) tariffs
23. Canada grants at least MFN treatment to all its trading partners except the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, and Libya.  Imports from these two countries are subject to the General
Tariff, levied at 35% on most products.  In March 2001, MFN tariff treatment was extended to
Albania and the Sultanate of Oman.
                                                     
7 Rules of origin are contained in Chapter 4 of the Agreement (see the website of DFAIT at
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/Costa_Rica_toc-en.asp).
8 Available online at:  http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca.
9 Available online at:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/access/taxe.html.
10 Available online at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 31
24. After seven years of progressive MFN tariff reductions, which followed the conclusion of the
Uruguay Round, one half of Canada's MFN tariff schedule is duty-free.  Remaining tariffs fulfil
mainly a trade protection function;  tariff revenue in 2000/01 accounted for only 1.5% of total federal
budgetary revenue.  The average MFN tariff was 6.8% in 2002 (Table III.1), down from 7.2% in
2000.  The average of non-zero rates was 13.1% in 2002, down from 13.4% in 2000.
Table III.1
Summary analysis of Canada's applied tariff, 2002
Applied tariffs a
Analysis No. of Lines Avg. applied
tariff (%)Range
(%)Std-dev
(%)CV
Total 8,364 6.8 0-314 24.7 3.6
By WTO category
Agriculture 1,263 21.7 0-314 62.0 2.9
Live animals and products thereof 155 52.7 0-253 88.6 1.7
Dairy products 37 237.3 3-314 60.9 0.3
Fruit and vegetables 298 4.8 0-19 5.2 1.1
Beverages and spirits 111 8.3 0-256 27.4 3.3
WTO Non-agriculture (exc. petroleum) 7,086 4.2 0-25 5.5 1.3
Textiles and clothing 1,467 9.9 0-20 7.4 0.7
By ISIC sector b
Agriculture and fisheries 443 6.4 0-292 30.2 4.7
Mining 110 0.7 0-12 2.1 3.0
Manufacturing 7,810 6.9 0-314 24.2 3.5
By HS section
01 Live animals and products 274 55.6 0-314 98.3 1.8
02 Vegetable products 438 4.5 0-95 9.7 2.2
03 Fats and oils 62 9.3 0-218 28.1 3.0
04 Prepared foods, etc. 498 18.3 0-277 52.1 2.8
05 Minerals 174 1.1 0-13 2.6 2.4
06 Chemicals and products 1,102 3.2 0-195 8.3 2.6
07 Plastics and rubber 370 4.2 0-16 3.8 0.9
08 Hides and skins 227 3.2 0-16 3.4 1.1
09 Wood and articles 113 2.6 0-11 3.2 1.2
10 Pulp, paper, etc. 194 0.6 0-6 1.0 1.7
11 Textile and articles 1,421 9.8 0-20 7.5 0.8
12 Footwear, headgear 104 11.6 0-20 7.9 0.7
13 Articles of stone 185 3.4 0-16 4.0 1.2
14 Precious stones, etc. 65 2.3 0-9 3.2 1.4
15 Base metals and products 893 2.2 0-11 2.8 1.3
16 Machinery 1,423 2.0 0-11 2.8 1.4
17 Transport equipment 238 5.2 0-25 6.1 1.2
18 Precision equipment 345 1.9 0-14 3.0 1.6
19 Arms and munitions 32 3.9 0-8 2.8 0.7
20 Miscellaneous manufactures 197 5.2 0-18 4.6 0.9
21 Works of art, etc. 9 1.4 0-7 2.8 2.0
a Excluding in-quota tariffs.
b ISIC Classification (Rev.2), excluding electricity (1 line).
Source : WTO Secretariat estimates, based on data provided by the Canadian Government.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 32
25. Average tariffs continue to be considerably higher for agricultural products (WTO definition)
than for other products, with the highest rates protecting the food, beverages and tobacco processing
activities (Chart III.1).  Some 4.2% of all MFN tariff lines are non- ad valorem ;  concentrated in the
agri-food sector;  in some cases they mask particularly high levels of protection.  To take into account
their incidence on border protection, ad valorem  equivalents are included in the tariff summary
statistics presented in this section.11
0510152025303540
Agriculture
(WTO definition)Agriculture Food, bev erages
and tobaccoMining Manufacturing
(excl. food,
be ve rag e s  and
tobacco)TotalChart III.1
MFN tariff averages 1996-02 (selected years),  and final bound tariff (2004)
Per cent
a
Note:
Source:IS IC classi fi cation.
Data for 1996-02 exclude in-quota tariffs. Final bound rate (2004) includes  ad valorem  rates only.
WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data provided by the Government of Canada.a
aa
a199619982000Bound
2002
26. Applied tariff rates in 2002 were slightly below bound rates (Chart III.1).  Applied rates do
not exceed bound rates for any tariff line.  For one line (HS code 23099020 - animal food containing
cereals), the bound tariff is expressed as a specific rate while the current applied rate is ad valorem .
There are 26 unbound lines:  13 cover mineral oils and mineral fuels (HS 27), 12 cover cruise ships,
tankers, tugs, drilling and platform ships (HS 89), and one tariff line (97040000) is for postagestamps.
                                                     
11 In Canada, non- ad valorem  tariffs take the form of specific rates, applied on 154 items, compound
rates on 50 items, and mixed rates on 183.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 33
27. Chart III.2 indicates the frequency distribution of tariffs, and illustrates the differences
between the agri-food and other sectors.  Reflecting sizeable tariff barriers in a few sensitive sectors,
MFN tariffs exceed 15% on 657 tariff lines, not taking into account the 183 tariff lines covered by
out-of-quota tariffs (Chapter IV(2)).  The 657 lines consist mostly of textiles, footwear and clothing
products, together with wine and cider, sugar, vegetables during the domestic production season, and
cut flowers.  Tariffs on  boats (certain dredgers and most fishing vessels) are set at 25%.  In the
fabricated metal products industry, tariffs exceed 12% for stamped, pressed, and coated metal
products as well as most structural metal goods, wire gauze, iron fittings for coffins, knives, scissors,
secateurs, pottery, and china.
28. Tariff escalation, i.e. tariffs that rise with the stage of processing, continues to be a feature of
the Canadian MFN tariff, inhibiting exports of downstream products to Canada by non-preferentialforeign producers.  Tariff escalation affects particularly food and beverages, textiles and clothing,
wood products, chemicals, and non-metallic mineral products (Chart III.3).
29. Since its last Review, Canada has amended its Customs Tariff to implement the results of the
second major review of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) adopted by
the World Customs Organization in June 1999 with effect from 1 January 2002.
12  As a result, some
441 HS codes were deleted, corresponding to tariffs averaging 4.7%.  About 780 new lines were
added, with tariffs averaging 4.3%.  In line with the procedure agreed to by WTO Members for
HS2002 changes13, Canada submitted its revised tariff to the WTO for preliminary verification.
30. In addition to the changes in HS nomenclature, tariffs have been reduced on 1,300 lines, or
16% of all tariff lines, which explains the decrease in the average tariff.  These reductions reflected a
number of policy measures, including the reduction of Canada's tariffs on textiles and clothing over a
ten-year period ending in January 2004, as part of its WTO commitments, and unilateral tariffreductions to lower production costs for Canadian business.  Reviews of requests for tariff relief of
this nature are conducted by the Department of Finance, or, since 1994 for textile manufacturing
inputs, by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.  Relief in both instances is implemented by
Executive Order, on the recommendation of the Finance Minister, and the Orders amend the statutory
provisions of the Customs Tariff, thus adding to the transparency of the tariff regime.
31. Half of the reductions concern textiles, clothing, and footwear products, where tariffs have
declined by an average 4-6%.  Tariffs on several iron and steel products have been reduced by about
half or made duty free.  Similar tariff reductions have taken place on several paper products.  Tariffs
have been reduced by 15-25% on several plastic produc ts, and on some inorganic chemicals.  Of the
125 lines recording tariff changes in the agri-food sector, 75 concerned preparations of cereals, wherereductions have reached 20% in some cases.  Tariffs have also been reduced on several products of
the milling industry, and on a few dairy products (Chapter IV(2)).
32. Canada's Customs Tariff contains legislative provisions that automatically round down both
MFN and preferential tariffs to the closest half percentage point, and eliminate all tariff rates of less
than 2%, both on an annual basis.
                                                     
12 For more information see Canada Customs and Revenue Agency online information.  Available at:
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca.
13 WTO document WT/L/407, 26 July 2001.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 34
(0.2%)(1.7%)(9.3%)(20.1%)
(15.6%)(43.6%)
(9.5%)
0110220330440550
Duty free > 0 -5 >5 - 10 >10 - 15 >15 - 20 >20 - 25 > 25020406080100Chart III.2
Distribution of MFN tariff rates , 2002a
Cumulative percentage
Right hand scaleNumber of tariff lines (% of total)Left hand scale
The total number of lines is 1,263 for agriculture and 7,086 for industry.  Excludes all in-quota lines. 
WTO Secretariat estimates, based on data provided b y the Government of Canada. a
Source : Agriculture
(0%)(50.2%)
(13.5%)(23.8%)
(2.9%)(9.5%)
(0.2%)
06001,2001,8002,4003,0003,600
Duty free > 0 -5 >5 - 10 >10 - 15 >15 - 20 >20 - 25 > 25020406080100IndustryPer cent Number of tariff lines
Number of tariff lines Per centCanada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 35
0714212835Chart III.3
Tariff escalation for selected manufactured productsa, 2002
Per cent
Raw materials
Semi p r oc essed
Fully processe d
M anufacture 
of food, 
bevera ges and 
tobaccoTe x t i l e ,  
wearing 
apparel and 
leather 
industriesWood and 
wood products, 
including 
furniturePape r, paper 
products, 
printing and 
publishingChemicals, 
petroleum, 
coal, rubber, 
plasticsBasic metal 
industriesNon-metallic 
mineral 
products 
By 2-digit ISIC category.  E xcluding in-quota rates. 
WTO  Secre tariat estimate s, base d on data provided by the  Canadian gove rnment.a
Source:
(b) Preferential tariffs under free-trade agreements
33. In general, preferential access under free-trade agreements entails a significant advantage in
areas protected by high MFN tariffs (Table III.2).  As stated in the Secretariat reports for Canada's
previous Reviews, preferential agreements have contributed to above-average growth in trade flows
with preferential partners, amplifying in particular Canadian-U.S. interdependence.
34. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), imports from the United States
benefit from the largest share of duty-free tariffs (98.8% of tariff lines in 2002, up from 98.5% in
2000).  The average tariff on the 98 remaining dutiable items is substantial, as this group includes
products that are most protected from import competition, mainly in the poultry and dairy sectors;
tariffs on the items were as high as 224% in 2002, as out-of-quota tariffs on these products have beenexempted from NAFTA tariff-reduction commitments.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 36
Table III.2
Import duties by tariff regime, 2000a
MFN UST MT CT CIAT GPT LDCT CCCT AUT NZT CRT
Number of non- ad valorem  lines 387 94 173 161 288 328 158 162 364 350 121.0
Share of duty-free lines 48.4 98.8 93.8 94.2 92.3 64.0 89.8 86.0 51.6 51.9 83.7
Average of dutiable ratesb13.1 224.8 44.3 48.0 38.0 15.1 39.8 31.9 13.3 13.3 26.0
Average tariff (%) 6.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 3.1 5.4 4.1 4.5 6.4 6.4 4.2
Of which:
Agriculture and livestock (ISIC 11)c7.7 4.4 4.9 5.0 6.7 6.9 5.2 5.0 7.3 7.3 4.5
Crude petroleum and gas (ISIC 22) 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 0.0
Food products (ISIC 311)c24.2 20.1 20.3 20.4 23.1 23.5 20.9 20.9 23.9 23.8 20.3
Animal feeds and other food products
(ISIC 312)c 31.8 26.2 28.0 26.6 28.9 30.7 27.2 27.2 31.6 31.6 27.5
Beverages (ISIC 313)c11.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 10.8 10.6 4.7 4.7 10.8 10.8 2.7
Tobacco products (ISIC 314) 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 5.9 1.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 0.0
Textiles (ISIC 321) 9.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 8.2 6.5 9.1 8.7 8.7 7.7
Clothing (ISIC 322) 15.1 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 14.2 12.5 14.3 12.9 12.9 13.2
Footwear (ISIC 324) 12.1 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 11.5 9.8 12.1 9.9 9.9 10.6
Furniture (ISIC 332) 6.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 9.0
Rubber products (ISIC 355) 6.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 4.4 1.9 2.7 5.2 5.2 9.2
Plastic products (ISIC 356) 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3 2.2
Glass and glass products (ISIC 362) 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.1
Other non-metallic products (ISIC 369) 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4 0.2
Fabricated metal products (ISIC 381) 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0
Shipbuilding and repairing (ISIC 3841) 11.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5 0.0
a Duties consist of ad valorem  tariff, available ad valorem  equivalents of non- ad valorem  lines, and/or ad valorem  components.
The total number of lines including in-quota is 8,516.
b Average of non-duty-free lines.
c Includes both in-quota and out-of-quota tariffs.
MFN Most favoured nation.
UST United States Tariff under NAFTA.MT Mexico Tariff under NAFTA.
CT Chile Tariff under the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement.
CIAT Canada-Israel Agreement Tariff.GPT Generalized Preferential Tariff.
LDCT Least Developed Country Tariff.
CCCT Commonwealth Caribbean Countries Tariff.AUT Australia Tariff.
NZT New Zealand Tariff.
CRT Costa Rica Tariff.
Source: WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data provided by the Government of Canada.
35. Imports from Mexico, Canada's other NAFTA partner, are duty free for 93.8% of all lines, up
from 83.5% in 2000.  The reductions have been widespread, including in food products, textiles,clothing, footwear, furniture, and shipbuilding.  In January 2002, Canada, Mexico, and the
United States agreed to accelerate the elimination of NAFTA tariffs on a number of products.
14  The
remaining duties, on some 531 items, average 44.3%;  they mostly affect dairy and poultry products.
36. Imports from Chile have benefited from sizeable tariff reductions since 2000.  The share of
duty-free lines has increased from 88.3% to 94.2% of all lines.  The average tariff has decreased from
                                                     
14 Products concerned by tariff cuts in Canada consist mainly of motor vehicles.  Online information.
Available at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/canada2-e.asp.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 37
3.2% to 2.7%.  Main reductions have occurred in textiles, clothing, footwear, and plastic products.
The dutiable average was 48% in 2002.  Products whose tariffs are not scheduled to be eliminated are
roughly the same as under the NAFTA.
37. Tariffs under the FTA with Costa Rica came force in November 2002 (Table III.2).15
(c) Tariff quotas
38. Tariff quotas, whereby higher tariffs are applied to imports exceeding a specified volume, are
used mainly in the agri-food industry (Chapter IV(2 )).  Tariff quotas are also used under free-trade
agreements, to allow certain volumes of trade in specified textiles and clothing products that do not
meet the rules of origin required for preferential treatment.
39. Under the NAFTA, specific products that do not meet NAFTA rules of origin can still qualify
for preferential treatment up to a fixed import volume or "tariff preference level" (TPL) negotiatedamong the three NAFTA countries. Access is provided up to certain annual quantities for cotton, wool
and man-made fibre clothing that is manufactu red (i.e. substantially transformed) in a NAFTA
country from non-originating components.  Data on actual use of the TPLs suggest that they are not
restricting imports into Canada from Mexico or the United States (this is not, however the case with
exports – section (3)(i)).
16
40. Similar mechanisms have been negotiated in the FTAs with Chile and Costa Rica:  imports of
specific products that do not meet the rules of origin are provided access up to specified TPLs.17.
(d) Unilateral tariff preferences
41. Tariff preferences are granted unilaterally to developing and least developed countries;
Caribbean countries also benefit from specific preferences.  Canada’s unilateral tariff preferences for
developing and least developed countries are to be reviewed by 2004.18  The average tariff under these
preferences is higher than that under reciprocal free-trade agreements (Table III.2).  However, thetariff regime for imports from LDCs (see below) will allow duty-free imports as of January 2003
(except for out-of-quota volumes of supply managed products), and thus match conditions granted to
free-trade partners.
42. The General Preferential Tariff (GPT) provides tariff preferences for most developing
countries.  Most textiles, clothing, and footwear, a few industrial goods, refined sugar, and certainagricultural products are not eligible for the GPT.
19  The average GPT tariff was 5.4% in 2002, down
from 5.8% in 2000.  The extension or removal of GPT preferences is at the discretion of the Minister
of Finance.  No change has taken place in the list of countries and products benefiting from
GPT preferences since 2000.
                                                     
15 The full text of the agreement, together with Canada's tariff schedule, are available online at:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/Costa_Rica-e.asp.
16 DFAIT online information.  Available at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/~eicb/textile/ntpl-imp-
dec01-e.htm.
17 These are described in DFAIT's online information.
18 WTO document WT/TPR/M/78, 5 February 2001.
19 See Canada Customs and Revenue Agency online information.  Available at:  http://www.ccra-
adrc.gc.ca/E/pub/cm/cn361em/cn361-e.pdf.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 38
43. Canada's Least Developed Country Tariff (LDCT) provides duty-free access for close to 90%
of all tariff items.  Products from LDCT beneficiary countries20 are eligible for duty-free entry only
when eligible for the GPT.  Senegal was made eligible under the LDCT in May 2002.  The average
duty for LDC eligible countries was 4.1% in 2002, down from 4.3% in 2000.  Dutiable rates averaged
39.8% in 2002 and applied to about 870 lines;  several of these lines included products that might be
of special interest to LDC exporters, such as food, beverages, textiles, clothing, and footwear.  Mostexports from LDC countries to Canada in 1999 were  clothing products, highlighting the importance of
this sector for these countries.
44. In June 2002, Canada announced that it will extend duty-free and quota-free access to imports
from 48 of the world’s least developed countries (LDCs), except on out-of-quota imports on
supply-managed products (dairy, poultry and eggs), effective 1 January, 2003.  An Order amending
the Customs Tariff to effect this change has extended duty-free treatment to 905 additional tariff items
under the LDCT, including textiles and clothing products that are of major importance to these
countries.
45. No major changes have taken place under the Commonwealth Caribbean Countries Tariff
(CARIBCAN), which provides tariff reductions to countries from the Caribbean region.
21  Some 86%
of lines were duty free in 2002, with an average tariff of 33% on the remaining tariff lines.
(e) Tariff remissions and drawbacks
46. Several drawback and remission measures are used to offset the cost-increasing effect of
tariffs.  In general, these measures provide tariff relief when imported goods are used for certain
purposes or pursuant to certain conditions, while maintaining the general applicability of tariffs.22
The vast majority of the remission/drawback orders related to measures implementing the Auto Pactbut these were all repealed in February 2001 (see below).  One new order was introduced in thereporting period.  This order provides eligible Canadian fashion designers duty-free access to a range
of fabrics priced at Can$14 or more per square metre for use in the manufacture of apparel.  This
order is intended to benefit accredited fashion designers who create unique apparel that they present to
the market under their own name or label.  Data on the share of total imports that enters into Canada
under these mechanisms were not available.  According to the authorities, it varies significantly fromyear to year and is thus not a good indicator of the significance of such measures.
47. The MFN tariff on certain motor vehicles was just over 6% in 2001.  Companies established
under the Auto Pact with the United States, however, were allowed to import those vehicles duty free
from any MFN source, under various remission Orders, subject to certain performance requirements
for domestic production-to-sales and Canadian value added.  This was the subject of a WTO Panelestablished in 1999 (Table AII.1).  The Panel found that the import duty exemption was not consistent
with the MFN principle;  and that the import dut y conditional upon production-to-sales requirements
constituted a subsidy conditional upon export performance (see also section (4)(iii) below).
23  Canada
eliminated this duty-free treatment in February 2001.  As a result, vehicles imported by Auto Pact
companies now face the same duty (6.1% in 2002) as other MFN imports.  
                                                     
20 Countries eligible for least developed country benefits in Canada are the least developed countries as
defined by the United Nations excluding Myanmar (Burma).
21 Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands,
Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia,
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Cayman Islands.
22 See also CCRA online information.  Available at:  http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/E/pub/cm/d1181ed/
d1181ed.html.
23 WTO document WT/DS/139/12, 4 October 2000.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 39
(iv) Other charges and taxes
(a) The GST and provincial sales taxes
48. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is Canada's largest indirect tax by revenue, generating
nearly Can$25 billion in 2001-02 (14% of total federal budgetary revenue).  It applies to virtually all
goods and services at a rate of 7%.  In three provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and
Newfoundland ) the GST has been harmonized with the provincial sales tax;  the harmonized sales tax(HST) is 15%.  Some supplies, including residential rents and financial services, are exempt, others
are zero-rated (e.g. certain basic groceries, medical devices, agricultural goods, and exported goods
and services).
49. The GST/HST is payable on the duty-paid value of imported goods under the Customs Act,
plus customs duties and taxes imposed under the Customs Tariff, the Special Import Measures Act,the Excise Tax Act, or under any other law relating to customs.
24  The authorities have confirmed that
the application of the GST/HST does not discriminate between domestic and foreign suppliers.  A
number of changes took place to the GST in 2001-02.25
50. Sales taxes are levied by six provinces that do not apply HST;  Alberta does not have a sales
tax. The rates of sales taxes in each province are presented in Table III.3.  In general the basis of theprovincial tax is the customs duty-paid value of imported products.  Quebec and Prince Edward Island
apply provincial sales taxes to the value including GST.
Table III.3
Provincial sales taxes, June 2002
Province/territory Rate generally applicable to
imported productsSource and notes
Alberta No sales tax
British Columbia 7% Exemptions
(http://www.rev.gov.bc.ca/ctb/publications/brochures/bcsales.htm)
Manitoba 7% http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/taxation/taxes/retail.html
New Brunswick 8% HST
Newfoundland 8% HST
Northwest Territories No sales tax http://www.gov.nt.ca/RWED/nwtfilm/film4.htm
Nova Scotia 8% HST
Nunavut No sales tax
Ontario 8% 10-12% on alcoholic beverages
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/tare/html/trierst.htm
Prince Edward Island 10% http://www.gov.pe.ca/infopei/onelisting.php3?number=43629
Quebec 7.5% http://www.revenu.gouv.qc.ca/eng/taxes/tvq_tps/index.asp
Saskatchewan 6% http://www.gov.sk.ca/answers/?_0500-0599/0544
Yukon No sales tax http://www.gov.yk.ca/depts/finance/budget02-03/budgetaddress
Source: Government of Canada.
                                                     
24 See CCRA online information.  Available at:  http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/E/pub/cm/d13-2-5eq/d13-
2-5-e.html.
25 See the Department of Finance, News Releases, 20 February 2001, 12 April 2001,
13 September 2001, 21 December 2001, 28 December 2001, 8 February 2002, and 20 December 2002 [Online].
Available at:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 40
51. The GST and the provincial sales taxes are refunded on inputs purchased to produce goods
that are subsequently exported.  As noted, exported items are zero-rated under the GST/HST and
under the provincial sales taxes except in the case of Saskatchewan.
(b) Taxation of electronic commerce26
52. As noted in the Secretariat report for its previous Review, Canada supports a free-trade
environment for electronic commerce consistent with Canada's economic and other domestic policy
objectives, including consumer and privacy protection.  Imports of electronically supplied goods andservices (e.g. music downloaded on an MP3 file ) are free of customs duty in Canada. GST/HST
applies to electronic commerce transactions whether they are imported digitally or physically.
53. Canada supports the principles on the taxation of e-commerce agreed at a 1998 conference of
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Ottawa.  These principles
are known as the Taxation Framework Conditions, and establish that the rules for consumption taxes
(such as VAT) should result in taxation in the jurisdiction where consumption takes place and that an
international consensus should be sought on the circumstances under which supplies are held to beconsumed in a jurisdiction.  In 1998, an advisory committee on electronic commerce and taxation in
Canada stressed the importance of international cooperation and of tax neutrality.
27  The authorities
have noted that taxation of e-commerce transactions is no different than the application of sales taxes
on other types of transactions.
(c) Excise taxes and duties
54. Federal excise duties are imposed under the Excise Act as production levies on spirits, beer,
and tobacco.28  They are complemented by excise taxes imposed under the Excise Tax Act as sales
levies.  The following products carry federal excise taxes:  gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels, wines,
jewellery and watches, tobacco products, automotive air conditioners, and heavy automobiles.29  The
authorities have stated  that excise taxation does not discriminate between domestically manufactured
products and imports.
55. The Government initiated a review of the legislative and administrative framework for the
federal taxation of alcohol and tobacco products in 1993.  The culmination of this review is the newExcise Act, 2001, which implements the Government’s Excise Act Review proposals with respect to
the taxation of spirits, wine, and tobacco products.  The new Act received Royal Assent in June 2002
but was not expected to come into force until July 2003 to allow affected industry members and the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency time to prepare for the implementation of the new excise
framework.  Key features of the Act include the continued imposition of a production levy on spiritsand tobacco, the replacement of the sales levy on wine with a production levy at an equivalent rate,
modern administrative provisions, and a strengthen ed enforcement structure.  According to the
authorities, consumers will not be affected by the changes under the Excise Act Review.
                                                     
26 Electronic commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, and the transfer of funds,
through digital communications.  It also includes buying and selling over the Internet, electronic fund transfers,
smart cards, digital cash and all other ways of doing business over digital networks.
27 "Electronic Commerce and Canada's Tax Administration", A Report to the Minister of National
Revenue from the Minister's Advisory Committee on Electronic Commerce , April 1998 (see CCRA online
information.  Available at:  http://www.ccra-adrc.gc. ca).
28 See CCRA online information.  Available a t:  http://www.ccra-adrc.g c.ca/E/pub/ed/edrateseq/
edrates-e.html.
29 Excise tax rates (November 2001) are available in CCRA online information.  Available at:
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/E/pub/et/currateeq/currate-e.pdf.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 41
56. The new federal legislation and draft regulations are expected to allow the authorities to deal
more effectively with smuggling, which particularly relates to tobacco (see also section (3)(i) below).
As excise taxation is higher in Canada than in the United States, there was a strong incentive to export
these products tax-free (hence the introduction of an export tax on tobacco products in 1994) and re-
import them illegally for sale in Canada.  In December 1999, the Government of Canada launched an
action against several U.S. tobacco companies in the United States Federal Court, alleging that,beginning in 1991, there was a conspiracy to defraud Canada through smuggling, in violation of U.S.
racketeering laws.  According to Canada, massive cross-border smuggling frustrated Canada's
national strategy to reduce tobacco consumption, especially among young people, and in 1994, the
Government significantly reduced excise taxes.  In June 2000, the United States District Court
dismissed Canada's case;  in November 2002, th e U.S. Supreme Court also dismissed Canada's
appeal.
57. Some provinces also impose excise taxes on specific products, generally on fuel and tobacco
with different tax rates applicable for each province .  According to the authorities, these taxes are
levied equally on domestic production and imports.
(v) Contingency measures
(a) Safeguards
58. Safeguard remedies may be imposed under the Customs Tariff and the Export and Import
Permits Act.  These Acts implement the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, theNAFTA, the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and the
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement.
59. Safeguard investigations are conducted by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT)
under the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.  The CITT is an independent quasi-judicial
body that carries out its statutory responsibilities in an autonomous manner and reports to Parliamentthrough the Minister of Finance.  As part of its procedures for conducting inquiries, the Tribunal
normally holds hearings that are open to the public.  The recommendations made by the CITT to the
Minister of Finance are not binding, and may be modified.
60. Canada's first safeguard investigation since the establishment of the WTO was initiated in
March 2002 by the CITT, at the request of the Government of Canada.  The investigation, undersection 20(a) of the Canadian International Trade Tr ibunal Act, sought to determine whether there had
been serious injury to the domestic industry from nine imported steel products, including flat rolled
products, long products, and tubular products.
30  Imports from all sources since the beginning of 1996
were subject to the inquiry.31  In July 2002, the CITT made determinations of serious injury on five of
the nine goods (Chapter IV(4)).32  Imports from the United States were found to have contributed
importantly to the serious injury, but not imports from Chile, Israel or Mexico, which under the
respective FTAs should then be excluded from any safeguard measure.  In August 2002, the Tribunalprovided recommendations to the Government regarding measures to be taken for each product.  As
of late 2002, the Government was examining the report and was expected to respond to the
recommendations soon.
                                                     
30 Notified to the WTO Committee on Safeguards, WTO document  G/SG/N/6/CAN/1, 2 April 2002.
31 More information may be found in CITT online information, Reference No. GC-2001-001, Notice of
Commencement of Safeguard Inquiry, Importation of Certain Steel Goods, available at:  http://www.citt.gc.ca.
32 See also CITT online information.  Available at:  http://www.citt.ga-ca/Safeguard/index_e.htm., in
particular Safeguard Inquiry into the Importation of Certain Steel Goods,  Reference No. GC-2001-01, August
2002.  See also:  ftp://ftp.citt.gc.ca/doc /english/safeguar/reports/gc2b001e.pdf.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 42
61. In its details of the remedies proposed, the CITT explained that its recommendations were
made taking into account both the needs of domestic producers that had been injured by increased
imports and the interests of the downstream users.  For four of the products, the CITT recommended
tariff rate quotas, with no surtax to be applied on in-quota imports.  The surtax proposed by the
Tribunal for above-quota imports corresponds to the increase in the price of above-quota imports that
the CITT believes is necessary to ensure that any above-quota imports enter Canada at non-injuriousprice levels.  The CITT also decided that a share of the in-quota volume should be allocated to the
United States, as a supplying country with a substantial interest in supplying the product (Table III.4).
In-quota volumes are to be administered in Canada, on a quarterly first-come first-served basis on
presentation of a firm order.  With respect to reinforcing bars, the Tribunal recommended the
imposition of a tariff.
Table III.4
Recommendation on remedies steel safeguard investigation
Product In-quota volume U.S. allocation volume Rest of the world volume Above-quota Surtax
(000 tonnes) Per cent
Cold-rolled sheet and coil
First Year 360 229 131 15
Second Year 366 233 133 11
Third Year 371 237 134 7
Discrete plate
First Year 334 213 121 25
Second Year 343 219 124 18
Third Year 352 225 127 12
Angles, shapes and sections
First Year 300 216 84 20
Second Year 323 233 90 15
Third Year 349 251 98 10
Standard pipe
First Year 231 168 63 15
Second Year 243 177 66 11
Third Year 256 186 70 7
Reinforcing bars
Surtax
First Year 15
Second Year 11
Third Year 7
Source : Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
62. Canada has never imposed special safeguards, as allowed under the WTO Agreement on
Agriculture for imports of products for which tariff quotas are administered.  Nor has it imposed
transitional safeguards on imports of textiles and clothing under Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing.
63. Under NAFTA rules, during the ten-year transition period ending on 31 December 2003,
safeguard (emergency) measures may be imposed on the imports of another party, if, as a result of the
reduction or elimination of a duty provided fo r in the NAFTA, a good is being imported in such
increased quantities, in absolute terms, and under such conditions that the imports of the good from
that party alone constitute a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to a domesticindustry producing a like or directly competitive good.  The safeguard measure consists in the
suspension of the further reduction of any rate of duty for the good, and an increase of the rate of duty
to the MFN level for a maximum of three years (wit h some exceptions).  With respect to safeguard
investigations under the WTO, under Article 802 of the NAFTA, imports of a good from another
party must be excluded from the action unless, considered individually, they account for a substantialshare of total imports and contribute importantly to the serious injury, or threat thereof, caused by
imports.
33  Under Article 703.3 of the NAFTA, special safeguard measures may be applied in the
                                                     
33 The text of the agreement is available online at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/chap8-
e.asp.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 43
form of a tariff rate quota on certain agricultural products.34  The out-of-quota tariff rate may not
exceed the MFN rate.  Canada has used this provision in the past against some imports from Mexico,
but not during the period under review.
64. Under the Bilateral Free Trade Agreement with Chile, Canada may impose safeguard
measures, during the transition period only, if, as a result of the reduction or elimination of a duty, a
good is imported in such increased quantities that the imports from Chile alone cause or may causeserious injury to a domestic industry.  The measure may take the form of a suspension of the further
reduction or the increase of a rate of duty on the good to a level not to exceed the MFN applied rate of
duty.  No measure may be maintained for a period exceeding three years.  Under the agreement any
party taking an emergency action under Articl e XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on
Safeguards must exclude imports of a good from the other party from the action unless imports fromthe other party account for a substantial share of total imports and contribute importantly to injury.
35
Under the FTAs with Costa Rica and Israel, similar disciplines govern the application of bilateralemergency actions, but each party retains all its rights and obligations under the WTO Agreement on
Safeguards.
(b) Anti-dumping and countervailing measures
Anti-dumping and countervailing duty legislation and administration
65. The Special Import Measures Act R.S.C., 1985, ch. S-15 (SIMA) is Canada's main legal
instrument governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.  The Department of
Finance is responsible for the elaboration of SIMA policy and legislation.  The Canada Customs andRevenue Agency (CCRA-formerly Revenue Canada) and the CITT are responsible for the
administration of the SIMA.
36  The Commissioner of Customs and Revenue is responsible for
initiating investigations and making preliminary and final determinations with respect to margins of
dumping and amounts of subsidy.  The CITT is responsible for preliminary and final injury (or threat
thereof) determinations.  Anti-dumping legislation and regulations are posted in CCRA's online
information.37
66. Canada applies anti-dumping and countervailing legislation in a non-discriminatory manner,
except on Chile.  Imports from Chile are excluded from anti-dumping measures if the tariff rate for
the goods is zero.  As of 1 January 2003, all goods from Chile are exempt from the imposition of new
anti-dumping duties and any existing anti-dumping orders concerning imports from Chile will be
eliminated.
67. After a preliminary determination, foreign exporters or governments can offer undertakings
aimed at eliminating the dumping/subsidizing or in jury to the Canadian industry.  Exporters are
informed of this option at the time of the initiation of an investigation and can examine the
undertaking template on the CCRA's website.  Undertakings are accepted only if they are given by
exporters or governments of foreign countries representing all or substantially all of the trade in the
product under investigation, which the CCRA interpre ts as those accounting normally for at least 85%
of the volume of dumped or subsidized imports into Canada.  Two of the three undertakings in place
                                                     
34 The Canadian products for which this special safeguard may be used are:  fresh cut flowers and
flower buds (HS 0603.10.90);  tomatoes (0702.00.91);  onions (0703.10.31);  cucumbers (0707.00.91);  broccoliand cauliflower (0710.80.20),  strawberries (0811.10.10 and 0811.10.90),  and prepared tomatoes (2002.90.00).
35 The text of the agreement is available online at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/cda-
chile/chap-f26.asp.
36 See Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate online information.  Available at:  http://www.
ccra-adrc.gc.ca.
37 Available at:  http://www.ccra-adrc.gc. ca/customs/business/sima/act-regs-e-html.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 44
at the end of 2001 were with the United States, the third was with France;  only one (bingo paper from
the United States) was entered into during the period under review.
68. The authorities have noted that Canada operates a prospective system in which exporters are
informed of the normal values for the products that they export to Canada.  If future sales are made at
price levels equal to or higher than the normal value of the product, no duties are assessed.  The
authorities consider that Canada’s prospective enforcement system operates in a manner that is verysimilar to, and has the same effect as, price undertakings at a level sufficient to remove the dumping.
69. Procedural amendments to both the SIMA and to the CITT Act were brought into effect in
April 2000.
38  These amendments shifted responsibility for conducting preliminary determination
investigations of injury from the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue to the CITT.  There was a
corresponding shift of dumping and subsidization responsibilities for expiry reviews, which untilApril 2000 were conducted entirely by the CITT.  Starting from this date, responsibility for
determining the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping or subsidization and for expiry reviews
was passed to the CCRA.  The amendments also contain provisions governing the review and
termination of undertakings by the CCRA, the ini tiation and conduct of public interest inquiries in
respect of CITT findings, and the conduct of interim and expiry reviews of existing orders.
39
70. In the context of the new Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS) implemented by
the CCRA as part of a Customs Plan to streamline customs procedures and rely more on self-
assessment, measures to strengthen customs enforcement of self-assessment were introduced.  As a
result, for products subject to measures under the SIMA, penalties will be imposed for not providing a
proper product description, not using the correct SIMA code or not keeping proper records of
shipments subject to the SIMA.  The new system was fully implemented in October 2002.
71. Bill S-23, an Act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other Acts,
which received Royal Assent on 25 October 2001, amended the SIMA with respect to the payment,
collection or refund of any duty or interest on duty levied or returned under the Act.  The amendments
to the SIMA came into effect on 1 July 2002.  The Act also introduced provisions introducing
procedural changes with respect to the imposition of provisional duties.40  As a result, where an
importer does not pay provisional duties within the required time, interest will be charged from thedate on which the duties were to be paid.
Anti-dumping investigations
72. As of December 2001, 91 Canadian anti-dumpi ng measures plus three price undertakings
remained in force (Chart III.4 and Table AIII.1).  This is an increase relative to the 85 measures inplace at the time of Canada's last Review, and 73 at the time of its 1998 Review.  Some 37 countries
or customs territories are affected by these measures;  EU and U.S. suppliers are the subject of most
actions.  Some 64 duties (70% of the total) cover steel products.  During 2000 and 2001, 32 new final
measures were imposed, including mostly steel products such as stainless steel round bars and hot-
rolled carbon steel sheet.  In the first half of 2002, four anti-dumping measures were revoked, all of
                                                     
38 Act to Amend the Special Import Measures Act and Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act,
1999, Statutes of Canada, chapter 12;  the Regulations Amending the Special Import Measures regulations,
SOR/2000-138;  and the Rules Amending the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules, SOR/2000-139.
39 WTO document G/ADP/N/1/CAN/3/Add.1, G/SCM/N/1/CAN/3/Add.1, 2 October 2000.
40 Available at:  http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/S-23/S-23_4/S-
23TOCE.html.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 45
which applied to the United States, bringing the number of anti-dumping definitive duties in place
down to 87.41
0246810121416
United
StatesE U15 China Korea, 
Rep. ofChinese
Ta i pe iOther  A sia L atin
AmericaCentral
Eu r o pe a n
Tra n s i t i o n
CountriesOther s
Source:  WTO Secretariat. Chart III.4
Anti-dumping duties in force, by partner, 31 December 2001
 Steel
Other products
73. In the period January 2000 to December 2001, there were 46 anti-dumping investigation
initiations, of which 37 concerned products of the steel industry (Table III.5).42  This compares with
28 new actions initiated in the period covered in Canada's previous Review, and 20 between
January 1996 and June 1998.  Four new investigations were initiated in the first half of 2002, dealing
with waterproof footwear from Hong Kong, Ch ina;  Macao, China;  and Viet Nam; and with
xanthates from China.
74. Provisional duties were applied in 43 of the investigations (93.5% of the total) in the
investigations initiated in 2000 and 2001, and in all but one of the investigations dealing with steel
products.  Three investigations were terminated at the preliminary determination.  In 16 of the cases
(14 dealing with steel products), a final determination of no injury was made and no final measures
were applied.  Four cases involving steel products were terminated due to negligible volumes of
dumped imports.  In the case of the steel industry, in 39% of the cases provisional duties were applied
in investigations that resulted in a no injury de termination, and in some cases the provisional duties
were high (up to 69%).  This provided protection to the domestic industry for a period of about four
months at the expense of the foreign supplier (Table III.5).  Moreover, in cases where final dutieswere applied, provisional duties have been historically, on average, as high or higher than final duties.
                                                     
41 WTO document G/ADP/N/92/CAN, 25 July 2002.  The orders revoked related to:  polyiso insulation
board:  machine tufted carpeting;  Iceb erg lettuce;  and concrete panels.
42 For information on all active cases see CCRA online information.  Available at:  http://www.ccra-
adrc.gc.ca/customs/business/sima/monthly-e.html.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 46
Table III.5
Anti-dumping investigation initiations, 1 January 2000-31 December 2001
Country/customs
territory ProductInitiation
dateProvisional measures
date, dumping
marginDefinitive duty, date,
dumping marginNo  injury
date Trade volumeDumped
imports/
domestic
consumpt.
Brazil Stainless steel round bar 31.03.00 29.06.00, 24.3%  27.10.00, 37.3% 965 tons CF
Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 35.7% 17.08.01 24,189 m.t. 0.4%
Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 10.71% 09.10.01 74,710 tons 4.1%
Bulgaria Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 49% 17.08.01 22,178 m.t. 0.4%
China Waterproof footwear 12.05.00 10.08.00, 33% 08.12.00, 33% 4,108,000 pairs 14%
Garlic 31.10.00 02.01.01, 68.1% 02.05.01 7,533,369 kg. 52.1%
Corrosion-resistant steel sheet 04.12.00 05.03.01, 37.2% 03.07.01 7, 806 m.t. CF
Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 25.4% 17.08.01 137,224 m.t. 1.8%
Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 17.99% 09.10.01 46,117 tons 2.9%
Leath. footwear met. toecaps 15.06.01 29.08.01, 39.4% 27.12.01 1,317,887 pairs 43%
Automotive windshields 18.12.01
Chinese Taipei Corrosion-resistant steel sheet 04.12.00 05.03.01, 8% 03.07.01 32,904 m.t. CF
Reinforcing bar (steel) 03.11.00 01.02.01, 40.9% 01.06.01 12,095 m.t. CF
Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 46.3% 17.08.01 153,917 m.t. 2.7%
Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 28.71% 09.10.01 41,640 tons 2.66%
FYR of Macedonia Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 49% 17.08.01 10,899 m.t. 0.2%
Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 69.14% 11.09.01, terminated
(negligible imports)2,902 tons 0.1%
India Corrosion-resistant steel sheet 04.12.00 05.03.01, 22.7% 03.07.01 15,981 m.t. CF
Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 26.3% 17.08.01 243,471 m.t. 4.4%
Indonesia Reinforcing steel bar 03.11.00 01.02.01, 40.9% 01.06.01 20,282 m.t. CF
Italy Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 69.14% 11.09.01, terminated
(negligible imports)6,031 tons 0.4%
Japan Reinforcing steel bar 03.11.0001.02.01, 37.3-40.9% 01.06.01 33,594 m.t. CF
Korea, Republic of Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 34.2% 17.08.01 66,429 m.t. 1.2%
Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 68.64% 09.10.01 61,505 tons 4.1%
Latvia Reinforcing steel bar 03.11.00 01.02.01, 3.9% 01.06.01 27,228 m.t. CF
Luxembourg Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 2.47% 11.09.01, terminated
(negligible imports)4,082 tons 0.1%
Malaysia Corrosion-resistant steel sheet 04.12.00 05.03.01, 4.1% 03.07.01 13,605 m.t. CF
Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 14.67% 11.09.01, terminated
(negligible imports)2,153 tons 0.2%
Moldova Reinforcing steel bar 03.11.00 01.02.01, 40.9% 01.06.01 20,064 m.t. CF
New Zealand Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 28.6% 17.08.01 20,839 m.t. 0.3%
Norway Pulp-dewatering screw press 27.11.00 19.01.01
(no dumping)
Poland Reinforcing steel bar 03.11.00 01.02.01, 40.9% 01.06.01 9,658 m.t. CF
Portugal Corrosion-resistant steel sheet 04.12.00 05.03.01
(no dumping)
Russian Federation Corrosion-resistant steel sheet 04.12.00 05.03.01, 16.7% 03.07.01 29,452 m.t. CF
Saudi Arabia Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 49% 17.08.01 35,300 m.t. 0.6%
South Africa Corrosion-resistant steel sheet 04.12.00 05.03.01, 22.4% 03.07.01 5,442 m.t. CF
Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 26.4% 17.08.01 37,631 m.t. 0.7%
Cold-rolled steel sheet 12.03.01 11.06.01, 33.97% 09.10.01 10,302 tons 0.7%
Thailand Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01
(no dumping)
Ukraine Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 49% 17.08.01 22,111 m.t. 0.4%
Reinforcing steel bar 03.11.00 01.02.01, 13-22% 01.06.01 70,290 m.t. CF
United States Bingo paper 20.03.00 05.07.00, 43.5% 27.09.00 CF CF
Fresh tomatoes 09.11.01 25.03.02, 1.71% 26.06.02 141,041 m.t. 47%
Grain corn 09.08.00 07.11.00,
US$0.67/bushel07.03.01 14 millio n
bushels50%
Viet Nam Garlic 31.10.00 02.01.01, 55.7% 02.05.01 389,291 k g 5.2%
Yugoslavia, F.R. Hot-rolled steel sheet 19.01.01 19.04.01, 49% 17.08.01 30,455 m.t. 0.6%
m.t.: Metric tonnes.
CF: Confidential.Source: WTO documents G/ADP/N/65/CAN, 30 August 2000;  G/ADP/N/72/CAN, 2 March 2001, G/ADP/N/78/CAN,
29 August 2001;  and G/ADP/N/85/CAN 18 February 2002.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 47
75. A recent study conducted by the CITT, shows that, on balance, the difference in the margin of
dumping between provisional and definitive determinations is relatively small.  However, the study
also noted that provisional margins of dumping tend to be somewhat higher than final margins, and
that although far from conspicuous, there was a slightly increasing trend in recent years.43  I n  t h e
context of Canada's last Review, the authorities noted that the high number of investigations where
provisional measures were applied reflected the high proportion of complaints rejected prior toinitiation.
76. The CITT estimates that anti-dumping actions affect only a minor fraction (less than 1%) of
Canada's imports  In some cases, duties are applied on imports that account for a fairly small share of
the domestic market (Table III.5).  Moreover, cumulation is used in most multi-country investigations
to determine injury, particularly those dealing with steel products.  Also, and despite cumulation, insome cases dumped imports from all the investigated countries put together have represented a
relatively small share of the Canadian market.  In this respect, the authorities have noted that the
volume of dumped imports is only one factor examined when determining injury, and that the prices
of dumped imports and their effect on the domestic market are also examined.  The authorities
consider that small volumes of low-priced imports, or  even low-price offerings, can have a significant
effect on prices in the domestic market, which in their view is competitive enough that a single offer
to sell goods at a certain price is sufficient to reduce prices.  This suggests, however, that injury is
narrowly focused on percentage changes even in cases where the absolute market shares and the
margin of dumping remain low.
77. Since Canada's last Review, as a result of sunset reviews, progress has been made with
respect to the duration of actions under Canada's legislation.  In May 2002, 9% of the measures had
been in place for ten years or more, compared with 16% at the time of the last Review (WTO (2000)).A total of 17 anti-dumping orders were revoked in 2000 and 2001, most were expiries due to absence
of request for a review.
44
78. In the period January 2000-June 2002, the CITT and the CCRA completed 12 expiry reviews,
including an undertaking, affecting some 26 anti-dumping duty orders. Some 19 review orders were
continued, and seven were rescinded (three of them in 2002), including one concerning anundertaking.
45
79. In the January 2000-December 2001 period, the CITT received four requests for interim
reviews;  in three cases (two requests regarding fresh garlic and one regarding machine tufted
carpeting), the CITT decided that an interim review was not warranted, and in one case (fresh lettuce
from the United States), the order was rescinded.  In the same period, the CITT received two requestsfor public interest inquiries.  In the first case, concerning a finding of injury in an iodinated contrast
media investigation, the CITT was of the opinion that the imposition of the anti-dumping duties in the
full amount was not in the public interest, and recommended a reduction of the duties, which were
subsequently lowered by up to 80%.  In the second case, a public interest request referred to injury
findings in an investigation concerning certain refrigerators, dishwashers, and dryers, the CITT wasnot convinced that there was public interest that warranted further investigation.
                                                     
43 CITT (2000), Analysis of Changes in Margins of Dumping.
44 These concerned:  caps, lids, and jars suitable for home canning, from the United States;  refill paper,
from Brazil;  certain stainless steel welded pipe from Chinese Taipei;  and photo albums with self-adhesive
leaves, imported together or separately, and self-adhes ive leaves, from China;  Chinese Taipei; Hong Kong,
China;  Indonesia;  Korea;  Malaysia;  the Philippines;  Singapore;  and Thailand.
45 Some of the orders continued by the CITT include:  women's boots from China;  certain carbon steel
welded pipe from Korea;  whole potatoes imported into British Columbia from the United States;  and refinedsugar from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 48
(c) Countervailing measures
80. Although Canada has initiated relatively few countervailing investigations in the past, there
has been a substantial increase in initiations in the period under review.  Between January 2000 and
December 2001 five new investigations were initiated, four related to the steel industry.  In three of
these cases definitive duties had been applied by end 2001.  In two cases - corrosion-resistant steel
sheet from India and grain corn from the United States - no injury was found, and no final duties wereapplied, but provisional duties had been levied.
46  The authorities noted that these duties were
refunded.  In the first six months of 2002, no new investigations were started.47
81. By the end of June 2002, there were ten countervailing duty orders in place, compared with
six at the time of Canada's previous Review (Table III.6).
Table III.6
Countervailing duty measures in force, 30 June 2002
Country Product Date of finding
Brazil Stainless steel round bar 27.10.00
Denmark Canned ham 07.08.84 (16.03.90) (21.03.95) (20.03.00)
European Union Refined sugar 06.11.95 (03.11.00)
India Black granite memorials 20.07.94 (19.07.99)
India Hot-rolled carbon steel plate 27.06.00
India Hot-rolled steel sheet 17.08.01
India Stainless steel round bar 27.10.00
Indonesia Hot-rolled carbon steel plate 27.06.00
Netherlands Canned ham 07.08.84 (16.03.90) (21.03.95)
Thailand Hot-rolled carbon steel plate 27.06.00
Note: A subsequent date is shown in brackets if the injury finding was reviewed and re-affirmed.
Source: WTO documents G/SCM/N/81/CAN, 22 February 2002, and G/SCM/N/87/CAN, 29 July 2002.
(vi) Quantitative restrictions and controls
82. Canada's quantitative import controls and restrictions are mostly in place to ensure national
security, safeguard consumer health and morality, to implement inter-governmental arrangements, or
to preserve domestic plant and animal life and the environment (see also (3)(i) for the case ofexports).  Quantitative restrictions and controls are implemented through a system of licences.
48
Table III.7 summarizes the products subject to import licences.  The remainder of this section focuseson import restrictions maintained for economic purposes.
83. Products subject to quantitative restrictions or import licensing to protect domestic industries
from import competition are listed on the Import Control List established under the Export and Import
Permits Act.  Items may be added to the Import Control List by the Governor-in-Council for various
purposes, as cited in section 5 of the EIPA, including when it appears that they are being imported or
are likely to be imported into Canada at such prices, in such quantities and under such conditions as tocause or threaten serious injury to the production in Canada of like or directly competitive goods.
                                                     
46 CITT Inquiry No:  NQ-2000-005 [Online] Available at:  http://www.citt.gc.ca./dumping/Inquirie/
Findings/nq2a005e/nq2a005e.htm.
47 Canada's latest notifications on countervailing duty measures is contained in WTO documents
G/SCM/N/81/CAN, 22 February 2002, and G/SCM/N/87/CAN, 29 July 2002.
48 These are handled by the Export and Import Bureau (DFAIT);  online information is available at:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/"eicb/epd_ home.htm.  Canada  last notified its impor t licensing procedures in
WTO document G/LIC/N/3/CAN/4, 18 January 2002.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 49
Table III.7
Controlled or licensed importations, June 2002
Legislation Products Purpose
Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act
Food and Drug ActControlled drugs (e.g. amphetamine, methamphetamine,
barbituric acids), narcotics (e.g. codeine, morphine), and
restricted drugs (used only for research, not commercial sale)To ensure that the quantity of drugs
imported does not exceed medical
needs
Industrial hemp To permit the legal production and
processing of hemp for commercialpurposes while providing
compliance and enforcement
mechanisms to prevent diversion of
Cannabis to the illicit drug market
Medical devices Safety and effectiveness
Explosives Act Blasting explosives, detonators, propellants, cartridges, and
all types of fireworks and pyrotechnic devicesSafety
Nuclear Safety and Control Act Nuclear equipment and information, radio-active devices,
and nuclear substances (e.g. deuterium, thorium, uranium,their respective derivatives or compounds;  radioactive
nuclides;  substances capable of releasing nuclear energy;
radioactive by-products of the development, production oruse of nuclear energy;  and radioactive substances used for
the development, production or use of nuclear energy)Safety, security, health,
environment
Plant Protection Act Plants and products Protection against pests
Canadian Environmental Protection
ActHazardous waste;  ozone-depleting substances Environment;  health
Wild Animal and Plant Protection
and Regulation of International and
Interprovincial Trade ActEndangered species Conservation, environment
Firearms Act Firearms, weapons and devices Security, safety
Health of Animals Act Animals, birds and products Protection against foreign animal
diseases
National Energy Board Act Natural gas Equitable distribution of natural
gas
Export and Import Permits Act Broiler hatching eggs and chicks;  eggs and egg products;
turkey and turkey products;  chicken and chicken products;
beef and veal;  margarine;  wheat and barley and theirproducts;  cheese, yoghurt, butter, milk and cream,
buttermilk, ice cream and other dairy productsTo implement tariff quotas
maintained under the WTO
Agreement on Agriculture
Cut roses and rose buds from Israel Implementation of Canada-Israel
Free Trade Agreement
Yarns i.e. polyester, acrylic and nylon yarns Implementation of restraints under
the WTO Agreement on Textiles
and Clothing
Fabrics, i.e. polyester or polyester-cotton, cotton, wool,nylon, cellulose acetate broadwoven fabrics
Made-up, i.e. cotton terry towels and washcloths; workgloves; bedsheets and pillowcases;  and handbags.
Apparel, i.e. winter outerwear;  hosiery;  pants, slacks, jeans,overalls, coveralls and outershirts;  blouses and shirts,
T-shirts and sweatshirts;  sleepwear and bathrobes;
rainwear; sportswear, dresses, skirts, coordinates ormatching sets;  foundation garments;  swimwear;
underwear, jackets, overcoats, topcoats, professional coats
and shopcoats;  fine suits, sportscoats and blazers;  shirts
with tailored collars; sweaters, pullovers and cardigans.
Carbon and speciality steel Import monitoring
Motor Vehicle Safety Act Motor vehicles and tyres Respect of safety regulations and
emission standards
Source: WTO document G/LIC/N/3/CAN/4, 18 January 2002;  and Government of Canada.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 50
(a) Agri-food products
84. In 1995, as part of its WTO commitments Canada converted its quantitative restrictions on
imports of agri-food products to a system of tariff quotas;  imports within the access commitment
require a permit issued through the Export and Impor t Controls Bureau in order to benefit from the
lower rate of duty.  These tariff quotas are described in Chapter IV(2).
85. Other restrictions on agri-food trade, described in Canada's previous Review, include the
prohibition of consignment selling.  Consignment selling means that fresh fruits and vegetables are
shipped interprovincially or imported into Canada without a firm purchase price or agreement to
purchase at a fixed price.  Since February 2000, Canadian and foreign sellers of these products can
join the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Co rporation (DRC), and thus be exempt from this
prohibition.  Approximately 80% of sellers were DRC members in late 2002;  the authorities expectthat percentage to rise further once the DRC is fully established.
49  Imports (and interprovincial
movement) of bulk horticultural products that do not meet standardized quality, labelling, and
packaging requirements are also restricted.  The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Regulations (Regulations)
prescribe safety, quality, packaging and labelling standards for 30 fresh fruits and vegetables moving
interprovincially or internationally.  Importers or dealers moving produce interprovincially, must meetall the requirements of the Regulations.  Exemptions are granted from the quality, packaging and
labelling standards only where there is a shortage of domestic supply.
(b) Other products
86. Since the 1960s, tariffs on textiles and clothing have been complemented by import quotas;
these are being progressively dismantled over a ten-year period until January 2005 under the WTO
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  In late 2002, about one half of the value of clothing imports
entered the Canadian market under quota (Chapter IV(3)).
87. Carbon steel and specialty steel products have  been on the Import Control List since 1987.
50
The monitoring system applies to imports from all countries.  The authorities have stated that the
programme is not intended to restrict the quantity or value of imports, but rather monitors the volume
and the origin of carbon and specialty steel products (see also Chapter IV(4)).51
88. The following imports are prohibited under the Customs Tariff:  second-hand motor vehicles
less than 15 years old, except if manufactured in the United States;  used or second-hand aircraft,
except if imported from the United States;  and reprints of Canadian and British works copyrighted in
Canada.
                                                     
49 Import licensing requirements for fresh fruit and vegetables are described in the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency online information.
50 Carbon steel products are defined as semi-finished steel (ingots, blooms, billets, slabs and sheet
bars), plate, sheet and strip, wire rods, wire and wire products, railway-type products, bars, structural shapes and
units, and pipe and tube.  Specialty steel products are de fined as stainless flat-rolled products (sheet, strip and
plate), stainless steel bar, stainless st eel pipe and tube, stainless steel wire  and wire products, alloy tool steel,
mold steel, and high speed steel.
51 WTO document G/LIC/N/3/CAN/4, 18 January 2002.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 51
(vii) Standards, technical regulations, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures
(a) Standards and technical regulations
89. The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is the focal point for standardization and conformity
assessment in Canada, and operates the Enquiry Point under the TBT and SPS Agreements.  The SCC
approves national standards and represents Canada in international standards forums.52  T h e  S C C
heads and oversees the work of the National Sta ndards System (NSS), a network of approximately
15,000 individuals and over 400 accredited organizations and partners involved in standards
development, promotion, and implementation in Canada.  The SCC participates in numerous
international standardization activities with the ultimate goal of enabling Canadian exporters to use a
single test, certification or registration to gain market acceptance anywhere in the world.
90. Standards policy is devised by the SCC with the collaboration of advisory committees;  the
Advisory Committee on Trade advises and makes r ecommendations to the SCC on international and
internal trade-related matters.  The SCC assists the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade (DFAIT) in formulating Cana dian policy positions on standards-related issues in the WTO.
The SCC accepted the TBT Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of
Standards, in 1999, has adopted ISO/IEC Guide 59, the code of good practice for standardization, andis considering the adoption of ISO/IEC Guide 60, the code-of-good-practice for conformity
assessment, currently under revision.
91. The Government of Canada Regulatory Policy, a Cabinet directive, governs the development
and implementation of compulsory federal regulations.  The Policy is designed to ensure that the use
of the Government's regulatory powers results in the greatest net benefit to Canadian society.  In
accordance with the Policy, a specific directive must be followed when regulating.  The Privy Council
Office (the Government of Canada's central agency, reporting to the Prime Minister) has generalresponsibility for assessing the effectiveness of the Policy, its implementation and its elaboration.
53
92. Various federal and provincial authorities develop and implement technical regulations as part
of their mandate, and also revise and review existing regulations.  In developing regulations,
regulatory authorities are encouraged to follow the Guide to the Regulatory Process.  This guide
outlines a multi-step process to regulating as well as key participants in the regulatory process.54
Standards can form the basis of an entire regulation or can be partially referenced in a regulatory
measure and supplemented with policies, guidelines, and operating procedures.
93. The authorities noted that, starting in the late 1980s, there has been a general downward trend
in the annual rate of increase of federal regulations (Chart III.5).  In comparing the total number of
federal regulations (including new, amended, repealed, revised) added to the stock during the 1980s tothe 1990s, a drop in the total number of regulations was observed.  However, since regulations are not
classified according to their nature, but under which statute they were enacted, the authorities stated
that it was difficult to estimate the precise number of technical regulations in force.
                                                     
52 More information on the activities of the SCC may be found online at:  http://www.scc.
ca/home_e.html.
53 The full text of the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy is available online at:  www.pco-
bcp.gc.ca/raoics-rdc/default.asp?Language=E&Page=AboutRegs&Sub=Policy.
54 The full text of the Guide to the Regulatory Process is available online at:  www.pco-
bcp.gc.ca/raoics-srdc/default.asp?La nguage=E&Page=AboutRegs&Sub=Process.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 52
02004006008001,0001,2001,400
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000Chart III.5                                            
Technical regulations enacted by the Government of Canada, 1972-01
Number
Source:  Data provided by the Canadian authorities.
94. Canada maintains technical regulations in areas such as construction, chemicals,
pharmaceuticals, energy, food, transport equipment, telecommunications, the environment, and others
(Table III.8).  It is not possible, however, to estimate the product-categories more often affected bytechnical regulations as the authorities do not classify its regulations using product classifications,
such as the Harmonized System (HS), as regulations often have an impact across numerous product-
categories.
95. The SCC has accredited four standards development organizations, which administer
technical committees responsible for determining th e content of standards. Accredited standards-
development organizations may submit standards to the SCC for approval as National Standards of
Canada (NSC).  The four organizations are:  the Canadian General Standards Board  (CGSB);  the
Canadian Standards Association;  Underwriters' La boratories of Canada (UL Canada), which provides
the North American Mark of Safety;  and the Bureau de normalisation du Québec (BNQ). When
developing standards, standards are developed on a consensus basis by the four standard-developmentorganizations, with the participation and cooperation of all parties concerned in a sector.  When
developing standards, standards developers must first determine whether an international standard
could be adopted or adapted to meet the required outcome.  Standard developers are not involved in
the development of technical regulations.  However, standards developed by these organizations may
become referenced in legislation.
96. The SCC operates a variety of accreditation programmes.  There are currently 22 accredited
certification bodies;  more than half are located in the United States.  As of December 2002, therewere 331 accredited laboratories and 28 accredited  registrars for quality management systems and
environmental management systems.  The National Research Council of Canada's Institute for
National Measurement Standards (INMS) is responsible for metrology activity in Canada.  The SCC
and INMS Calibration Laboratory Assessment Service (CLAS) operates an accreditation programme
for secondary calibration laboratories.  This programme has accredited 25 laboratories.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 53
Table III.8
Technical and sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, main agencies and legislation
Area Main responsible agency Main legislation
Chemicals Health Canada (Product Safety Bureau, Health
Protection Branch), Environment Canada, PestManagement Regulatory Agency (relating to
pesticides)Hazardous Products Act unless covered by the
Explosives Act, Food and Drugs Act, Pest ControlProducts Act or Atomic Energy Control Act, Canadian
Environmental Protection Act
Building Provincial/territorial agencies Provincial/territorial legislation based on national
codes (National Building Code, National Fire Code,
National Plumbing Code, National Energy Codes)
Consumer productsother than foodIndustry Canada, Health Canada Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and
Regulations, Hazardous Products Act, Precious Metals
Marking Act and Regulations, Textile Labelling Act
and Textile Labelling and Advertising Regulations
Energy Natural Resources Canada (Office of Energy
Efficiency)  and provincial agenciesEnergy Efficiency Act and regulations, and provincial
regulations based on national standards
Environment Environment Canada, Health Canada, Canadian
Food Inspection Agency,  and provincial/territorial
agenciesFederal and provincial acts and regulations dealing
with environmental protection, pollution, preservation
of wildlife and environmental assessment
Food Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada Food and Drugs Act and regulations and other statutes
(e.g., Canada Agricultural Products Act, Consumer
Packaging and Labelling Act, Feeds Act, the FertilizerAct, Fish Inspection Act, Food and Drug Act, Meat
Inspection Act, Seeds Act) complemented by
provincial legislation
Measuring devices Industry Canada Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, Weights and
Measures Act
Medical devices Health Canada Food and Drugs Act, Medical Devices Regulations
Pharmaceuticals Health Canada Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, National
Narcotic Control Act and regulations
TelecommunicationsEquipmentIndustry Canada (Director General, Spectrum
Engineering Branch)Telecommunications Act, Radio Communications Act
and interference-causing equipment regulations
Transport equipment Transport Canada and provincial/territorial
agenciesMotor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations,
complemented by provincial legislation
Source: Information provided by the Canadian authorities.
97. Technical regulations and standards continue to differ among provinces.  The SCC's
Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (IGAT) Branch has begun to work more closely with the
Agreement on Internal Trade Secretariat to reduce the effect of these differences.  The SCC promotes
standards and conformity assessment as solutions to interprovincial trade and regulatory obstacles.  In
this respect, for example, the SCC considers that the introduction of the standard ISO/IEC 17024,
General Requirements for Bodies Operating Certi ﬁcation Systems of Persons, could improve the
interprovincial acceptance of professional quali ﬁcations by providing a common basis for their
recognition.
98. A Canadian Standards Strategy was launched in March 2000, and has since then been the
guiding framework for the work of the SCC and th e NSS.  The Strategy aims, on the international
front, to promote the use of adopted or adapted internationally accepted standards to the greatestextent possible.  The Strategy seeks to prioritize standardization efforts and resources within three key
areas:  where Canadians have a major interest in health, safety, the environment or social issues;  trade
sectors in which there are existing or potential bene ﬁts to Canadians;  and the harmonization of
standards where appropriate, especially within North American markets.  The Strategy calls for the
SCC to become more formally involved in govern ment-led international and regional trade initiatives
such as the NAFTA, the FTAA and APEC.  The SCC is also to actively pursue new international
arrangements of anticipated bene ﬁt to Canada with respect to conformity assessment practices.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 54
99. Canada considers the international harmonization of standards as an important element to
enhance trade.  To increase harmonization, Canadian standard development organizations are working
closely with their U.S. counterparts.  In 2001, Canada and the United States created a bi-national
committee for IEC’s technical committee on electromagnetic ﬁeld exposure, to discuss positions and
agree on joint strategies, while continuing to issue individual positions.  The IEC National
Committees of Canada, Mexico, and the United States have met annually over the past 20 years todiscuss issues before IEC, to encourage greater electrotechnical cooperation and to be better prepared
as a region to contribute to international standardization at IEC.  To strengthen regional ties in
electrotechnical standardization, the tri-national group decided to include other countries of the
Americas, under an initiative known as the Electrotechnical Cooperation of the Americas launched in
September 2001.
100. Another tool considered useful by Canada to harmonize standards and simplify conformity
requirements is the signing of mutual recognition arrangements (MRAs).  At government level,
Canada has MRAs on conformity assessment with the European Union, Switzerland, and the other
EFTA countries.  Canada has endorsed the APEC Mutual Recognition Arrangement ontelecommunications, and the MRA for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications Equipment of
the Americas.  The SCC participates in voluntary MRAs with accreditation bodies at both the
international and the regional levels.  To ensure that MRAs do not contradict Canadian trade interests
and regulatory objectives, DFAIT and the SCC have developed criteria for undertaking new
negotiations and enhancing existing agreements.  The goal is to ensure coordination between trade,regulatory, and standards initiatives.  The authorities have noted that mutual recognition agreements
can deal with issues where provincial governments have regulatory responsibility and hence,
provinces play a role in the determination of the regulatory objectives to be achieved through MRAs.
101. In the period 2000 to mid 2002, Canada made 64 notifications of new technical regulations to
the WTO Committee on TBT (26 in 2000, 25 in 2001, and 13 in the first half of 2002).  Most
measures had health, safety or environmental grounds, and concerned largely food, drugs, tobacco,
chemical substances, motor vehicles, telecommunications equipment, or services.
55  A s  o f
October 2002, 18 of the 64 proposed changes had not yet been adopted, generally because the process
of actioning comments had not been concluded or because insufficient time had passed for theregulation to be enacted.
102. In the period under review, Canada presente d a number of communications and proposals to
the TBT Committee, including with respect to labelling.
56  Canada's position is that the TBT
Agreement provisions are balanced and adequate as regards labelling, and it sees no compellingrationale to renegotiate existing rules, or to begin negotiations of new rules.
103. Since the beginning of the WTO, Canada has been involved in six disputes involving the TBT
Agreement, all as a complainant;  it has been involved in no such disputes since 2000.  Five of these
disputes involved also the SPS Agreement;  in four of them SPS issues were the major concern (seealso section (c) below).  The disputes regarded certain measures by the United States affecting the
import of cattle, swine, and grain;  measures by the EU affecting imports of  wood of conifers from
Canada;  measures by the EU affecting asbestos and products containing asbestos;  measures by
Korea concerning bottled water;  measures by the EU affecting livestock and meat (hormones);  and
measures by the EU with respect to the trade description of scallops.
57  In the scallop case, a mutually
agreed solution was reached.
                                                     
55 WTO document series G/TBT/N/CAN/.
56 WTO document G/TBT/W/174/Rev.1, 31 May 2002.
57 WTO documents WT/DS144/1, G/ L/260, G/SPS/W/90, G/TBT/D/18, G/AG/GEN/27, 29 September 1998;
WT/DS137/1, G/SPS/GEN/84, G/TBT/D/ 17, 24 June 1998;  WT/DS135/1,  G/SPS/GEN/72, G/TBT/D/15, 3 June
1998;  WT/DS20/1, G/SPS/W/35, G/TB T/D/4, 22 November 1995;  WT/DS48/1, G/SPS/W/71, G/TBT/D/7, 8 July
1996;  and WT/DS7/12, G/TBT/D/8, 19 July 1996.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 55
(b) Environmental regulations and trade
104. Environmental policy is designed and monitored jointly by the federal and
provincial/territorial authorities.  At the federal le vel, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the
Environment, through Environment Canada.  The main legislation is the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act (CEPA), as amended in 1999, and effective since 31 March 2000.  The amendments
created a framework for cooperation and coordina tion between federal, provincial, and territorial
governments;  they also established a public registry, and gave citizens the right to sue where a CEPA
violation results in significant harm to the environment, and the federal government fails to take
action.  Other legislation dealing with environmental and trade issues include the Department of the
Environment Act, the Canada Water Act, the Canada  Wildlife Act, the National Wildlife Act, the
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Inter-provincial Trade Act, andthe Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, among others.
105. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is administered by the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency.  The Act requires federal departments, including Environment Canada and
agencies to conduct environmental assessments for proposed projects where the federal government is
the proponent, provides funding, grants an interest in land to enable a project, or issues a permit orlicence.  Departments maintain public registries of the environmental assessments carried out under
the Act for which they are responsible.
106. Canada also conducts strategic environmental assessments of trade negotiations, in
accordance with the non-legislated 1999 Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of
Policy, Plan and Program Proposals.  The Framework for Conducting Environmental Assessments of
Trade Negotiations (2001) establishes the process and analytical requirements for conducting such
assessments.  The Framework's twin objectives are to assist Canadian negotiators integrateenvironmental considerations into the negotiating process;  and to address public concerns by
documenting how environmental factors are being considered in the course of trade negotiations.
107. The CEPA requires that the importation or manufacture of any new substance is subject to a
notification and assessment procedure specified in the New Substances Notification Regulations
(NSN).
58  The NSN Regulations apply to chemicals, polymers, and inanimate and animate products of
biotechnology.  The notification packages include test data relating to physiochemical properties,
environmental behaviour and/or toxicity.  NSN Regulations Multi-stakeholder Consultations were
held between November 1999 and August 2001;  representatives from Environment Canada, Health
Canada, industry and public advocacy groups participated, and a report was produced with
recommendations to improve the NSN regulatory framework and enhance its transparency.59
108. All environmental measures notified by Canada to the WTO under the different agreements
are contained in the WTO Environmental Data Base.60  These include six notifications under the TBT
Agreement, several under the Agreement on Agriculture, and one under the SCM Agreement.
109. As discussed above, where there are no health and /or safety concerns, Canada favours the use
of voluntary labelling schemes to provide consumers with information about a particular product orservice.  Canada's main environmental labelling programme is Environmental Choice, a voluntary
programme established by the federal government and currently operated under licence by a private
                                                     
58 See Environment Canada online information.  Available at:  http://www.ec.gc.ca.
59 http://www.ec.gc.ca/Ceparegistry/documents/regulations/nsnr_nsp_e.pdf.
60 WTO documents WT/CTE/W/118, 28 June 1999;  WT/CTE/W/143, 22 June 2000;
WT/CTE/W/195, 20 June 2001;  WT/CTE/W/195/Corr.1, 12 October 2001;  WT/CTE/EDB/1, 31 May 2002;and WT/CTE/EDB/1/Corr.13, 13 June 2002.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 56
company, Terra Choice Inc.  Just under 32,000 products and services have been  certified to carry an
EcoLogo label.  Two key features of the programme are that it looks at the total impact of a product
across its life cycle and the use of third party audits to verify the labelling claims.
(c) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
110. The Food and Drug Act and Regulations are the main legal and regulatory instruments
governing SPS food safety issues in Canada.  The Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Actwith their associated Regulations are the main lega l and regulatory instruments governing animal and
plant health SPS issues in Canada.
111. Health Canada is responsible for policy deve lopment and standard-setting with respect to
food safety and nutrition.  It also engages in food safety risk assessment, research, pre-market review
and evaluation, surveillance of food-borne, water-borne and enteric illnesses, and assessment of theeffectiveness of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) activities with respect to food safety.
The CFIA centralizes all federally mandated food inspection services related to food safety, economic
fraud, trade-related requirements, and animal and plant health programmes including quarantine
services.  The CFIA is responsible for preventing the introduction into the Canadian market of food
products deemed unsafe, diseased animals or plants that pose a risk to public, animal or plant health.The CFIA may apply to a court for an interim injunction to prevent a contravention of the Food and
Drug Act, or any other Act for which it is responsible.  It has three regional Import Service Centers,
which process documents and respond to information requests from importers across Canada for all
goods regulated by the CFIA.
112. Canada is an active participant in the work of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Committee, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the  Office international des epizooties (OIE) and
the International Plant Protection Convention of 1991.  A total of 62 notifications were submitted tothe SPS Committee between 2000 and mid 2002, a higher number than reported in the 2000 Review
(40).  Most of the notifications refer to proposed amendments to the Food and Drug Regulations;
many of these amendments establish new maximum residue levels (MRLs) for various chemicals
contained in edible fruit, vegetables, beans, and cereals.  Other notifications refer to the approval of
the use of certain enzymes for food production, or of certain pesticides or herbicides.
113. A few of the measures notified were emergency measures with a restrictive effect on imports
from determined sources, for example the suspen sion of the importation of live animals and animal
products from Argentina, the European Union, and Uruguay following an outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease.
61  At the end of 2002, this suspension had been lifted for the EU, but was still in place for
Argentina and Uruguay.  Another measure prohibits the importation of propagative or non-propagative material from nursery stock of host speci es, forest products with bark (logs) of host
species, and soil from Germany, the Netherlands , the United Kingdom, Spain, twelve  counties of the
U.S. state of California, and one county in the U. S. state of Oregon to prevent the entry the of the
sudden oak death pest.
62  This plant health restriction was still in place in late 2002.
114. Canada has applied import controls on live animals (ruminants), and their meat and meat
products from countries that have confirmed cases of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
(TSE), including BSE, in native animals, since the early 1990s.  In 1990, Canada stopped importation
of ruminants from the United Kingdom and Ireland.  In 1994, it stopped the importation of cattle from
                                                     
61 WTO documents G/SPS/N/CAN/98, 26 March 2001 (Argentina);  G/SPS/N/CAN/96,
19 March 2001 (United Kingdom);  G/SPS/N/CAN/99, 26 March 2001 (all EU countries);  G/SPS/N/CAN/102,4 May 2001 (Ur uguay).
62 WTO documents G/SPS/N/CAN/97, 19 March 2001, and G/SPS/N/CAN/141, 26 July 2002.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 57
all countries where BSE had been diagnosed.  In 1996, Canada implemented a new BSE policy that
allowed for importation of live animals (initially just cattle; extended to sheep and goats in 1998;  then
extended to all ruminants in February 2000), and their meat and meat products from countries
assessed to be free from BSE.  Other animal prod ucts (e.g. semen, hides and skins, dairy products)
considered exempt from BSE restrictions by the OIE can be imported, subject to meeting other SPS
import requirements.
115. Importation of live ruminants, their meat and meat products from any country requires a full
risk assessment, taking advantage, where possible, of the work done by other NAFTA countries.
Imports of permitted meat products from Brazil were temporarily suspended in February 2001, but
resumed a few weeks later under new conditions.  As of January 2003, Canada allowed commercial
imports of meat and meat products from ruminants born, raised or processed in Argentina, Australia,
Brazil, New Zealand, the United States, and Urugua y.  Processed ruminant meat products may be
imported from other countries with a recognized meat inspection system (e.g. UK, Italy, Poland);
however, the ruminant meat must have been obtained from the above six countries only.
116. The CFIA currently manages a number of product-specific bilateral agreements and protocols
with other countries on a wide range of food safety and animal and plant health issues.  The
authorities have noted that the purpose of this network of agreements is to ensure that Canada’s food
safety and animal and plant health standards, as well as other countries, are science-based andeffectively adhered to in a manner that avoids unnecessarily disrupting trade.
117. Canada has been involved in six disputes involving the SPS Agreement since the beginning of
the WTO;  all were as a complainant and before the period under review, and five involved also the
TBT Agreement.
63
(3) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS
(i) Export controls, restrictions and charges
(a) Main provisions
118. Most Canadian export controls are in place under the Export and Import Permits Act,
administered by the Export and Import Control Bureau.64  Section 3 of the Act, the Export Control
List (ECL) contains articles controlled for any of the following purposes:
− to control the export of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war or articles of a
strategic nature or value the use of which might be detrimental to the security of Canada;
− to encourage the further processing of certain natural resources in Canada;
− to ensure that there is an adequate supply and distribution of the article in Canada for defence
or other needs;
− to limit the export of goods in circumstances of surplus supply and depressed prices;  or
− to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment.
                                                     
63 WTO documents WT/DS144/1, G/TBT/D/18, G/L/260, G/SPS/W/90, G/TBT/D/18, G/AG/GEN/27,
29 September 1998;  WT/DS137/1, G/SPS/GEN/84, G/TBT/D/17, 24 June 1998;  WT/DS135/1,
G/SPS/GEN/72, G/TBT/D/15, 3 June 1998;  WT/DS20/1, G/SPS/W/35, G/TBT/D/4, 22 November 1995;
WT/DS48/1, G/SPS/W/71, G/TBT/D/7, 8 July 1996; 7/12, G/TBT/D/8, 19 July 1996.WT/DS18/1, G/L/28,G/SPS/W/29, 11 October 1995.
64 The text of the Act is available in the Department of Justice online information.  Available at:
http://laws.justice.gc. ca/en/E-19/51506.html.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 58
119. An export permit is required before an item included in the ECL may be exported
(Table III.9).
Table III.9
Export control list
Products
Group 1 – Dual Use List Advanced materials;  materials processing;  electronics;  computers;
telecommunications;  information security;  sensors and lasers;  navigation and avionics;
marine;  propulsion
Group 2 – Munitions List All munitions
Group 3 – Nuclear Non-Proliferation List All supplies and technology for nuclear production
Group 4 – Nuclear-Related Dual Use List All supplies and technology for nuclear production
Group 5 - Miscellaneous Goods Pancreas glands of cattle and calves (all destinations);  human serum albumin (all
destinations);  logs of all species of wood (all destinations);  pulpwood of all species of
wood (all destinations);  blocks, bolts, blanks, boards and any other material or product
of red cedar that is suitable for use in the manufacture of shakes or shingles (alldestinations);  softwood lumber products (United States);  peanut butter that is classified
under tariff item No. 2008.11.10 of Schedule I to the Customs Tariff (all destinations);
roe herring (all destinations);  sugar-containing products (United States);  sugars, syrupsand molasses (United States);  U.S. origin goods (all non-U.S. destinations);  goods in
transit;  prohibited weapons
Group 6 - Missile Technology Control
Regime ListAll missile systems
Group 7 – Chemical and BiologicalWeapons Non-Proliferation List Chemicals, precursors, biological agents, and related equipment
Group 8 – Chemicals for the Production
of Illicit DrugsAll related chemicals
Source: Government of Canada online information.  Available at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/~eicb/export/
contente.htm.
(b) Export controls for security purposes
120. Controls may be placed on exports of strategically controlled goods and technologies
(Table III.9) and on exports to particular countries listed on the Area Control List (Angola and
Myanmar as at mid-2002).  In addition, the Act covers re-exports of goods originating in theUnited States, in order to enforce U.S. restrictions on exports of controlled goods as well as U.S.
embargoes to certain countries.  In 2001, both the Act and the Export Control List were amended to
add certain U.S. origin goods on the ECL.
65
(c) Export restrictions for environmental purposes
121. Export restrictions for environmental purposes  are generally maintained either pursuant to
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), or to national environmental and resource
conservation programmes.  For example the exportation of species of wild fauna and flora from
Canada can be restricted under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES).66  CITES provisions are implemented under Canada's Wild Animal and Plant
Protection Act.  The Basel Convention is implem ented through hazardous waste trade regulations.
122. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Ac t (CEPA), exports of certain substances are
controlled because their manufacture, import or use in Canada is prohibited or severely restricted, or
                                                     
65 See Canada Gazette , Vol. 135 No. 2., p. 116 [Online].  Available at:  http://canada.gc.ca/gazette/
part2/pdf/g2-13502.pdf.  Specifically, the changes relate to the addition of an item 5504 on the ECL, containing
export of U.S. origin goods such as payloads for spacecraft, ground control stations, chemiluminescentcompounds, microelectronic circuits, and nuclear weapons design and test equipment.
66 The Canadian CITES Control List is available online at:  http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/control_12/
index.html.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 59
because Canada has accepted, through an international agreement, to control their export.  These
chemical substances are included in the Export Control List.67  An amendment to the CEPA in 1999,
among other things gave increased power to the Federal Government to control the transboundary
movement of hazardous wastes and hazardous recycl able material, as well as new power to control
the import, export, and transit of non-hazardous wastes for final disposal.68  In January 2002,
Environment Canada announced that it intended to revise the Export and Import of Hazardous WastesRegulations to implement the 1999 amendments to the CEPA.
69  The authorities expected the new
regulations to be published in the spring of 2003.
(d) Export restrictions for commercial purposes
123. Canada has traditionally imported a share of inputs for its clothing industry from MFN
sources.  Under the NAFTA "yarn forward" rule of  origin, however, exports to the United States of
clothing using these non-NAFTA originating inputs would not qualify as originating in Canada.
Therefore, the NAFTA allows specified quota amounts (the Tariff Preference Level) of non-
originating clothing and textiles products to be traded among partners duty free.  In certain cases,
notably woollen and cotton or man-made apparel, these tariff quotas are just about filled, suggesting
that exports of such products to the United States are restrained.70  The quotas have hardly been used
for exports to Mexico.71
124. Under the Softwood Lumber Agreement with the United States, Canada applied until 2001
fees on exports of softwood lumber, over certain amounts, to the United States.72  A fee of US$50 per
thousand board feet was applied to exports of be tween 14.7 and 15.35 billion board feet, while a fee
of US$100 per thousand board feet was levied on e xports above 15.35 billion board feet.  Exports
below 14.7 billion board feet were not subject to a fee.  In exchange, the United States agreed not to
initiate any anti-dumping, countervailing duty or safeguard investigation against these imports.  TheAgreement was in force between 1 April 1996 and 31 March 2001.
73  After its expiration, the United
States initiated anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations on Canadian softwood lumber
exports.74  In May 2002, the United States imposed countervailing and anti-dumping duties on imports
of softwood lumber from Canada. In late 2002 Canada was challenging the U.S. measures in the
NAFTA and the WTO (see Table AII.1).  In the contex t of this review, the Canadian authorities stated
that Canada remains open to pursuing a negotiated solution.
                                                     
67 For more information, see Environment Canada online information.  Available at:  http://www.ec.
gc.ca/CEPARegistry/subs_list/Export.cfm
68 For details, see CEPA regulations online informa tion.  Available at:  http://canada. justice.gc.ca/
FTP/EN/Regs/Chap/C/C-15.3/index.html;  and Environment Canada online information.  Available at:http://www.ec.gc.ca/cepa.
69 For more information, see Environment Canada online information.  Available at:  http://www.ec.
gc.ca/EPARegistry/documents/participation/eihwrdisc.cfm#sect10.4.1.
70 For information on utilization levels see Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
online information.  Available at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/~eicb/textile/ntpl-exe-dec01-e.htm.
71 See http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/~e icb/textile/ntpl-exe-dec01-e.htm.
72Article 11(1)(b) of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards stipulates that Members "shall not seek, take
or maintain any voluntary export restraints, orderly marketing arrangements or any other similar measures onthe export or import side.  These include actions taken by a single Member as well as actions under agreements,
arrangements and understandings entered into by two or more Members".
73 For the text of the agreement see NAFTA online information.  Available at:  http://www.nafta-sec-
alena.org/images/pdf/softwoodagreement.pdf.
74 See also Chapter II(4)(iv) as the preliminary countervailing duty actions were the subject of a request
by Canada for the establishment of  a panel (WTO document WT/DS236/3, 8 February 2002).WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 60
125. Other products whose exportation requires a permit include the following, to ensure adequate
supply in Canada:
− unprocessed fish from Quebec (see (4)(iii) below).
− logs and pulpwood of all species of wood.  In addition, British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec restrict out-of-province exports of logs.  In Alberta, exports of logs out of the
province require a permit which, according to the authorities, was granted in all cases in
2000-01.
− pancreas glands of cattle and calves (all destinations).
− human serum albumin (all destinations).
− blocks, bolts, blanks, boards, and any other material or product of red cedar that is suitable for
use in the manufacture of shakes or shingles (all destinations).
− unprocessed roe herring75, to ensure access to a "reasonable" supply for processors.
126. In a WTO Panel established in September 2000, Canada challenged various U.S. laws and
practice, considering that an export restraint was not a "financial contribution" and, therefore, could
not be considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of the WTO Agreement on  Countervailing
Measures (SCM).  The Panel agreed with Canada that an export restraint as defined by Canada was
not a "financial contribution", but concluded that the various laws and practice in question in the
dispute did not require the United States to treat export restrictions as financial contributions and thuswere not inconsistent with the Agreement.
76
(e) Export duties and taxes
127. In late 2002, export duties were imposed only on Canadian-manufactured tobacco products.
Export duties may, however, be imposed under the E xport Act on logs and pulpwood as well as on
certain ores.77
128. In 1994, Canada imposed an export tax to reduce the risk that Canadian-manufactured
tobacco products that had been exported tax-free to the United States would be smuggled back into
Canada and sold illegally without payment of tax.  In April 2001, Canada announced a comprehensivenew tobacco strategy designed to discourage both smoking and contraband, including a revised export
tax (see also section 2(iv) above).  Under the Excise Tax Act, exports of Canadian-produced
cigarettes, tobacco sticks, and other manufactured tobacco are subject to a two-tiered tax, with
different rates for exports up to a threshold of 1.5% of a manufacturer’s annual production
(Can$0.075 per cigarette) and for exports above the threshold (Can$0.1475 per cigarette).  The tax onexports up to the 1.5% threshold is refundable to the foreign importer and Canadian manufacturer
upon proof of payment of foreign taxes.  The tax on exports over the 1.5% threshold is not refundable
and approximates the total federal and provincial taxes otherwise applicable in the lowest-tax
jurisdiction in Canada.  The new export tax regime and rebate mechanism seeks to ensure that
exported Canadian products bear either Canadian federal excise tax or U.S. federal excise tax.According to the authorities, as a result, the supply of tax-free Canadian tobacco products that could
be smuggled back into Canada has been greatly reduced.
(ii) Export financing and other assistance
129. Since Canada's last Review in 2000, two of the main statutes governing export assistance and
promotion have been amended (see below).  Both the federal and provincial governments encourage a
                                                     
75 DFAIT online information.  Available at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/~eicb/notices/ser52-e.htm
76 WTO document WT/DS194/R, 29 June 2001.
77 The text of the Export Act is available online at:  http://laws.justice.gc.ca.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 61
partnership between companies and government to generate exports, and may assist exporting
companies by providing information, marketing assistance, grants, financing and guarantees,
insurance or other services.  Institutions that focus essentially on the agri-food sector, such as the
Canadian Wheat Board, as well as Canada's agricultural export subsidy notifications are described in
Chapter IV(2)).
130. The main institutions involved in export sup port to industrial and services companies are
Industry Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corp oration, and Export Development Canada (EDC).
These provide a range of support measures ranging from technology and marketing support to
financial support.  WTO panels have found some EDC financing to constitute export subsidies.  The
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) makes available to exporters advice
from geographical desks, funds for the promotion of cooperative linkages such as Going Global, andexport programmes such as the Program for Export Market Development (PEMD), Canada.
(b) Export Development Canada
131. The government-owned EDC is Canada's official export credit agency.  In December 2001,
amendments to the Export Development Act of 1993 made it a legal requirement for EDC to review
the environmental effects of projects, and replaced the name Export Development Corporation withExport Development Canada.  The amendment requires EDC, before entering into a project-related
transaction, to determine whether the project is likely to have adverse environmental effects and if so,
whether EDC is justified in entering into the transaction;  and exempting EDC from the application of
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
132. More broadly, the legislative review focused on social responsibility issues which, in addition
to environmental review, included public accountability/disclosure, anti-corruption, and human rights
considerations.  EDC has or is in the process of developing methodologies for incorporating theseconcepts into its operating procedures.  The revi ew otherwise endorsed EDC's mandate, role, strategic
direction, and its commercial principles.  The amendments have no effect on EDC's commercial
activity as such, although environmental review procedures are expected to have business impacts.
133. As Canada's official export credit agency, EDC is authorized to borrow, lend, guarantee loans,
provide export credits insurance, insure foreign in vestment against political risks, and to issue
guarantees regarding export transactions.  Its mandate also includes the power to incorporate
subsidiaries, make equity investments, enter into joint ventures, engage in leasing to users abroad, as
well as provide export-related domestic financing and credit insurance.  EDC finances its activities by
borrowing under a government guarantee, whereby the Government of Canada is ultimately
responsible if  EDC fails to repay.  The EDC does not pay income or corporate taxes, does notnormally pay dividends, and benefits from a sovereign credit rating that reduces borrowing costs.  An
arrangement between EDC and the Canadian Government provides for a sharing of the cost of debt
forgiveness provided  ex gratia  under Paris Club Agreements.
134. The EDC maintains two accounts, the Corporate Account and the Canada Account.  The
Corporate Account is in principle financially independent and operates on commercial principles.The Corporate Account in some cases competes with the private sector;  it also supplements private
sector financing, adds capacity and/or provides services that are not available from the private sector.
135. The Canada Account has been used to support transactions that the Federal Government
deems to be in the "national interest" but that the EDC cannot support under the Corporate Account
for reasons of exceptional risk.  The national interest involves considerations such as the employment
generated or sustained by the transaction;  the importance of the transaction to the exporter;  foreignWT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 62
policy considerations, including Canada's bilateral relationship with the country in question;  and the
importance of the market to Canada.  Each Canada Account transaction requires ministerial
authorization.
136. Table III.10 reflects the major concentrations of EDC's total commercial and sovereign
exposure by country for all operations at the end of 2001.  The most striking change since 1999 is the
increased exposure to the United States;  gross loans receivable with U.S. risks increased by 110% toCan$10.3 billion;  short-term insurance policies and guarantees increased by 51%;  and medium-term
insurance policies and guarantees increased by 86%.
Table III.10
EDC's total financial exposure by country, 2001
(Can$ million)
Loans portfolioInsurance policies and
guarantees outstandingInvestments
and derivative
financial
instrumentsaTotal2001
exposure
(%)1999
exposure
(%)
CountryGross
loans
receivableUndisbursed
commit-
mentsShort-termMedium-
term
United States 10,270 1,863 4,272 2,542 1,171 20,118 41 27
Canada 2,203b532b203 2,518c1,172 6,628 14 19
Mexico 1,322 464 178 328 - 2,292 5 3
China 1,090 789 167 238 - 2,284 5 5
Brazil 884 160 301 324 - 1,669 3 4
U.K. 908 - 199 103 24 1,234 3 4
Indonesia 964 34 45 9 - 1,052 2 3
Peru 934 - 10 107 - 1,051 2 3
Venezuela 675 156 43 15 - 889 2 2
Germany 243 - 223 32 214 712 1 2
Otherd5,733 940 1,948 2,040 67 10,728 22 28
Total 25,226 4,938 7,589 8,256 2,648 48,657 100 100
a Investments include amounts represented by cash, marketable securities, and investments.
b Includes the impact of one transaction signed in 1997 for Can$1,497 million with recourse to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of 
Canada in the event of a loan default.
c Includes Can$2,366 million of surety bond insurance where risk rests with the exporter.  A total of 54% of the exports insured  in
the surety bond programme are to the United States.  The balance represents exports to other countries.
d Includes 162 countries with total exposure ranging from Can$0.001 million to Can$609 million.
Source: Export Development Corporation (2001) Annual Report  [Online].  Available at:  http://www.edc.ca.
137. Over 1997-01, gross loans receivable increased considerably.  This increase came mostly
from the continued growth in commercial financing,  while the share of sovereign loans continued to
decline.  In 1997, the ratio of commercial to total loans was 43%, while by 2001 it had increased to70%.  In 2001, new signing volume to commercial borrowers accounted for 99% of total signing
volume.  During 2001, 252 customers were supported through loans financing (up from 204
customers in 2000).
78
138. The commercial exposure by sector has shifted toward air transportation and resource
industries, while information technologies and surface transportation have declined since 2000(Chart III.6).  Exposure to air transport and to resource industries each amounted to over
Can$6.6 billion, and over one third of the total.  Five counterparties comprising the EDC's largest
commercial exposure balances collectively represent Can$5.3 billion, or 25%, of the total performing
                                                     
78 Export Development Corporation (2001), p. 41.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 63
commercial exposure.  Of these five, two are within the surface transportation sector, comprising
Can$2.7 billion, or 13% of the total.  The remaining three counterparties are within the air
transportation sector, comprising Can$2.6 billion, or 12% of exposure.
05101520253035
Air transportation Resource industries Information
technologiesSurface
transportationF inancial institutions
Note:     The number above the bar represents total exposure in billion US$.
Source:  EDC Annual Report , v arious issues.Chart III.6
Commercial loans exposure, by sector, 1998-01
2000 20011998 1999%  of total exposure
6.9
3.13.9
4.66.6
2.53.44.9
3.83.2
3.4 4.4
3.72.8 3.3
3.5
0.00.00.4
0.3
139. The ratio of below-investment-grade loan s to total commercial exposure increased
significantly for loans in the air transportation sector in 2001.  This was the result of numerous credit
downgrades in the fourth quarter of 2001 reflecting the financial difficulty the sector has been
experiencing.  Commercial exposure in the information technologies sector declined 12% from 2000,
reflecting impairments and contraction in this sector.79
140. Canada's support to the regional aircraft industry continued to be the subject of frictions with
Brazil.  As noted in the Secretariat Report for Canada's previous Review, a WTO panel concluded in
1999 that certain financing transactions supporting the export of Canadian regional aircraft under the
Canada Account constituted a prohibited export subsidy.80  As a result of the WTO Panel, Ministerial
guidelines now state that all Canada Account transactions must comply with the OECD Arrangementon Guidelines for Officially Supported E xport Credits (the OECD Arrangement).
81
                                                     
79 Loans are classified as impaired when EDC no longer has assurance that the full amount of principal
and interest will be collected in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement.
80 WTO document WT/DS70/R, 14 April 1999.
81 WTO document WT/DS70/8, 26 November 1999.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 64
141. Considering that the measures taken to comply with the Panel's recommendation were not
consistent with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM), Brazil
requested that the matter be referred to the original panel.  The subsequent Panel Report concluded
that Canada had failed to withdraw the Canada Account assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft
industry within 90 days.82  According to the authorities, no further steps are required of Canada by
way of implementation.
142. In January 2001, a new related dispute began when Brazil, inter alia , claimed that other
subsidized export credits and loan guarantees were being extended to Canada's regional aircraft
industry by both the Corporate Account and the Cana da Account, notably in the case of a sale of
Bombardier aircraft to Air Wisconsin Ai rlines Corporation of the United States.83  These claims
resulted in a new panel established in May 2001 (Table AII.1).  The Panel found that the CanadaAccount and the Corporate Account were as such compliant with Canada's WTO obligations, and that
financing offered by EDC at market rates does not confer a benefit and therefore does not constitute a
prohibited export subsidy.  However, the Panel also found that five of 13 specific transactions
challenged by Brazil, including Canada Account financing to Air Wisconsin and Air Nostrum and
three Corporate Account transactions with Comair, constituted prohibited export subsidies.
84
(c) The Canadian Commercial Corporation
143. The Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) is Canada's export contracting agency,
specializing in sales to foreign governments and international institutions.  By selling through CCC,
Canadian companies gain direct access to U.S. defence and aerospace markets under the Canada-U.S.
Defence Production Sharing Agreement (DPSA).  In general, CCC's government status enables it to
structure commercial sales on a government-to-government basis.  This facilitates transactions with
government agencies in many countries, and thus improves exporters' prospects in public-sectorprocurement markets around the world.  The CCC also helps Canadian exporters win sales in private-
sector markets.
85
144. The Canadian Commercial Corporation Act prov ides the CCC with a broad range of powers
including, in particular, "exporting goods and commodities from Canada either as principal or as
agent, in such manner and to such extent as it considers advisable."  In particular, CCC offers foreignbuyers a government-backed guarantee of contract performance.  This guarantee raises the credibility
of Canadian companies, particularly small and medium -sized firms.  It increases their ability to win
export contracts on improved terms and to obtain working capital from commercial sources.  The
CCC Act was amended in March 2002  to allow the CCC to borrow funds on capital markets, and to
charge fees for its services.
145. CCC also facilitates access to commercial sources of preshipment export financing through
arrangements with 19 partner banks and financial institutions.  CCC's Progress Payment Program
assists small Canadian exporters that have insufficient working capital to undertake specific export
contracts.  A project line of credit up to Can$2 million may be set up to cover a company's  production
costs for any particular export sale.  This project line  of credit is repaid with funds received from the
buyer once the goods have been shipped from Canada.  According to the authorities, the project line
of credit's interest rates are offered at market rates.  The authorities have explained that in case of
default by the company the financial institution would sell the security to the Canadian Commercial
                                                     
82 WTO document WT/DS70/AB/RW, 21 July 2000.
83 See Industry Canada (2001), "Canada Ready to Match Brazilian Financing Terms to Preserve
Aerospace Jobs", News Release 10 January 2001 [Online].  Available at http://www.ic.gc.ca.
84 WTO document WT/DS222/R, 28 January 2002.
85 See CCC online information.  Available at:  http://www.ccc.ca/english/tnh_default.cfm.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 65
Corporation for a value equivalent to the project line of credit.  CCC would then dispose of the
acquired work-in-progress and evaluate available recourse against the defaulting company.
146. Total CCC export sales reached nearly Can$1.34 billion in 2001-01.  Some 273 exporters
exported to 31 countries through CCC, with about half  of total sales directed to the U.S. Department
of Defence and NASA.  Vehicle and rail equipment recorded the highest percentage (45%) of export
contracts through the CCC in 2000-01, followed by aerospace (18%) and armament.86
(4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE
(i) Competition policy
(a) Institutional and legal framework
147. The Competition Act of 1986, as amended in 1999, 2000, and 2002 is the main legislation
governing competition issues in Canada.  The Commissioner of Competition heads the CompetitionBureau, which reports to the Government.  In additi on to applying the Competition Act, the Bureau is
responsible, formally since 1999, for the administration and enforcement of the Consumer Packaging
and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Ac t, and the Precious Metals Marking Act.
87  T h e
Commissioner is responsible for the administration, application, and enforcement of the provisions of
the Act, but does not act as an administrative regulator.  Since Canada's last Review, in 2000, thescope of activities and enforcement power of the Commissioner of Competition have been widely
increased.
148. With respect to enforcement, in non-crimin al matters the Commissioner may file an
application with the Competition Tribunal, a specialized quasi-judicial body, that hears and decides all
applications made under relevant parts of the Competition Act.
88  Alleged violations of the
Competition Act's criminal provisions are generally referred to the Attorney General.  The  Bureau
also has the statutory right to intervene before federal regulatory boards and tribunals such as theCanadian Radio-Television and Telecommunicati ons Commission and the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal, or make representations to provincial boards, upon invitation or with the consent of
the board in question.
149. Canadian competition law was amended in July 2000 by Bill C-26:  An Act to amend the
Canada Transportation Act, the Competition Act, the Competition Tribunal Act and the Air CanadaPublic Participation Act and to amend another Act in consequence (ACTA).  The ACTA put in place
a special regime for domestic airlines in the Competition Act, as a result of the acquisition by Air
Canada of Canadian Airlines (see Chapter IV(7)).
150. The Competition Act was also amended by the entry into force, on 24 October 2001, of An
Act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain Acts in relation tofinancial institutions (see Chapter IV(8)).
151. Bill C-23:  An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act
(2002 Act) entered into force on 21 June 2002 and introduced substantive changes to Canadian
                                                     
86 Canadian Commercial Corporation (2001).
87 More information on the activities of the Competition Bureau is available online at:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG /ct01254e.html.  The complete text of the Competition Act, including recent
amendments, is available at: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/STABLE/EN/Laws/Chap/C/C-34.html.
88 Competition Tribunal online information is available at:  http://www.ct-tc.gc.ca.  The Competition
Tribunal Act is available at:  http://canada.justice.gc.ca.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 66
competition policy legislation.  The 2002 Act gives the Canadian Competition Tribunal significant
new powers, including the authority to award costs in respect of reviewable matters, to make
summary dispositions when it finds no merit to the case or no genuine defence, and to hear references
(questions involving a specific aspect of a case or interpretation of the law).  The 2002 Act also allows
private parties to apply directly to the Competiti on Tribunal to address matters regarding refusal to
deal, tied selling, exclusive dealing, and market restrictions.
(b) International cooperation
152. Canada considers international cooperation in competition policy as an important element to
accompany trade liberalization, and has addressed the issue at bilateral, regional, and multilateral
levels.  Canada also considers that cooperation on cross-border competition matters is a key element
in maintaining and encouraging competition in Canada.
153. The 2002 Act (Bill C-23) introduced a new framework to facilitate cooperation between
foreign competition authorities (Mutual Legal Assist ance with Foreign States), in cases where the
laws of the foreign State that address the conduct are substantially similar to Canadian law.  The
authorities noted that this will allow the gathering of evidence for and from foreign jurisdictions with
respect to non-criminal competition matters.  The framework contains a section that extends evidencegathering to orders for the virtual presence (i.e. video link) of a person in the foreign State.  The
person who is compelled to provide evidence or a statement will attend at a fixed place and by means
of technology will be virtually present in the judicial proceedings taking place in the State that
requested the evidence by video link.
154. At the bilateral level, Canada has signed a number of cooperation arrangements on
competition policy issues in the period under review:  in 2000 an arrangement with the competition
authorities of Australia and New Zealand, and in 2001, a Memorandum of Understanding with Chile,and a cooperation agreement with Mexico, as well a Chapter on Competition Policy in the Canada-
Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement.  These complemented the agreements signed with the United
States in 1995 and with the European Union in 1999.  In general terms, competition policy
cooperation agreements have notification requirements with respect to enforcement measures that
may affect the interests of the other party, including:  anti-competitive activities;  mergers andacquisitions;  remedies by a competition authority that would require or prohibit conduct in the
territory of the other party;  or involve one of the parties seeking information located in the territory of
the other party.
155. The Cooperation Arrangement Between the Co mmissioner of Competition (Canada), the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commi ssion and the New Zealand Commerce Commission
Regarding the Application of their Competition and Consumer Laws, entered into force in
October 2000.  The cooperation and coordination provisions are limited to sharing information where
appropriate and practicable, and coordination of enforcement activities when pursuing enforcement
activities with regard to the same or related matters.  Meetings of the officials of the parties are to take
place periodically.
156. Chapter XI on Competition Policy of the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement includes
mechanisms for cooperation on and information of an ti-competitive activities in the territory of the
one party that may affect the other party's interests.  Issues arising from the Chapter's application may
be addressed either in bilateral consultations to be held at least once every two years, or pursuant to a
written request from either Canada or Costa Rica.  Where a mutually satisfactory resolution cannot be
reached through consultations, issues are to be referred to the Free Trade Commission, comprisingCanada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 67
cabinet-level representatives of the parties or their designees.  The Chapter was the subject of a joint
communication by the two countries to the WTO.89
157. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Commissioner of Competition (Canada)
and the Fiscal Nacional Económico (Chile) Regarding the Application of their Competition Laws was
signed and entered into force on 17 December 2001.  The purpose of the Memorandum is to promote
cooperation and coordination between the two countries and to reduce the effect of potentialdifferences in the application of competition law in Canada and Chile.  The parties agreed to
cooperate and share information and, when pursuing enforcement activities with regard to the same or
related matters, coordinate their enforcement activities where appropriate and practicable.
158. The Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico
regarding the Application of their Competition Laws was signed in November 2001.  The agreementis similar to the 1995 agreement between Canada and the United States, as well as the 2000 agreement
between Mexico and the United States.  The signing of the agreement completes the cooperative
framework for competition law enforcement in the NAFTA region, illustrating that competition
authorities from all three NAFTA countries want to ensure that anti-competitive business practices do
not detract from the benefits of free trade.  In November 2002, the agreement had not yet come intoforce pending Senate approval in Mexico.
159. The authorities have noted that, during 2000-02, the Competition Bureau worked closely with
its counterparts around the world, primarily in the European Union and the United States, but also in
other jurisdictions.  This cooperation, which encompassed work on both specific cases and general
policy issues, included the exchange of documents, meetings and other contacts.  Case-related
cooperation dealt primarily with merger review , and cartel and deceptive marketing practices
enforcement, and included notifications of enforcement actions, exchange of information on theparties and markets, the economic analysis of particular cases, and the coordination of enforcement
actions, including remedies.  Merger cases included those involving Lafarge and Blue Circle, GE and
Honeywell, Nestlé and Ralston Purina, and Seagram/ Diageo and Pernod Ricard.  Cartel investigations
included those relating to graphite and carbon products, bulk vitamins and related products, and
methylglucamine.
160. In June 2002, Canada and Japan launched negotiations for a cooperation agreement regarding
competition law enforcement.  The proposed agreement is expected to provide a framework for
coordination and cooperation to deal effectively with cross-border anti-competitive business activities
affecting both countries.
161. Canada also seeks to promote cooperation on competition issues at the regional level, through
the NAFTA Working Group on Trade and Competition, the Working Group on Competition Policy in
the FTAA negotiations, and the APEC workshop on Competition Policy and Deregulation.  Canada
observes the revised 1995 OECD Recommendation concerning Cooperation between Member
countries on Restrictive Business Practices and International Trade, which provides for notification,
exchange of information, mutual assistance in inve stigations, coordination of investigations positive
comity, consultations, and a conciliation mechanism in the field of competition law enforcement, as
well as the OECD Recommendation on Hard Core Cartels.
162. Multilaterally, Canada has been active in the WTO Working Group on the Interaction
between Trade and Competition Policy, to which it has submitted several communications.  Canada's
general position in the WTO has been that, "as governmental trade barriers fall, competition
authorities need to assume a greater role in the market liberalization process to ensure that the
                                                     
89 WTO document WT/WGTCP/W/173, 2 July 2001.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 68
expected benefits of the market economy are not undermined by the anti-competitive behaviour of
private actors."90  Canada also considers that, since the rise in world trade and investment flows has
also increased the possibility for concurrent jurisdiction of two or more competition authorities over
the same international economic activity, it is necessary for competition authorities to cooperate
internationally.91  In Canada's view, a multilateral agreement on competition policy would provide a
flexible framework for cooperation, which could include a variety of activities related to developinginstitutional capacity, sharing non-confidential information among competition authorities and
administering the agreement.
92  The WTO, in Canada's view, is in a position to furnish all the essential
elements of a multilateral agreement on competition, but should not become a supra -national
competition authority.
163. With regard to multilateral cooperation, Canada actively participates in International
Competition Network (ICN), which brings together agency representatives and competition experts to
develop best practice recommendations and to foster convergence in enforcement policy approaches.
The Commissioner of Competition recently led the ICN's Interim Steering Group to establish a new
forum to discuss practical policy issues of common concern.  Canada also maintains a technical
assistance programme with developing countries, through which Canadian officials assist in theconceptualization and drafting of a national competition statutes in countries without such legislation.
Assistance is also provided on the design of enforcement programmes and capacity building.
(c) Enforcement and other activities
164. A review of competition cases is published annually by the Competition Bureau.  In the fiscal
year 2000/01, the Bureau received 16,570 complaints and information requests, up from 1,424 in the
fiscal year 1995/96 (Table III.11).  Misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices made up
for most of the cases.  In fiscal year 2000/01, prosecutions have led to companies being finedapproximately Can$18.7 million.
165. Merger examination activity has continued to increase.  In 2000-01, the Competition Tribunal
delivered judgements on two litigated merger cases involving propane and waste, which were
appealed, and several merger examinations.  The Bureau also looked at vertical issues concerning
media convergence.  Other industries with transactions that raised competition concerns included pulpand paper, food services, food processing, and broadcasting.
93  Since 2000, the Competition Bureau
has also received and examined complaints that Air Canada has abused its dominant market position
(see Chapter IV(7)).  Salient criminal cases analysed during the period under review included
misleading advertising, false telemarketing, d eceptive marketing practices, false or misleading
representation.
166. With respect to the activities of international cartels, in fiscal year 2000-01 fines totalled more
than Can$16 million.  Firms fined in excess of Can$1 million included SGL Carbon
Aktiengesellschaft for its participation in a conspiracy concerning graphite electrodes;  Daicel
Chemical Industries Ltd for a conspiracy involving sorbates;  Ueno Fine Chemicals Industry Ltd. for
participating in a conspiracy related to preservatives used in the food industry;  and Pfizer Inc for itsinvolvement in a conspiracy concerning a food preservative agent.
                                                     
90 WTO document WT/WGTCP/W/155, 19 December 2000.  See also document WT/WGTCP/W/183,
19 April 2002.
91 WTO document WT/WGTCP/W/146, 12 September 2000.
92 WTO document WT/WGTCP/W/202, 12 August 2002.  Additional information on Canada's views
on competition  policy may be found in WTO document  WT/WGTCP/W/174, 2 July 2001.
93 For a complete description of the mergers reviewed by the Bureau in 2000-01 and 1999-00, refer to
Strategies online information.  Available at:  http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/pics/ct/perform2_e.pdf.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 69
Table III.11
Selected activities of the Competition Bureau, 1997-01
1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01
Number of complaints, examinations, inquiries and advisory opinions
Total complaints/information requests 6,939 11,087 13,803 16,570
of which Civil matters 503 819 613 618
Criminal matters 1,285 937 1,945 966
Fair Business Practices Branch activities 5,600 8,730 11,240 14,986
Examinations (two or more days of review) 870 601 655 711
Disposition of inquiries
Inquiries formally discontinued 29 21 18 11
Matters referred to the Attorney General of Canada 8 8 12 14
Matters referred where further action is not warranted 2 0 1 0
Prosecutions or other proceedings commenced 6 8 9 14
Applications to the competition tribunal 8 5 4 6
Merger examinations
Examinations commenced 320 309 361 373
Examinations concluded 340 302 338 389
Posing no issue under the Act 406 346 392 381
With pre-closing restructuring 0 0 2 0
With post-closing restructuring and undertakings 3 1 6 5
With consent orders 1 2 1 1
Through contested proceedings 0 2 0 0
Parties abandoned proposed mergers 0 3 1 2
Advance ruling certificates issued 123 186 128 215
Advisory opinions issued (included in total examinations concluded) 3 7 3 2
Examinations ongoing at year-end 37 44 67 54
Total examinations during the year 377 346 405 443
Source: Competition Bureau.
(ii) Financial and other assistance to business
167. Canada maintains a number of financial assistance programmes for businesses including
programmes run by Crown corporations, such as th e Business Development Bank, or provided in the
context of alliances between a Crown Corporation and a private sector bank.94  Regional programmes
include the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), the Canada Economic Development forQuebec Regions Agency, and Western Economic Di versification.  Some programmes are run by
provincial governments.  Assistance may take the form of financial contributions, loans, tax breaks or
specific services (information, marketing, audit, a nd analysis).  The main recipients of assistance
include the agri-food sector, and the aircraft industry.  This section focuses on non-agri-food sectors
(for agri-food, see Chapter IV(2)).
(a) WTO participation
168. Information on certain subsidy programmes is provided in Canada's notifications under the
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM).  Canada’s latest notification, for the
period 1999/00, describes agricultural, cultural ( book and magazine publishing), and industrial goods
                                                     
94 For example, see Strategis, "Sources of Assistance" [Online].  Available at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/
SSG/sc01562e.html.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 70
programmes, regional development assistance extended by the Federal Government, and shared-cost
federal/provincial assistance.95  Expenditure under notifiable industrial subsidy programmes totalled
about Can$1 billion in 1999/00, up from Can$850 million in 1997/98.96  No province has indicated to
the federal government that it has subsidies that are subject to the notification requirements of the
SCM Agreement.97
169. Over the past two years, Canada has participated actively in WTO negotiations to reduce
trade-distorting subsidies in the goods sector, describing effective rules and disciplines on the use of
government subsidies as critical to the reduction of distortions to trade and investment and to the
promotion of global competition.  In this context, Canada has called for clarification of a number of
provisions contained in the SCM Agreement.98  Regarding the issue of fisheries subsidies specifically
referred to in the Doha Ministerial Declaration,  Canada’s preference has been to support generic
subsidy disciplines rather than a sectoral approach.
(b) Indicators of assistance
170. Statistics Canada's Provincial Economic Accounts provide one of the few available indicators
of the value of subsidies and capital transfers to business, both by the Federal Government and by
provincial and territorial governments.  Data suggests a modest overall increase in current and capitalassistance extended by the provinces to businesses in 1999 and 2000 and a larger increase in 2001
(Chart III.7).  The latter mostly reflected Alberta's electricity auction rebate and natural gas rebate.  At
Can$18 billion, total financial assistance that year  amounted to 1.7% of GDP at factor cost, up from
1.3% in 1998.  Chart III.8 excludes tax expenditures, which also constitute an important form of
assistance or incentives to business. Finance Canada provides an annual overview of federal tax
expenditure.
99
(c) Selected federal measures and programmes
Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC)
171. Established in 1996, TPC is a technology investment fund that invests in private sector
companies, and shares in both the risks and rewards of their projects;  the rewards to the Government
consist of both financial returns and economic benefits to Canada.  In 1999, TPC was found by a
WTO panel to provide subsidies to the Canadian regional aircraft industry that were contingent uponexport performance;  it has since been amended.
100  TPC investments are typically conditionally
repayable, with terms negotiated on a case-by-case basis.  TPC's sharing ratio will normally range
between 25% and 33% of eligible costs of the project, except in exceptional cases where the sharing
ratio may reach 50%.  Examples of investments since Canada's last Review include fuel cell
technology, aircraft data communications system s, motor-vehicle-powering ethanol, aerospace
systems, aircraft landing gear, and management system for aircraft fault resolution.101
                                                     
95 WTO document G/SCM/N/60/CAN, 10 June 2002.
96 WTO document G/SCM/N/48/CAN, 9 May 2000.
97 WTO document WT/TPR/M/78, 5 February 2001.
98 WTO document TN/RL/W/1, 15 April 2002.
99 See "Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2002", Finance Canada online information.  Available at:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2002/taxexp02_e.html.  A discussion of the theoretical underpinnings to tax
expenditures is provided at:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2000/taxexp_e.html.  Detailed information on the various
tax expenditure is available at:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2000/taxexpnot_e.html.
100 WTO documents WT/DS70/R, 14 April 1999 and WT/DS70/AB/R, 2 August 1999.  See also
Industry Canada online information.  Available at:  http://stategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/tp00245e.html.
101 TPC News Room, available online at:  http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/tp00179e.html.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 71
03,0006,0009,00012,00015,00018,000
1991 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 010.00.51.01.52.02.5Can$ millionChart III.7                                            
Current and capital  assistance to business, 1991-01
Provinces
Federal GovernmentLocal authorities % of GDP
Share of GDP
(right  axis )
Subsidies and capital transfers to business and persons, national accounts definition (excluding tax breaks).  Federal transfers include agricultural subsidies, business subsidies and payments to government-owned enterprises, such as 
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Capital transfers to persons exclude transfers from the personal sector regarding the actuarial surplus of the government employee pension accounts.Note:
Source: WTO Secretariat calculations, based on Statistics Canada, National Economic and Financial Accounts (13-001) ;  and 
data  provided by the authorities.
172. Following the WTO ruling, Canada was required to make adjustments to the administration of
TPC' support for the Canadian regional aircraft industry.  Thus, TPC's contribution agreements for the
industry were amended to terminate all obligations to disburse funds effective November 1999;  as a
result, some Can$16.4 million of funding pursuant to those agreements was cancelled.  New termsand conditions have been issued, as well as a new operating framework and a new investment
application guide.  Reflecting the WTO ruling, export performance is not a consideration of TPC, and
eligible activities have been redefined based on the WTO definitions for industrial research and pre-competitive development.
102
Regional assistance
173. As described in Canada's subsidy notifications, the Federal Department of Western Economic
Diversification was established in 1987 to prom ote the development and diversification of the
economy of Western Canada.  It disbursed both non-repayable grants and conditionally repayable
contributions, mostly to small and medium-sized business organizations in Western Canada.  Theauthorities have explained that after 1995 the Department virtually eliminated direct assistance to
businesses.  In 2000-01, assistance under the programme included non-profit research, and
partnerships with universities, communities, business service delivery organizations, and industry-
wide "systemic" projects.  The latter are intended to benefit an entire industry or sector and not,
                                                     
102 Further details may be found in TPC online information.  Available at:  http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/
tp00212e.html.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 72
according to the authorities, to provide direct su pport to any one company.  The Department's total
programme expenditure was  close to Can$200 million in 2000-01.103
174. The Federal Government, through Industry Canada's Federal Economic Development
Initiative (CFDC) in Northern Ontario (FedNor, also described in Canada's latest subsidy notification)
provides operational funding, support, and advice to a network of 54 Community Futures
Development Corporations located throughout Ontario.  In turn, these non-profit organizations
provide repayable financing of up to Can$125,000 as well as loan guarantees and equity investmentsto small businesses located in Ontario.  According to Industry Canada, all loans are on commercial
terms.  Available data on the operation of the CFDC programme, indicate that between 1986 and
March 1999, 11,900 loans exceeding Can$300 million were distributed to clients.  Total leveragedloans and owner equity amounted to Can$500 million.
104
175. In order to assist the development of the small and medium-sized business (SME) sector, in
2001 FedNor and the Credit Unions of Northern Ontario formed a strategic alliance that, inter alia ,
will supply capital to small and medium-sized busin esses in Northern Ontario.  Eligible companies
must have less than 250 employees and annual total sales of less than Can$20 million.  Credit Unionscan grant these companies loans of Can$25,000-500,000.  Interest rates charged under this
programme will not be less than the prime rate available to Credit Union members, plus 3%.  Projects
that involve refinancing or do not result in new or increased economic activity are not eligible.
FedNor assumes a share of the risk associated with the establishment of the associated Can$15 million
commercial loan fund.
176. FedNor and the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) have created a
Can$25 million fund for viable projects initiated by small businesses in Northern Ontario.  New and
existing businesses qualify for this fund.
177. The Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has in the past run an array of programmes
to support the fisheries sector, sometimes in coordi nation with provincial authorities (see below).  The
authorities explained in the context of this Review that the Federal Government has phased out all
contributions aimed at price and vessel support.  In recent years, federal assistance has focused largely
on advancing fisheries conservation objectives through efforts to reduce fishing capacity and
dependence on the fishery (e.g. licence buyback and other adjustment programmes).  In thefish-processing industry, there has been a moratorium since 1994 on federal public expenditures for
primary and most secondary processing activities;  there are no plans to remove this moratorium.
(d) Selected provincial assistance measures and programmes
178. Provinces also extend financial and other assistance to business in support of employment or
other objectives.  For example, as noted in the Secretariat Report for Canada's previous Review, the
pulp mill of Skeena Cellulose at Prince Rupert received financial assistance from the Province of
British Columbia.  As a result, the British Columbia Government had become the majority
shareholder in Skeena Cellulose Inc.  In total, since 1997 the total debt owed by Skeena Cellulose to
the Province surpassed Can$400 million, including more than Can$270 million in public loans, loanguarantees, and contributions.  The company was sold in April 2002.
105
179. The New Brunswick Fisheries Development Board provides financial assistance to aid and
encourage the establishment or development of fisheries in the Province;  amounts are payable out of
                                                     
103 See the Department's online information.  Available at:  http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/rpts/plans/rpp00-
01/5.htm.
104 See "Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal", Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food online
information.  Available at:  http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/about/galttaskforce/endnotes.html#1.
105 British Columbia Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise,  News Release, 30 April 2002.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 73
the Provinces Consolidated Fund.106  According to the most recent annual report of the Department of
Business New Brunswick, commercial fishers are provided loans for:  the purchase or construction of
vessels and for major retrofits and repairs to encourage the development of fisheries in the Province;
loans for capital expenditures;  and loan guaran tees for working capital purposes, to encourage
development of the New Brunswick aquaculture industry.107  During 2000-01, the Board reviewed
68 submissions;  51 were approved, involving assistance totalling about Can$7 million.  According toinformation provided by New Brunswick in the context of this Review, direct loans (repayable atprovincial lending rates) are provided only if the funds are not commercially available.
180. The Ontario Sound Recording Tax Credit is a 20% refundable tax credit for certain
expenditures incurred by a qualifying corporation in the production of "eligible Canadian soundrecordings" by "emerging Canadian artists or groups".
108
181. Investissement Québec provides companies located in Quebec with interest-bearing or
interest-free loans, and loan guarantees (Table III.12).  For 2000-01, Investissement Québec
contributed to 929 projects totalling over Can$5.4 billion.  Several related programmes provide
incentives for local investment, including the Small and Medium Size Business Guarantee (GarantieQuébec, loan guarantees for specific activities, notably exports or innovation)
109;  the FAIRE
Programme, which provides refundable or non-refundable contributions;  or the Quebec Business
Investment Company (Société de placements dans l'entreprise québécoise).110
Table III.12
Selected support measures by Investissement Québec
Date of
announcementBeneficiary company/sector Amount/type of measure
06/11/00 Mometal (metal frameworks and fabricated metals) Can$750,000 in financial assistance for capital investment
and guaranteed export line of credit
07/11/00 Venmar Aston Inc. (commercial ventilation units) Can$729,000 financial contribution for job creation
10/11/00 Scott Paper Limited Can$650,000 financial contribution for acquisition of two
new processing machines
10/11/00 Technologies Globales ICP (solar panels) Can$490,000 financial contribution for capital expenditure
22/11/00 Ced-Or (cedar laminboard plant) Can$15 million financial contribution under the FAIRE
programme
01/12/00 RCM Modulaire (home manufacturing) Can$450,000 interest-free loan
01/12/00 Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd Can$900,000 repayable contribution
11/12/00 Stryker Bertec (furniture and beds for hospitals) Can$1,275,000 financial support
11/12/01 Groupe Teknion (office furniture and systems) Can$2.3 million non-repayable financial contribution
17/12/01 Bridgestone/Firestone Can$2.5 million financial support
17/12/01 Gaspesia (pulp and paper) Can$89 million interest-free and interesting bearing loans
11/03/02 Mecachrome (precision machining) ..
12/03/02 Harfan technologies (infrastructure management
software)Can$250,000 financial assistance
12/04/02 Fibro Concept Inc. (sports equipment) Can$100,000 from Investissement Quebec
16/04/02 Steris Canada (biomedical sector) Can$1,250,000 non-repayable financial contribution
through FAIRE
.. Not available.
Source: Investissement Québec Press Releases.
                                                     
106 See Fisheries Development Act [Online].  Available at:  http://www.gnb.ca/acts/acts/F-15-1.htm.
107 Business New Brunswick Annual Report  2000-2001 [Online].  Available at:  http://www.gnb.ca/
0398/index-e.asp (imbedded file).
108 Department of Finance online information.  Available at:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp/2001/
taxexp01_e.pdf
109 Investissement Québec online information.   Available at:  http//invest-quebec.com.
110 For more details, see Invest Québec online information.  Available at:  http://invest-quebec.com/p-
financiers/societe-speq-htm.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 74
(iii) Local-content requirements
182. A number of local-content requirements are in place at the provincial level.  Under the Wine
Content and Labelling Act of 2000 and implementing regulations, licensed wine manufacturers in
Ontario may sell wine containing imported grapes through private retail outlets only if the wine
contains a minimum of 30% per bottle of Ontario grapes111;  if this minimum content is not met, the
wine has to be sold by the Liquor Control Board (see section (iv) below). Farm wineries in Nova
Scotia selling wines from their own farm outlets (rather than through the provincial liquor board) are
required to sell products containing not less than 50% Nova Scotia grapes.  This requirement is set to
increase yearly until it reaches 75% in 2006.  Only wines that are bottled in Quebec may be
distributed through Quebec grocery stores; others must be sold through the Société des Alcools du
Québec.  In British Columbia, private retail operations are authorized for domestic wines only, not forimported products.
183. Newfoundland and Labrador have reserved the right under the Agreement on Internal Trade
to deny out-of-province beer and beer products access to brewers' agents (convenience stores).  Thispolicy was under review in late 2002.
184. In New Brunswick, under the Mining Act the Minister may require an economic impact
analysis from companies in regard to the feasibi lity of in-province processing.  However, according to
the authorities the New Brunswick's Department of Justice has declared this power as ultra vires
because of the Agreement on Internal Trade, and the Minister has never denied a company application
to export concentrates for further processing elsewhere.
185. In Newfoundland and Labrador, petroleum and gas projects are approved only if they result in
sufficient local employment and purchases of goods and services produced.  For instance in the
Voisey's Bay nickel project, the Newfoundland go vernment required that the mining company Inco
locally process concentrate produced from the pr oposed mine and mill rather than shipping it to
existing processing plants in Manitoba and Ontario.
112  In Nova Scotia, petroleum exploration rights
are conditional on an attempt to use local labour, goods, and services.113
186. In Quebec, under the Loi sur la transformation des produits marins (T 11.01) and
implementing regulations, a variety of fish (including cod and mackerel) and seafood (including
shrimp and crab) must be processed by companies located in Quebec, so as to preserve localemployment opportunities.
187. At federal level, local-value-added requirements in motor vehicle production under the Auto
Pact were the subject of a WTO Panel established in 1999, which concluded, inter alia , that this
resulted in less favourable treatment for imports relative to domestic parts and materials and non-
permanent equipment.  The Canadian value-added requirements (the CVA requirements) related to
the tariff exemption on cars imported from the Unite d States under the Auto Pact were contained in
the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order, 1998 (the MVTO 1998) and the Special Remission Orders(the SROs, see also (2)(iii) above).
114
                                                     
111  The text of the Wine Content and Labelling Ac t, 2000, is available on line at:  http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/ English/00w26_e.htm.
112 See the statement by Lloyd Matthews, Minister of Mines and Energy, 19 November 2001 [Online].
Available at:  the website of the Government of Newfoundland at http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2001/mines&en/ 1119n08.htm.
113 Petroleum Resources Regulations of Nova Sco tia, Section 27 of the Petroleum Resources Act,
available online at:  http://www.gov.ns.ca.
114 The MVTO and SROs are regulations promulgated by the Governor-General-in-Council.  See WTO
document WT/DS139/R, 11 February 2000, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WTO documentWT/DS139/ABR, 31 May 2000.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 75
188. On 15 February 2001, the Order Repealing the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order, 1998 and
amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, and the Order Repealing Certain Remission Orders
made under the Financial Administration Act 2000-2 were introduced to revoke the Orders
implementing the Auto Pact in Canada and to thereby complete Canada's implementation of the WTO
Auto Pact ruling.
(iv) State-owned enterprises
189. Canada's state-trading enterprises (STEs), as notified to the WTO Working Party on State
Trading Enterprises in 2002, are:  the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), the Canadian Dairy
Commission (CDC), the Canadian Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, the twelve provincial and
territorial liquor boards, and the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board;  the same STEs were
included in Canada's previous notification, in 1997).115
190. The CWB has exclusive authority to export Western Canadian wheat, durum wheat, and
barley.  The CDC has a de facto monopoly on the importation of butter under the tariff quota system;
although it is active in export markets, it has no exclusive authority for the export of any product.  The
activities of the CWB and CDC are described in Chapter IV (2)).
191. Under the 1928 Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA), each province and two
territories have monopolies on the introduction of all alcoholic beverages into their territories both
from abroad and from other provinces.  Under the IILA, liquor, including wine, considered
intoxicating by provincial law may be im ported only by a board, commission, officer, or
governmental agency legally authorized to sell intoxicating liquor.  Distribution and warehousing
services for importers are generally also reserved for the provincial liquor boards.
192. The new Excise Act 2001 includes amendments to the IILA so as to ensure consistency with
the new terminology and concepts relating to spirits and wine under the new Act.  The authoritieshave stated that amendments will not affect market access conditions for foreign suppliers, and
maintain the existing import restrictions a nd trade-related exemptions on bulk spirits.
116  There are no
plans to overhaul the IILA.
193. The IILA has been scheduled as a quantitative restriction maintained as an exception to the
free-trade provisions of both the NAFTA and the FTA with Chile.117  Such an exception has also been
scheduled in the FTA with Costa Rica, and is contemplated by the Government for inclusion in other
ongoing FTA negotiations (Chapter II).  Conditions for the sale of alcoholic beverages in Canada are
a source of concern for some of Canada's trading partners.118
194. Eight of the twelve provincial liquor jurisdictions in Canada apply a higher services charge to
imported products.  According to the authorities, the difference reflects higher carrying costs (e.g. theinterest cost of holding product in inventory) as well as higher operational costs associated with
imported products.
195. Among the exceptions to Canada's monopoly system, Alberta privatized both warehousing
and retail distribution in 1993.  In 2001, there were more than 18,800 liquor products registered for
                                                     
115 WTO documents G/STR/N/3/CAN, 5 September 1997, and G/STR/N/4/CAN, 5 November 2002.
116 Department of Finance online information.  Available at:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/news01/data/01-113-
1e.pdf, and information provided by the authorities.
117 See DFAIT online information.  Available at:  http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/cda-chile/4-
cda26.asp, Annex IV.
118 See for example WTO document WT/TPR/M/78, 5 February 2001.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 76
potential importation in Alberta compared with approximately 3,300 prior to privatization.119 The
retail network also expanded significantly (Chart III.8).
196. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) continues to have a monopoly over wholesale
trade.  Private retail operations are authorized for domestic wine (see section (iii) above), but not for
imported products.  A private company also sells dom estic and foreign beer.  In fiscal year 2000/01,
wholesale sales to these private outlets accounte d for just under 20% of total LCBO sales;  the
remainder were through LCBO's and other government-controlled retail outlets.  All spirits aremarketed by the LCBO;  together with other government-owned outlets it controls 45% of the outlets
in Ontario.
197. Available statistics do not suggest a significant difference in the evolution of imports between
Alberta and Ontario.  Between 1997-98 and 2000-01, sales of imported alcoholic beverages in Alberta
advanced by an average 8.7% annually, to reach Can$341 million, and sales of domestically producedbeverages increased by 3.7%.  In 2001, imports accounted for 27% of total sales value in Alberta, up
from 24% in 1997-98.  In comparison, sales of imported alcoholic beverages by LCBO increased by
10.6% annually on average between 1997 and 2001, to reach Can$1.4 billion;  domestic sales
                                                     
119 Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, Annual Report 2000-01  [Online].  Available at:
http://www.aglc.gov.ab.ca/pdf/annual_reports/2001_aglc_a nnual_report.pdf.02004006008001,000Chart III.8
Retail outlets and products for sale, in Alberta, 1993 and 2001 
Number of retail outlets
Government of Alberta. Source: 04,0008,00012,00016,00020,000Number of  products
1993 2001 2001 1993Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 77
increased by 5.4%, to reach Can$1.3 billion.120  In 2001, imports accounted for 52% of LCBO's total
sales value, up from 47% in 1997-98.
198. Nationwide data on sales of domestic and imported products suggest that import penetration
has increased in all three product groups (Table III.13).
Table III.13
Domestic and imported sales of beer, wine and spirits, 1995-01
('000 hectoliters)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Beer
Domestic 19,242 18,913 18,826 19,276 19,333 19,215 19,536
Imported 659 867 1,018 1,167 1,415 1,495 1,678
Total 19,902 19,780 19,844 20,443 20,748 20,710 21,213
% Share
Domestic 96.7 95.6 94.9 94.3 93.2 92.8 92.1
Imported 3.3 4.4 5.1 5.7 6.8 7.2 7.9
Wine
Domestic 704 731 749 769 816 827 849
Imported 1,283 1,337 1,363 1,444 1,545 1,622 1,727
Total 1,987 2,068 2,112 2,213 2,362 2,449 2,576
% Share
Domestic 35.4 35.4 35.5 34.7 34.6 33.8 33.0
Imported 64.6 64.6 64.5 65.3 65.4 66.2 67.0
Spirits
Domestic 850 858 849 858 859 877 885
Imported 321 335 342 359 390 405 425
Total 1,171 1,193 1,191 1,218 1,249 1,281 1,310
% Share
Domestic 72.6 72.0 71.3 70.5 68.8 68.4 67.6
Imported 27.4 28.0 28.7 29.5 31.2 31.6 32.4
Source: Brewers Association of Canada, Annual Statistical Bulletin 2001  [Online].  Available at: http://www.brewers.ca;
and data provided by the authorities.
(v) Government procurement
199. The estimated annual value of government procurement at the federal level is approximately
Can$10 billion annually, or less than 1% of GDP.121  Reported procurement at the provincial and
territorial level is estimated at some Can$7 billion.122  In 2000, contracts representing 89.8% of the
total value were allocated through competitive methods, while 10.2% was allocated in a non-competitive fashion.  Canada last notified annual statistics under Article XIX:5 of the WTO
Agreement on Government Procurement in October 1998.
123  Procurement by municipalities,
municipal organizations, publicly funded academic in stitutions, and health and social services entities
(MASH entities) is estimated at some Can$20 billion a year.  Procurement for all levels of
government and governmental institutions represents some 3.5% of GDP.
                                                     
120 LCBO Annual Report 2000 , available online at:  http://legacy.lcbo.com/images/pdfs/lcbo_an_
report.pdf.
121 Information provided by the authorities, based on Treasury Board Secretariat reports for federal
procurement for departments and agencies for the years 1997 to 2000.  Purchases totalled Can$9.9 billion
in 1999 and Can$9.4 billion in 2000.  More detailed information is available online at:  http://www.tbs-
sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/con_data/siglist_e.html.
122 The latest available complete information is for fiscal year 1999-00 and can be found on the Internal
Trade Secretariat's online information.  Available at:  http://www.intrasec.mb.ca/index_he.htm.
123 WTO document GPA/21/Add.1, 16 October 1998.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 78
(a) Institutional and legal framework
200. The Treasury Board of Canada establishes the rules for contracting in the Government
Contract Regulations (GCRs), which also provide the overall policy direction through the Treasury
Board Contracting Policy.  The Financial Administration Act outlines the financial responsibilities
and authorities for contracting, and forms the basis of the GCRs.  The Department of Public Works
and Government Services Act gives the Minister of Public Works and Government Services exclusiveauthority to buy goods and services for other Departments and Agencies and to delegate this authority
to other Ministers.  Public Works and Governme nt Services Canada (PWGSC) is the Government's
principal purchasing arm.
201. Federal procurement policies, procedures, notices and circulars are available online.
124  They
apply to all federal government contracting activitie s, and require procurement to be conducted in a
manner that will meet operational requirements in the most cost-effective manner and provide equal
opportunity to tender, while being consistent with Canada's international obligations.125  Procurement
policy is evaluated and updated on a regular basis.  Industry Canada is responsible for the evaluation
of the effectiveness of procurement in support of industrial and regional development.
202. Canada is party to a number of trade agreements all of which are reflected in Canadian law
and function concurrently.  Canada has been a party to the WTO Agreement on Government
Procurement (GPA) since 1 January 1996. Government procurement in Canada is also affected by
provisions contained in national and international arrangements such as the Agreement on Internal
Trade (AIT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Canada-Korea
Telecommunications Equipment Procurement Agreement (CKTEA).  The other FTAs signed by
Canada do not have provisions on procurement (see also Chapter II).
203. For procurements not subject to NAFTA Chapter 10 and to the GPA, the Federal Government
is of the view that its procurement activities should be consistent with and supportive of such national
objectives as industrial and regional development, aboriginal economic development, the
environment, and other socioeconomic objectives.  To this end, the Government requires that all
federal procurements in excess of Can$2 million are reviewed for potential regional and industrial
benefits.  For the most part, this review is achieved administratively by an interdepartmentalProcurement Review Committee.
204. Information on procurement matters is accessible online.
126  Annual reports on contracting at
the federal level and reports by the provinces are available online.127  Most federal procurement
notices for goods and services, including construction, above Can$25,000 are posted on the
Government Electronic Tendering Service (GETS).  The service currently operates under the nameMERX and is provided by contract to the Federal Government.
128  GETS is the designated publication
for opportunity notices, information on permanent lists of qualified suppliers, and administrative
rulings and procedures under the GPA, the NAFTA, AIT, and CKTEA.  Sole sourcing may be used in
a pressing emergency;  when the estimated expenditure is less than Can$25,000 for goods and
services, or Can$100,000 for architectural and engineering services or for the Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency (CIDA) service contracts related to international development programmes or
                                                     
124 Treasury Board online information.  Available at:  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca.
125 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, "Procurement Policy Review", January 2002 [Online].
Available at:  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/Contracting/dwnld/contractingpol_e.rtf.
126 Contracts Canada online information.  Available at:  www.contractscanada.gc.ca.
127 Treasury Board online information.  Available at:  www.tbs-sct.gc.ca;  and Internal Trade
Secretariat online information.  Available at:  www.intrasec.mb.ca/index_he.htm, respectively.
128 Available at:  www.merx.cebra.com.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 79
projects;  a competition is not in the public interest;  or only one supplier is capable of performing the
work, as in the case of a supplier who owns a copyright or software licence.129
205. The Contract Claims Resolution Board (CCRB) provides dispute resolution services and is
one of five directorates in the Audit and Ethics Branch of PWGSC.  With the exception of bid
challenges, CCRB acts as an appeal/review agency in PWGSC for all procurement-related disputes
and claims arising from commercial, construction, a nd consulting contracts.  CCRB administers the
Contracts Settlement Board (CSB), and the Contra ct Disputes Advisory Board (CDAB).  CSB is an
independent review body that resolves disputes concerning extra cost claims, which are referred to it
by contractors providing goods and services to PW GSC.  CDAB is an independent review board that
provides non-binding advisory arbitration for contract-r elated disputes that are referred to the Minister
by contractors or consultants under contract with PWGSC for construction, leasing, and buildingmaintenance.  CCRB also settles contractors’ claims arising under PWGSC and Canadian
Commercial Corporation (CCC) contracts that are terminated for convenience of the Canadian and
U.S. governments, and arranges for Assist Audits for terminated contracts on behalf of the U.S.
Government. In 2001, PWGSC announced the launch of the Dispute Resolution Pilot Project in
Construction, a two-year pilot project covering all construction requirements valued betweenCan$100,000 and Can$5 million, applicable to tender documents since 12 November 2001, where the
work is carried out in Canada.
(b) Access conditions to procurement at the federal level
206. Canada grants national treatment to foreign suppliers in respect of procurement covered by
the GPA and other international agreements.  For transactions covered by the GPA, national treatment
conditions apply to most federal procurement, su bject to the agreed thresholds of SDR130,000 for
goods and services and SDR5 million for construction contracts.  In addition to general exceptions, a
number of specific goods and services are excluded from the scope of the GPA.
130
207. As required by the GPA, the thresholds for procurement contracts in Canadian dollars
are revised and notified to the WTO every two years.  For the period 2002-03, the relevant
thresholds are Can$255,800 for supplies of goods and services and Can$9.8 million for construction
contracts.  These thresholds are some 2% lower in Canadian dollar nominal terms than those applied
in 2000-01.131
208. The NAFTA grants national treatment to Canadian, Mexican and U.S. goods and services.
Goods and services exclusions are similar to those in the GPA.  As required by NAFTA, the
thresholds for procurement contracts in Canadian dollars are revised every two years.  The current
thresholds for federal departments and agencies are Can$37,500 (Canada-United States), Can$84,400
(Canada-Mexico) for goods, Can$84,400 for services, and Can$10.9 million for construction.  The
thresholds for crown corporations are Can$422,200 for goods and services, and Can$13.5 million for
construction.
                                                     
129 Contracts Canada online information.  Availa ble at:  http://contractscanada.gc.ca/en/chap1-e.htm.
130 These include shipbuilding and repair;  urban rail and transportation components;  transportation
services;  some communications, detection, and coherent radiation equipment;  oil purchases related to anystrategic reserve requirement;  purchases made in support of the safeguarding of nuclear materials;  dredging
work; and some office equipment and special industry machinery for the Departments of Transport,
Communications, and Fisheries and Oceans;  research and development;  utilities;  and health and social,financial, communications, photographic, mapping, printing, and publications services.
131 WTO documents WT/GPA/W/168/Add.2, 14 January 2002, and WT/GPA/W/101/Add.1,
9 February 2000.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 80
209. Chapter 5 of the AIT, the Procurement Chapter, attempts to ensure equal market access
conditions to procurement for "Canadian" suppliers, meaning those that have a place of business in
Canada.  The AIT covers procurement by the signatories of the agreement, namely the Federal
Government, 10 provincial governments, and two territories.  The AIT also covers procurement by
municipalities, municipal organizations, publicly funded academic institutions, and health and social
services entities (MASH).  The AIT applies to all Government procurement of goods valued atCan$25,000 or more and of services and construction valued at Can$100,000 and up.  For MASH
entities the thresholds are Can$100,000 for goods and services, and Can$250,000 for construction.
The AIT does not cover MASH entities in the Yu kon, and includes only seven of the 43 crown
corporations (public utilities).  Some services are excluded altogether from the AIT.
132  The AIT does
not apply to procurement related to cultural industries, or aboriginal culture.133
210. For procurement not covered by the GPA or NAFTA, entities covered by the AIT may accord
a preference for Canadian value-added, provided that the preference margin is no greater than 10%.
They may also limit its tender to Canadian goods or suppliers, provided the procuring entity issatisfied that there is sufficient competition among Canadian suppliers.
211. The CKTEA, which came into effect on 1 September 2001, applies to most federal
government departments and agencies and covers purchases of telecommunications equipment and
materials plus any services included in goods contracts covered by the agreement valued at
Can$255,800 or more.  Exceptions to its coverage include purchases for commercial resale or use inthe production of goods for commercial resale;  for Canada, purchases under set-asides for small and
minority businesses;  purchases for the Departments of Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, and certain
types of communications equipment.
212. Complaints involving alleged federal government  breaches of the AIT, the GPA, the NAFTA,
and the CKTEA may be brought to the Canadian In ternational Trade Tribunal (CITT) by potential
suppliers in respect of procurement by the federal government.  When a complaint is found to be
valid, the CITT determination may contain recommendations to the government institution, such as
re-tendering, re-evaluation or providing compensation.  The CITT may also award reasonable costs to
a complainant to cover expenses for participation proceedings related to a complaint or in bid
preparation..  The review process generally takes 90 days, with an express option of 45 days;  arequested extension of up to 135 days may be granted.  The CITT reviews only complaints involving
procurement by the federal government, not by provinces and the MASH sector.  The bid protest
procedures contained in Chapter 5 of the AIT apply in the case of provincial procurement practices.
213. In the period 1999-01, a total of 145 complaints with respect to procurement were under
review by the CITT.  Of these, ten complaints were resolved by the parties or were abandoned, 59 did
not lead to the initiation of an investigation, 55 were investigated on merit, and the rest were still in
progress at the end of the period.  Of the 55 complaints that were investigated, the CITT determined
27 complaints to be valid, and 28 not valid.  A few of the complaints were made by foreign suppliers,and many of them came from foreign-owned companies based in Canada.  Most of the determinations
with respect to the validity of a complaint were with respect to breaches of the AIT, followed by
breaches of the NAFTA, and the GPA.
214. Federal regional development agencies maintain a number of schemes to promote the
participation of small or regional businesses in the procurement process.  Under the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency's (ACOA) Business Developm ent Program, Atlantic-based small or medium-
                                                     
132 These include some professional services;  services for sporting events;  services of financial
analysts or the management of investments or of government financial assets and liabilities;  health and socialservices;  and advertising and public relations services.
133 AIT Secretariat online information.  Available at:  http://www.intrasec.mb.ca/pdf/consol_e1.pdf.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 81
sized businesses may receive up to Can$250,000 over a period of two years to help cover the cost of
preparing bids and other procurement activities.134  Incentives of this type are also provided by
Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.135  One of the purposes of Western Economic
Diversification Canada is to increase access to procurement opportunities for companies in Manitoba,Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.
(c) Procurement by provincial governments
215. Procurement at the sub-federal level, is ruled by provincial or other sub-federal government
laws and procurement regulations.  Canada did not table an offer in the GPA at the sub-federal level.
Canada's position in this respect has not changed since its last Review:  it is prepared to table an offer
at the sub-central level only if other parties are prepared to include sectors of priority to Canadiansuppliers, such as steel and transportation, and to agree to circumscribe the use of small business and
other set asides.  In particular, Canada considers that U.S. federal government policies must be
addressed to assure market access and non-discriminatory treatment for suppliers to U.S. state andmunicipal governments before tabling a schedule at the sub-federal level.
136
216. Provinces may have their own procurement agencies and thresholds, as well as their own
procurement policies, under the general framework of  the AIT (Annex III.1).  For procurement falling
within the scope of the AIT, the provinces grant similar access conditions to procurement from the
rest of Canada, but do not extend this automatically to procurement from foreign suppliers.  In the
framework of the AIT, the provinces are currently negotiating the extension of the scope of theagreement to entities of an industrial or commercial nature (e.g., crown corporations).
217. Some provinces grant provincial or regional preferences to procurement not falling within the
scope of the AIT or other internal procurement agreements, since such practices are not covered by
the GPA or NAFTA.  Under British Columbia's Purchasing Commission Act, British Columbia's
Purchasing Commission has power to give a prefer ence in favour of goods or services produced,
manufactured or sold in British Columbia, or in a local area.  Although in practice no price preference
is granted to British Columbia suppliers, the Commission may decide to limit the opportunity to bid to
British Columbia suppliers, subject to the AIT.  Th e authorities have noted that British Columbia was
engaged in a comprehensive process to cut the red tape and regulatory burden by one-third within
three years.  This would include a review, and possible repeal of the Purchasing Commission Act.
218. In New Brunswick, for procurement below the thresholds defined in the interprovincial
procurement agreements, the province may (but is not obliged to) apply a preference for
New Brunswick products, services or suppliers. When determining if a preference will be given, theNew Brunswick's Central Purchasing  Branch applies a policy of reciprocal treatment to bidders from
other provinces.  The authorities have noted that the magnitude of the preference margin, by policy,
does not exceed 5%, and that the actual percentage of the preference depends on factors such as local
content.  They have also noted that the preference is used rarely:  some 10 to 12 times per year out of
4,400 tenders.  New Brunswick, by policy, will not apply a preference against vendors from NovaScotia since they do not use one against New Brunswick suppliers.  The authorities of
New Brunswick look at the preference policy for other provinces, and at the access New Brunswick
vendors have.
219. In Nova Scotia, the Procurement Branch may consider and evaluate bids from other
jurisdictions on the same basis that the purchasing authorities in those jurisdictions would treat a
similar bid from a Nova Scotia supplier.
                                                     
134 More online information on the Atlantic Procurement Agreement is available at:  http://www.gnb.
ca/0337/01-e/3-e.htm, and http://www.gov.nf.ca/tenders/APA.stm.
135 More information about this programme is available online at:  http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca.
136 WTO document WT/GPA/51, 18 June 2001.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 82
220. Ontario applies a Canadian Steel Preference Policy, using  a 10% price preference for
Canadian structural steel products.  The preference is applied by deducting 10% of the value of
products identified in a construction bid of Can$100,000 or more, as Canadian structural steel
products.137  Under the Environmental Choice Program, environmental factors are given special
consideration in purchasing decisions for all contracts worth more than Can$10,000.
221. In Quebec, contracts for goods and auxiliary services valued at or above Can$25,000 and
services and construction projects of or over Can$100,000 must be tendered publicly.  Purchases of
goods and auxiliary services under Can$25,000 are made by the different departments, and suppliers
are generally chosen from a list, or are invited to tender;  in the latter case, only suppliers from
Quebec receive an invitation.  Procurement of services is subject in many cases to meeting ISOrequirements.  In the case of auxiliary services compliance with ISO 9003 standards is rewarded with
a 10% reduction in the offer price.
138  Apart from the AIT, Quebec has government procurement
market access liberalization agreements with New Brunswick and Ontario, and with the U.S. State of
New York.  The Quebec-Ontario Bilateral Agreement, signed in 1994, applies to procurement above
Can$25,000 for goods, Can$200,000 for services, and Can$100,000 for construction.  The agreementwith New Brunswick and Quebec establishes some basic principles governing public procurement of
goods, services, and construction by the governments of the two provinces.  The authorities have
noted that, in practice, this agreement is inactiv e, because the AIT is more trade liberalizing and
therefore prevails in most cases.  The agreement with New York, which entered into force in
November 2001, has thresholds of Can$25,000 for goods and Can$100,000 for services andconstruction, and grants reciprocal non-discriminatory treatment.
222. In Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, there is a regional preference for
goods tenders valued between Can$5,000 and Can$25,000, which are restricted where possible to
firms located in the four western provinces.  The authorities have noted that this preference is inkeeping with the Western Accord, a Memorandum of  Agreement signed in 1989 for the reduction of
Interprovincial Trade Barriers in Western Canada.  The Western Accord calls for equal non-
discriminatory access to government procurement to all vendors in Western Canada (Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan).  Althoug h the Accord stipulates no minimum thresholds,
for operational reasons, the procurement of goods has a threshold of Can$2,5000 and services andconstruction Can$100,000.  The authorities have noted that the preference clause is used sparingly.
223. In Yukon the provincial procurement agency maintains a source list, which identifies
businesses that qualify as Yukon businesses.
139  In addition, local-content requirements may be
applied for contracts under Can$50,000.
(vi) Intellectual property rights
(a) WTO activity
224. Canada notified its IPR legislation to the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS), which reviewed it in 1998.140  Canada has also notified its contact point for
TRIPS, including for technical cooperation.141
                                                     
137 Canadian steel content is defined as the total value of the supplier's structural steel product minus
the dutiable value of any imported goods or services applied to that product.  See.  "Tips on how to do Businesswith the Government of Ontario" [Online].  Available at:  http://www.ppitpb.gov.on.ca/mbs/psb/psb.nsf/feca7955f260027587256738007faf3e/3439ac3dc008 760a85256a79006605d3/$F ILE/tips_eng.pdf.
138 Further information is available online at:  http://www.tresor.gouv.qc.ca/marche/accords/
textes.htm#.
139 This requires meeting at least two of the following criteria:  the business employs Yukon residents;
the business owns, for purposes directly related to the operation of the business, real property in the Yukon;  thebusiness operates a permanently staffed office, year-round in the Yukon;  or the business is owned, or is acorporation that is owned 50% or more by Yukon residents.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 83
225. Canada has continued to participate actively in the review by the TRIPS Council of the IPR
legislation of other WTO Members.  In the context of Council work since 2000, Canada, alone or with
other Members, has made proposals in relation to non-violation, nullification or impairment under the
TRIPS Agreement142;  geographical indications143;  and the Doha Ministerial Declaration on the
TRIPS Agreement and public health.144
226. Canada's legislation on patents has been challenged twice in the WTO.  The first case was
initiated by the European Union and its members;  it related to the two exceptions to the otherwiseexclusive rights of the patentee to make, construct, use or sell a patented invention.  The first
exception allowed producers of generic pharmaceuticals to work a patented product for the purpose of
completing the regulatory approval process applicable to that product (early working provisions).  The
second exception allowed manufacturers to manufacture and stockpile patented drugs for the
six months before the patent expiry (the stockpiling provision).  A WTO Panel found that early
working provisions were consistent, and that the stockpiling provision was inconsistent with the
TRIPS Agreement;  the Panel recommended that Cana da bring the Patent Act into conformity with
the TRIPS Agreement.
145  Canada agreed to implement this recommendation;  the "reasonable period
of time" for implementation was determined, thr ough binding arbitration, to end in October 2000.146
227. A second WTO Panel examined the U.S. claim that Canada had failed to grant a full 20-year
patent term to patents applied for prior to October 1989;  the Panel agreed with the U.S. claim.147  The
panel decision was subsequently upheld by the WTO Appellate Body, which recommended thatCanada bring the Patent Act into conformity with the TRIPS Agreement.
148  Canada agreed to do so;
through binding arbitration the "reasonable period of time" was determined to expire in
August 2001.149
(b) Legislative developments
Patents
228. To comply with the WTO Panel concerning the stockpiling provision, as of 7 October 2000
the Regulations Repealing the Manufacturing and Storage of Patented Medicines Regulations
rescinded the Manufacturing and Storage of Patented Medicines Regulations of 1993.150  T h e
regulations of 1993 had been adopted as part of the reforms to the Patent Act, which included thephasing-out of the compulsory licensing regime whereby generic drug companies could, on the
payment of royalties to patent-holders, obtain licences to sell generic versions of patented drugs.  The
reforms introduced instead the two provisions challe nged by the EU.  In particular, the regulations
                                                                                                                                                                    
140 Canada's notified IPR statutes may be found in WTO document series IP/N/1/CAN/;  its replies to
Members' questions concerning those notifications may be found in document series IP/Q3/CAN/ andIP/Q4/CAN/.
141 WTO document IP/N/3/Rev.6, Add.2, 14 October 2002, contains the latest notification.
142 WTO documents IP/C/W/191, 22 June 2000, and IP/C/W/249, 29 March 2001.  The issue concerns
measures that do not violate the TRIPS Agreement but may nonetheless nullify or impair benefits that can be
expected to be derived from it.
143 WTO documents IP/C/W/133/Rev.1, 26 July 1999, IP/C/W/289, 29 June 2001, and IP/C/W/360,
26 July 2002.
144 WTO document IP/C/W/313, 4 October 2001.
145 WTO document WT/DS114/R, 17 March 2000.
146 WTO document WT/DS114/13, 18 August 2000.
147 WTO document WT/DS170/R, 5 May 2000.
148 WTO document WT/DS170/AB/R, 18 September 2000.
149 WTO document WT/DS170/10, 28 February 2001.
150 Canada Gazette , Part II, Volume 134, Number 21, 11 October, 2000.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 84
of 1993 gave effect to the stockpiling exception, and by repealing such regulations the authorities
sought to render the exception of no practical force.
229. On issuing the Regulations Repealing the Manufacturing and Storage of Patented Medicines
Regulations, the authorities noted that even without the stockpiling exception generic manufacturers
typically have a number of months to manufacture and store product in the period between the
regulatory approval date and the date a drug becomes listed on provincial formularies (upon which
market penetration of generic drugs largely depends).  The authorities thus consider that, given thatgeneric drug manufacturers have expressed confidence in their ability to generate industrial-scale
production levels in a very short time, the loss of th e ability to stockpile patented drugs within the
six months preceding patent expiry would not have significant economic consequences on the generic
drug industry, nor on consumers' access to generic drugs.
151  However, the Canadian Drug
Manufacturers Association, an industry associati on representing generic drug manufacturers, was of
the view that the loss of stockpiling could, in certain circumstances, lead to the delay onto the market
of generic drugs.152
230. To bring the Patent Act into conformity with the Appellate Body's decision concerning patent
terms, An Act to Amend the Patent Act came into force on 12 July 2001.153  Previously, the Patent
Act provided for two different terms of protection for patents, depending on the date the application
was filed.  "Old Act" patents benefited from a term of 17 years from the date the patent was granted
for applications filed before 1 October 1989;  "New Act" patents benefited from a term of 20 years
from the date the patent application was filed in Canada when this occurred on or after1 October 1989.  As of 12 July 2001, non-expired "Old Act" patents with terms less than 20 years
from the date of filing in Canada, are automatically  extended to the 20-year term required by the
TRIPS Agreement.
231. The authorities noted that approximately 129,000 "Old Act" patents were in force in 2001.
154
About 45,000 patents had a term of protection of less than 20 years from the date of filing.  In 2000,
patented drugs in Canada were, on average, priced 8% below international median prices and about40% below those in the United States.
232. In May 2001, Canada signed the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), which is designed to simplify and
harmonize administrative practices for processing patents among national and regional intellectualproperty offices (IPOs).  As of late 2002, the PL T has not yet been ratified by Canada.  The
authorities noted that, by signing the Treaty, Canada is agreeing in principle with the Treaty and its
Rules, committing to launch the ratification process and to subsequently amend its national patent law
so that Canada’s patent administrative formalities conform with the Treaty.  The authorities consider
that joining the PLT will benefit inventors through a streamlined process for filing and processing
patent applications, encourage the use of intellectual property systems, stimulate innovation, and
facilitate access by Canadians to foreign IPOs.
155
233. Canada has amended its Patent rules, effective 1 April 2002, to extend the time limit for
transmitting a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application to the Canadian Intellectual Property
Office from 20 to 30 months, irrespective of whether the applicant has requested an International
                                                     
151 Available online at:  http://www.canada.gc.ca/gazette/part1/ascII/g1-13432_e.txt.
152 Available online at:  http://www.canada.gc.ca/gazette/part2/ascII/g2-13421_e.txt.
153 Canada Gazette , Part III, Volume 24, Number 3, 7 September 2001.
154 Strategis online information.  Available at:  http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/new/bill_s17-
e.html.
155 Strategis online information.  Available at:  http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/new/newpatent
law-e.html.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 85
Preliminary Examination.156  The amendments are a result of a unanimous decision taken by the PCT
Assembly at WIPO in September 2001.
234. In December 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that higher life forms such as mice
and chimpanzees cannot be patented unless Parliament modifies the Patent Act.  As it stands, the
Patent Act states that patents can be issued for "any new and useful manufacture, or composition of
matter".  The Court deemed that "manufacture" denoted a non-living, mechanistic product or process,
and that "composition of matter" could apply to lesser life forms such as yeast, but not to higher lifeforms.  The ruling was in connection with Harvard University's request for a patent for its genetically
engineered "oncomouse", a breed that develops cancer swiftly because of a cancer-promoting gene
introduced into it by researchers.
Copyright235. In June 2001, the Government of Canada publ ished “A Framework fo r Copyright Reform”,
which outlines the context and process for reform and sets out its intention to consider possible
amendments that may be necessary to keep pace wi th technological and international developments.
157
At the same time the Government published two policy papers.  The "Consultation Paper on Digital
Copyright Issues” explored potential solutions to key digital copyright issues, and the “Consultation
Paper on the Application of the Copyright Act's Compulsory Retransmission Licence to the Internet”
raised the issue of the scope of the compulsory licence.  Domestic consultations followed.  
236. A bill to amend Section 31 of the Copyright Act was tabled in the House of Commons in
December 2001.158  In December 2002, the bill was still in Parliament.  Section 31 sets out the
compulsory licence applicable to the retransmission of copyright protected works in signals broadcast
over the air by television and radio stations.  The new bill aims to clarify that distribution systems
such as cable and satellite may continue to rebroadcast over-the-air radio and television signals bypaying royalties and respecting other provisions in the Copyright Act.  The bill excludes Internet-
based retransmission of broadcast signals from compulsory licensing regulations unless the Canadian
Radio-television and Communications Commission (CRTC) specifically adapts its regulatory
framework to accommodate such transmissions.  On 30 October 2002, the Government tabled the
report that initiates the Parliamentary Review of the Copyright Act, which is required undersection 92 of the Act.
237. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIP O) has plans to improve other IPR legislation,
and has requested feedback from stakeholders for a possible second Intellectual Property Law
Improvement Bill.
159  This bill would continue the process of modernization begun by the first IP Law
Improvement Bill enacted in 1993, the last provis ions of which came into force in October 1996.
Some preliminary consultations on the new bill were held in early 1997;  the authorities propose to
carry out further consultations with a view to tabling legislative amendments by December 2003.160
                                                     
156 Canada Gazette , Part II, Volume 136, Number 7, 27 March 2002.
157 Details on A Framework for Copyright Reform are av ailable online at:  http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/
rp01100e.html.
158 The text of the bill, C-48, is available online at:  http://www.parl.gc.ca/common /Bills_ls.asp?lang=
E&Parl=37&Ses=1&ls=C48&source=Bills_House_Government.
159 Text of the letters inviting comments are available online at:  www.cipo.gc.ca.  CIPO is responsible
for the granting or registration of ownership for patents, trade marks, copyrights, industrial designs, and
integrated circuit topographies.  Further details on CIPO's mandate and activities are available in its onlineinformation.
160 Strategis online information.  Available at:  http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/tm/
tm_ip_letter-e.html.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 86
(c) Market competition and related issues
238. Provisions for IPR-related compulsory licensing exist under the Patent Act, the Integrated
Circuit Topography Act and the Competition Act.  Under Section 65 of the Patent Act, following a
period of three years after the patent is granted, any person interested may request relief, including
(but not limited to) a compulsory licence alleging abuse of exclusive rights.  Under Section 66 of the
Patent Act, if the patentee has been found to have abused the exclusive rights, a licence may be
granted on terms and conditions deemed fit for the particular case.  Only one such compulsory licencehas been granted since the entry into force of the TRIPS Agreement in 1996, concerning a gadget for
hockey sticks.  Under Section 19 of the Patent Act, the federal and provincial governments may also
apply for non-exclusive use of patented inventions, subject to certain conditions.  There have been no
such cases since the entry into force of the TRIPS Agreement.
239. Under Section 7.1 of the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, the public non-commercial use
of a registered topography by the federal or a provincial government may be authorized;  if so, the
user must pay "adequate remuneration", and the use must be non-exclusive and predominantly tosupply the domestic market, subject to certain conditions.  The authorities indicated that these
provisions had not been used to date.
240. Section 32 of the Competition Act grants the Federal Court powers to limit certain rights used
to restrain trade (those concerning patents, trade marks, copyrights, and registered topographies) when
those rights lead to unjustifiable anti-competitive activities.  In such cases the Federal Court may,
among other things, order the granting of licences on such terms as it deems proper or the revocation
of the IPR in question provided such actions are not at variance with Canada's international
commitments.  The authorities indicated that there have been no such orders.
241. In September 2000, the Competition Bureau released its Intellectual Property Enforcement
Guidelines seeking to promote transparency in th e enforcement of the Competition Act in regard to
issues involving IPRs.
161  The guidelines explain how the Bureau determines whether conduct
involving IPRs raises an issue under the Competition Act, and describe how the Bureau distinguishes
between circumstances that warrant a referral to the Attorney General for an examination under
section 32 of the Competition Act (i.e. cases involving the mere exercise of an IPR), and
circumstances that warrant an examination under the general provisions (i.e. going beyond the mereexercise of an IPR).
242. Although parallel imports for commercial purposes are not allowed, the authorities have noted
that prevailing legal interpretation makes it generally difficult for a Canadian right holder to prevent
the importation of products that have been lawfully manufactured and marketed in a foreign country.
The Copyright Act allows exclusive distributors to prevent the parallel importation of books covered
by exclusive distribution contracts, subject to conditions set by regulation.  There are exceptions listed
in Section 45 of the Act, which allow, under certain conditions, the parallel importation of works ingeneral and of books in particular.  Although a statutory provision preventing the parallel importation
of used textbooks remains in place, the authorities have noted that section 8 of the Book Importation
Regulations SOR/99-324 effectively overrides the stat utory exclusion in most cases.  Booksellers are
able to bring into Canada parallel imports of used textbooks if they meet the requirements of section 8
of the Regulations.
243. Canadian patent jurisprudence permits a right holder to apply for a court order to prevent the
importation, distribution or sale of goods infringing any person's rights under the Patent Act.
Canada's Trade Marks Act allows "any interested pe rson" to apply for a court order to prevent import,
                                                     
161 The guidelines are available online at:  http://strategis.ic.gc .ca /SSG/c t01992e.html.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 87
distribution or sale of goods infringing any person's rights under the Act.  Parallel imports cannot be
barred under the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, which provides complete exhaustion of property
rights.
244. Canada is the only country that explicitly issues regulations on drug prices through its patent
legislation.  Those prices are reviewed by the Pa tented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), an
independent, quasi-judicial body under Industry Canada, created in 1987 as a result of revisions to thePatent Act.  The PMPRB's responsibilities are to protect consumer interests by regulating the
maximum prices charged by manufacturers for patented medicines to ensure that they are not
excessive, and to report to Parliament on its price review activities, the price trends of medicines, and
on the ratio of research and development in Canada's patented pharmaceutical industry.  If the
PMPRB determines in its review process that the price of a drug is too high, the patentee can request ahearing with the PMPRB Arbitration Board or can voluntarily agree to reduce the price and return the
excess revenue earned through the higher price, while it applied, to the Federal Government through a
voluntary compliance undertaking (VCU).  The Patent Act was amended to enable the Minister of
Health to enter into negotiations with the province s to reach agreement on how best to distribute the
money that has been paid back through this system.  Some 23 VCUs have been taken since 1993.
162
245. The work of the PMPRB was examined by the Auditor General of Canada in 1998, which
made a number of recommendations.163  In its 2001 Annual Report, the Auditor General concluded
that the PMPRB had made good progress in implementing those recommendations, particularly those
within its control.  One recommendation led to the amendment of the Patent Act allowing the Minister
of Health to enter into agreements with province s respecting distribution of funds collected through
voluntary compliance undertakings by patentees.  However, the Auditor General noted that no action
had been taken to clarify the PMPRB's jurisdiction over patented medicines whose patents arededicated for public use.
246. As a result of its consultations with stakeholders, the PMPRB took steps to review its pricing
guidelines.  In 2000, it implemented the recommendations of the Working Group on Price Review
Issues to use the prices charged to the U.S. Gove rnment (Federal Supply Schedule) in calculating U.S.
prices for the purpose of international price comparison.
164
247. Under the Copyright Act, a private copying regi me imposes levies on blank audio recording
media such as blank cassettes and CDs sold in Canada (both domestically manufactured and
imported).  Manufacturers and importers of blank audio recording media are required to pay these
levies to the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC).  These levies are then distributed by the
CPCC to eligible authors (composers and lyrici sts), performers, and makers of music sound
recordings (including all foreign authors whose copy right in musical works subsists in Canada).  The
levies are set by the Copyright Board, an economic regulatory body whose responsibilities include to
establish royalties for the use of works protected by copyrights administered by a collective society.165
                                                     
162 Online information is available at:  http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/.
163 The recommendations are part of the Auditor General's 1998 Annual Report.  The Auditor General's
annual reports are available online at:  http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/.
164 The Working Group report on the Appropriate Use of U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs Prices is
available online at:  http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/PDF/wg/dvae-pri.pdf .
165 Further information on the Copyright Board is available online at:  http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 88
248. From 1 January 2001, the Copyright Board increased private copying levies to Can$0.29 on
audio cassette tapes of 40 minutes or longer, to Can$0.21 on CD-Rs and CD-RWs, and to Can$0.77
on CD-Rs Audio and CD-RWs Audio and Mini-Discs.166  The rationale for the rise in the levies was
mostly related to an increased usage of digital media for copying pre-recorded music.  The Copyright
Board estimated that private copying levies would raise some Can$27 million in 2001 and
Can$32 million in 2002.  The Board also noted that while prices for blank audio recording media have
generally been declining, consumer prices for such media could likely be higher as a result of the new
levy rates.167  In late 2002, the Copyright Board was examining proposed levies for 2003 and 2004.
                                                     
166 The private copying levies for 2001 and 2002 were published in Canada Gazette , Part I, Volume
134, Number 51, 16 December 2000.
167 Copyright Board's Backgrounder, 15 December 2000 [Online].  Available at:  http://www.cb-cda.gc.
ca /news/c20012002fs-e.html.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 89
Annex III.1 Provincial and Territorial Government Procurement
Province:  Alberta
Main procurement agency:  the Supply Management Branch (SMB)
Procurement conditions:  The SMB of Government Services is responsible for the centralized
purchasing on behalf of Government of Alberta departments of their materials, equipment, supplies
and information technology systems development and outsourcing services.  Contract awards arebased either on the lowest compliant or the most cost-effective bid.  Services and construction are
procured directly by the different departments.  All purchases for goods, services, and construction are
subject to the AIT procurement provisions of Ch apter 5.  Departments may purchase goods valued at
up to Can$10,000 per transaction directly from suppliers using a Purchase Order, or the Government
Procurement Card.  If an emergency exists, purchases over Can$10,000 may also be made directly bydepartments.  Standing offers, supply arrangements that enable departments to order goods directly
from suppliers over a specific period of time at prescribed prices and terms and conditions, are
established by the Procurement Section as required.  Purchases made on behalf of departments are
generally exempt from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST).
There is no dollar limit on departmental purchases of Standing Offers established by the ProcurementSection.
1
Transparency:  The SMB advertises procurement opportunities for goods valued at Can$10,000 orgreater and development of information technology application software valued at Can$100,000 or
greater on the national electronic tendering system (MERX).  Where the procurement value for
services and construction is Can$100,000 or greater it is advertised on MERX.  Construction is also
advertised online.
2
Province:  British Columbia
Main procurement agency:  Purchasing Commission (PC)3
Procurement conditions:  The PC is responsible for procurement of goods above a Can$5,000.
Services are generally procured directly by the different ministries.
Transparency:  Procurement opportunities tendered are posted online.4
Province:  Manitoba
Main procurement agency:  Procurement Service Branch (PSB)
Procurement conditions:  The PSB is in charge of the procurement of goods but departments also
engage in procurement directly.  Departments have been delegated the authority to purchase goods up
to Can$2,500, including taxes, with some restrictions.  Some goods over Can$2,500 (e.g. highway
construction contracting and IT requirements) may also be bought by the departments, however theyhave to advertise them on MERX.  Departments have also been delegated the authority to purchase
their own services.
                                                     
1 http://www.infras.gov.ab.ca/.
2 http://www.coolnet.ca.
3 http://www.pc.gov.bc.ca/.
4 http://www.bcbid.ca/.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 90
Transparency:  The Manitoba Government tenders on MERX goods with a value greater than
Can$2,500, and services and construction contracts greater than Can$100,000.  Departments are
required to tender in an approved format, and for contracts over Can$100,000 have to advertise on
MERX.  Actual purchases made by departments are available online.5
Province:  New Brunswick
Main procurement agency:  Central Purchasing Branch (CPB)Procurement conditions:  The CPB is responsible for purchases of goods valued at Can$1,500 or
more.  Below this threshold, Government departments are entitled to purchase goods, directly from a
vendor.  For purchases between Can$1,501-4,999, Central Purchasing may solicit price quotations
from registered vendors;  for purchases of Can$5,000 or above, tenders may either be invited from
registered vendors or publicly advertised.  For services, departments may purchase up to Can$9,999directly without tender;  from Can$10,000 to Can$49,999 the CPB may invite or advertise tenders.
Transparency:  Tenders of Can$25,000 and up, (goods) and of Can$50,000 and up (services) must be
publicly advertised.  The authorities have noted that, although they are allowed to invite tenders for
goods purchases between Can$5,000 and Can$24,999 and services between Can$10,000 and
Can$49,999, in practice those tenders are advertised.  All tenders are advertised on the NewBrunswick's Government internally run web site (NBON) as well as on the BIDS and MERX private
sector services.  The version of the Standard Terms and Conditions effective 25 June 2001 applies to
all tender invitations for goods and services issued by the CPB.
6  The authorities have noted that the
Standard Terms and Conditions are periodically updated, and subject to change as required.
Province:  Newfoundland and Labrador
Main procurement agency:  Government Purchasing Agency (GPA)
Procurement conditions:  Tendering takes place generally in a competitive manner, under the AIT;
there are no price preferences or provincial set-asides.  The GPA endeavours to obtain a minimum of
three price quotations for all acquisitions under Can$10,000.
Transparency:  Tenders that exceed Can$10,000 are publicly advertised, and the Agency endeavours
to obtain a minimum of three price quotations for all acquisitions under Can$10,000.
Territory:  Northwest Territories (NWT)Main procurement agency:  The Department of Public Works and Services (PW&S)
Procurement conditions:  Tendering takes place generally in a competitive manner, for thresholds
covered by the AIT.  Sole source contracts are allowed for goods urgently needed;  when only one
supplier is available and capable of performing the contract;  or when the contract is valued at less
than Can$1,000.
7  Negotiated contracts, where a specific firm is targeted may be used, but must be
approved by the Government of the Northwest Territories;  there is no specific policy for these
contracts.  Standing Offer Agreements (price agreements with suppliers) may be entered.  The
Cabinet directed that PW&S extend this kind of agreement for key commodities on a centralized basis
starting FY 2001/2002.  Preferences are granted for NWT suppliers.  For contracts valued at less than
Can$1,000, sourcing is restricted to approved northern businesses.  For contracts valued between
                                                     
5 http://www.manitobamarketplace.com/open_update.html.
6 The Terms and Conditions are available online at:  http://www.gnb.ca/0337/01-e/28-e.htm.
7 See online information.  Available at:  http://www.gov.nt.ca/.Canada WT/TPR/S/112
Page 91
Can$1,000 and Can$5,000 a 20% preference margin is granted to approved NWT suppliers.  In the
case of contracts valued over Can$50,000, a NWT preference margin of 15% and a local preferencemargin of 5% are granted.
Transparency:  Tenders that exceed Can$30,000 for goods and Can$100,000 for construction are
publicly advertised on a local newspaper and on PW&S's website.  Invitational tendering isrecommended for contracts under Can$30,000.
Province:  Nova ScotiaAgency:  Procurement Branch (PC) of the Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW)
Procurement conditions:  All purchasing is through the Corporate Financial Management System
(CFMS).  Departments have been delegated purchasing authority for goods up to Can$5,000, and for
services and construction contracts up to Can$10,000.
8  All other procurement is done centrally, or
with the approval of the PC.
Transparency:  All tender opportunities are shown on the Department of Finance online information.
Province:  Ontario
Main procurement agency:  Procurement Policy and Information Technology Procurement Branch
(PPITPB)
Procurement conditions:  PPITPB is responsible for all procurement of goods above Can$25,000 and
services above Can$100,000.
Transparency:  Tenders by PPITPB are subject to competitive tendering, either through advertising in
the MERX, or through newspaper advertising.
Province:  Prince Edward Island
Agency:  Procurement Services Section, Office of the Comptroller, Department of the Provincial
Treasury, established under the Public Purchasing Act of Prince Edward Island to purchase all goods
and supplies required by government departments located throughout the province.  Other than Local
Purchase Orders (LPO's) for emergency goods to a value of Can$250, or certain exemptions provided
for in the Public Purchasing Act, the Procurement Services Section is the sole body authorized to
purchase supplies for the Provincial Government.
Procurement conditions:  Purchases are generally made on the basis of the lowest overall total price
that meets the specifications of the competition and subject to guidelines established in the Public
Purchasing Act and Regulations.  Standing Offer Tenders, through which departments order supplies
at pre-arranged prices and delivery conditions, may be issued for items to be purchased over a
specified period of time on an "as and when required" basis, for tenders below the AIT thresholds.Also for the latter, the Government reserves the right to give preference to tenders received from
suppliers based In Prince Edward Island or other Atlantic provinces.
Transparency:  All tenders for goods above Can$25,000, services above Can$50,000, and
construction above Can$100,000 are advertised on the MERX.  Tenders for goods below Can$25,000
are generally also advertised and distributed via the MERX, although where competition exists, these
                                                     
8 See also Government of Nova Scotia online information.  Available at:  http://gov.ns.ca/fina/tour/.WT/TPR/S/112 Trade Policy Review
Page 92
tenders may be restricted to suppliers based on Prince Edward Island or Atlantic Canada.  In
emergency or urgent situations, tenders may be called by telephone or facsimile.
Province:  Quebec
Main procurement agency:  Direction générale des acquisitions  (DGA)
Procurement conditions:  Contracts for goods valued at or above Can$25,000 and construction
projects of or over Can$100,000 must be tendered publicly, subject to the AIT, and must go throughthe DGA.  Purchases of goods and services under Can$25,000 are usually made by the different
departments;  suppliers are generally chosen from a list or are invited to tender.
Transparency:  DGA procurement is advertised on MERX, in the case of goods and services, and on
CIEC (electronic database for construction contracts) in the case of construction.
Province:  SaskatchewanMain procurement agency:  Purchasing Branch (PB) of Saskatchewan Property Management
Corporation (SPMC)
9
Procurement conditions:  The PB coordinates the purchase of goods and some services forgovernment departments, boards, agencies, and co mmissions, and some crown corporations.  Source
lists are normally used for goods tenders valued at less than Can$5,000 and services tenders valued atless than Can$100,000.  The authorities have noted that competitive bidding is the norm for most of
Saskatchewan's procurement and that invitational or known-supplier lists are used in few cases and
comprise a small proportion of the total goods purchased by the PB.
Transparency:  Goods tenders valued at Can$5,000 or more, and services tenders valued at
Can$100,000 or more, are advertised and distributed through MERX.
Territory:  Yukon
Main procurement agency:  Procurement Services (PS), a dependency of the Department of
Infrastructure
Procurement conditions:  The PS buys goods and related services for all government departments.
The office maintains a source list, which is a directory of contractors, consultants, and suppliers of
goods and services.  Service are publicly advertised, as noted below, or the bid must invite everyone
registered on the source list.  For contracts under Can$50,000, only three bidders on the list have to beinvited.
10
Transparency:  Service contracts with an estimated value of Can$50,000, and goods contracts valuedat Can$25,000 or more, must be publicly advertised.
                                                     
9 See also SPMC online information.  Available at:  http://www.spmc.gov.sk.ca/spmc/.
10 See also Government of Yukon Department of Infrastructure online information.  Available at:
http://www.gov.yk.ca/source/.