WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1  
20 August 2015  
(15-6801)  Page: 1/272  
Trade Policy Review Body 
15 and 17 June 2015 Original: English/anglais/inglés  
 
  TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
CANADA  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
Addendum 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgaria) 
This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO 
Members, and replies provided by Canada.1 
 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
15 et 17 juin 2015 
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
CANADA  
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION 
Addendum 
Président: S.E. M. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgarie) 
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les 
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelles, et les réponses fournies par Canada.1 
 
 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 
15 y 17 de junio de 2015 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
CANADÁ  
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN 
Addendum 
Presidente: Excmo. Sr. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgaria) 
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y 
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por 
Canadá.1 
                                               
1 In English only./En anglais seulement./En inglés solamente. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  REPLIES PROVIDED BY CANADA TO  ADVANCE WRITTEN QUESTIONS  
RECEIVED PRIOR TO 18 MAY 2015 
ALPHABETICALLY BY MEMBER 
ARGENTINA (ORIGINAL QUESTI ONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
[Argentina Question 1 (First set)]: The sale of alcoholic beverages is provincially regulated in 
Canada. 
A.- In the case of the province of Ontario, it  has come to our knowledge that the LCBO, the 
monopoly that regulates the sale of alcohol in  the province established minimum sale amounts 
that a product must reach to remain on the LCBO list in its business objectives for the fiscal year 2014/2015. This method, which has been applied for many years, was apparently modified by setting "specific price bands." Such a process imposes different sale targets on foreign wine 
categories based on the price at which they woul d be sold. At the same time, when analyzing the 
list of objectives established by the LCBO und er that initiative, we note the following: 
a.- There is a considerable difference between the sale requirements established for international 
wines and local wines. For example, Ontario wines in the "Red Blend" category would need sales of 
CAD 140,000 to stay on the shelves, while the targets for Argentinean wines in the same category are CAD 845,000 (Standard), CAD 495,000 (Premium) and CAD 295,000 (Deluxe). 
b.- There are also differences among imported wines, since the price limits that define 
subcategories are generally not the same. The target amounts are also not the same.  
To conclude, it is worth noting that the representative for "Wines of Argentina" in Canada reported 
last March that "Drinks Ontario" (an organization that brings together agents and importers) had 
sent correspondence to the LCBO last September stating its members' concern regarding the 
situation described, especially the discrepancy between the sales targets for Canadian wines and imported wines. She added that the response from the LCBO was basically to the effect that there 
were no discrepancies in how targets were calculated. The representative further pointed out that, 
despite these approaches, the situation regarding sale targets has remained unchanged. 
B.- For its part, the province of British Columb ia (BC) announced that the sale of domestic 
alcoholic beverages in stores other than those run by the BC monopoly is now authorized. More 
specifically, the retail flexibilization would include the following options as part of the plan called "Liquor in grocery stores": 
i. Store-within-a-store: this authorizes grocery stores to include a separate store to sell alcoholic 
beverages within its premises.  
ii. B.C. Wine Stores (also "made in B.C. grocery model"): the provincial government defines this as 
a flexible model that will allow the sale of wi nes produced in BC on supermarket shelves. 
In December 2014, the BC government issued a press release announcing that:  
"Grocery stores will be able to stock 100% B.C. wine on their shelves as early as April 1, 2015, 
creating new opportunities for B.C. wineries, supporting B.C.'s home-grown economy and 
addressing calls for added convenience from consumers." 
"The second phase of the liquor-in-grocery model will allow existing VQA stores and independent 
wine stores to relocate or transfer their licence to an eligible grocery store –as long as the licence is only used to sell 100% B.C. wine. Of note, these licences are not subject to the one-kilometre 
restrictions, allowing more flexibility and choice of locations when moving into a grocery store." 
This announcement unambiguously presents better and more flexible sale opportunities for BC 
wines to the detriment of imported wines or wines produced in other Canadian provinces. It should WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  be pointed out that after the announcement mentio ned above, the American "Wine Institute" sent 
a note to the BC Premier accusing the province of violating international obligations in relation to 
NAFTA, GATT and the Canada-European Union Co mprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. 
We would like to ask the Canadian delegation about the measures adopted by—or being 
considered by—some provincial governments in relation to trade in wine and its compatibility with 
the GATT law. 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in 
alcoholic beverages is governed by the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA). The 
IILA provides the provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the im portation of such liquor into the provinces and 
territories. Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores operated by the provincial/territorial 
liquor control authority or through authorized private retailers or a combination of both. Provincial 
and territorial liquor control authorities purchase  or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages 
based on market needs and other commercial considerations, such as price, quality and 
availability. 
Ontario and British Columbia are both in the process of adopting changes to their liquor 
distribution. 
In November 2014, the Ontario Premier's Advisory Council issued an initial report including 
recommendations with respect to a new pricing policy for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) and potential changes to the retail distribution of wine. The Advisory Council's recommendations were incorporated into Ontario's 2015 Budget, announced in April, but are 
limited to proposed changes relating to the sale and distribution of beer in Ontario. The Advisory 
Council demurred recommendations concerning the sale and distribution of wine, indicating that further work is required. 
As of April 1, 2015, British Columbia began implementing policy changes to the sale and 
distribution of alcohol in that province.  
These polices are intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the respective liquor 
distribution systems. The federal government ha s worked closely with the provinces to ensure 
consistency of these changes with Canada's international obligations. 
The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Board (PTLBs) in Canada were established before the GATT was 
created, and their existence and activity is cons istent with the provisions of GATT Article XVII 
["State Trading Enterprises"]. In accordance with that Article, they are notified to the WTO as 
STEs. 
[Argentina Question 2 (First Set)]: Inspection system, the above-mentioned agency has decided to 
re-establish the exportation of Argentinean beef into Canada. This will include boneless cooked 
meat and boneless fresh/frozen raw meat. In May 2015, SENASA (Argentinean National Food Safety and Quality Service) sent the CFIA a health certificate proposal. 
Regarding Argentina's interest in exporting poultry to Canada, the CFIA has observed several 
stages of poultry processing and is expecting to receive new proposals from SENASA that will comply with the duly stated requirements. 
Argentina would like to mention that the news about recent progress allowing Argentinean beef 
into the Canadian market has been most welcome. Argentina is also hoping that the steps leading 
to the exportation of Argentinean poultry to Canada will be taken in the near future. 
Canada's Response:  Canada notes Argentina's remarks . Canada is pleased that the audit results 
were favourable and that expanded access for Argentine beef has been allowed for the Canadian 
marketplace. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  AUSTRALIA 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1.5.2 Excise Taxes and Duties 
Page 59, paragraph 3.36 
 [Australia Question 1]: Australia continues to be aware of a number of differential tax, marketing 
and licencing practices at both federal and provincial level, which apply to the distribution and sale 
of imported versus domestic wine in the Canadian market:  
a) federal excise duty exemptions or reductions  for Canadian produced wine, compared to 
imported wine 
b) various provincial measures which include: 
a. the provision of licences to grocery stores for the purposes of selling provincial-
sourced wine only; 
b. non-transparent retail 'mark-ups' by provincial liquor control entities with respect of 
imported wine; 
c. allowing local provincial wine to be retail ed free of mark-up in on-premise licensed 
establishments as long as local content requirements are met; 
d. the supply-chain practice of allowing local wine producers to establish financial 
interests in 'tied-houses' through which to sell local product; and  
e. the practice of allowing the sale of wine at small markets (e.g. farmers markets) as 
long as the wine is produced in the province that the market is held.  
Can Canada provide more information on the extent to which there is differentiated treatment 
between imported and local wine in the Canadian wine marketplace? 
Does Canada agree that these measures, individually or collectively, would appear to be 
inconsistent with Canada's WTO obligations? 
Canada's Response:  In 2006, a federal excise duty exemption was introduced for wine produced 
from 100% Canadian-grown agricultural product. Further information regarding the application of 
this relief measure can be found on the following Canada Revenue Agency webpage: 
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pu b/em/edn15/edn15-e.html. 
This measure does not impose an additional tax burden on imports vis-à-vis domestic products. 
The amount of targeted excise duty relief under this specific measure is relatively small and was 
largely modeled after similar programs in other countries. Furthermore, this measure does not 
have any significant impact on the demand for wine imports in Canada. Indeed, imports of wine into Canada have increased 30% since 2006.  
In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in alcoholic beverages is 
governed by the federal Importation of Intoxica ting Liquors Act (IILA). The IILA provides the 
provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the importation of such liquor into the provinces and territories. 
Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores operated by the provincial/territorial liquor control 
authority or through authorized private retailers or a combination of both. Provincial and territorial liquor control authorities purchase or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages in line with 
market needs as related to such commercial considerations as price, quality, availability and other 
conditions of purchase or sale. With respect to retail mark-ups, Canada would note that cost of service differential charges, which may lead to a higher mark-up on imported products, were found 
to be GATT compliant, as long as they are no greater than the additional costs necessarily 
associated with marketing imported products. 
The provinces of Ontario and British Columbia are both in the process of adopting changes to their 
liquor distribution policies with a view to incr easing efficiency and effectiveness. The federal 
government has worked closely with the provinces to ensure consistency of any changes with 
Canada's international trade obligations. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Boards (PTLBs) in Canada were established before the GATT was 
created, and their existence and activity is cons istent with the provisions of GATT Article XVII 
["State Trading Enterprises"]. In accordance with that Article, they are notified to the WTO as 
STEs. 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
Page 63- 64, paragraph 3.46  
[Australia Question 2]: We understand that the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) is able to 
self-initiate anti-dumping and countervailing investigations.  
How many of the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations initiated in the review period 
were self-initiated by the CBSA? 
Canada's Response:  The CBSA did not self-initiate any anti-dumping or countervailing 
investigation in the review period. 
[Australia Question 3]: If so, what factors led the CBSA to self-initiate these investigations? 
Canada's Response:  The CBSA did not self-initiate any anti-dumping or countervailing 
investigation in the review period. 
[Australia Question 4]: What is the rationale and benefits of having two government authorities 
involved in the dumping and countervailing invest igation process (CBSA and CITT) as opposed to 
having a single investigative authority? 
Canada's Response:  A bifurcated system with shared responsibility between the CBSA and the 
CITT allows for the development of specialized sk ills, and can be more efficient by allowing 
concurrent investigation processes. As well, Canada's trade system provides for impartial decisions 
on injury, dumping or subsidizing. The independent, quasi-judicial nature of the CITT as the final-decision maker is an important aspect of Canada's  trade remedy system where there is no political 
involvement.  
[Australia Question 5]: Does a preliminary injury determination or negative motivated decision 
only occur 60 days after initiation or can it occur later? 
Canada's Response:  Pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of the Special Import Measures Act , the 
CITT shall make its preliminary injury determination on or before the 60
th day after the initiation of 
an investigation. 
[Australia Question 6]: Is a preliminary injury determination accompanied by provisional duties? 
If so, how is dumping and causation considered when the assessment of dumping by the CBSA has 
not yet occurred?  
If not, when is the earliest that provisional duties may be levied and what are the necessary 
prerequisites before they may be levied? 
Canada's Response:  A preliminary injury determination is not accompanied by provisional duties. 
Pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Special Import Measures Act , provisional duties may only be 
applied if the President of the CBSA considers that the imposition of a provisional duty is necessary 
to prevent injury, retardation or threat of injury upon the making of a preliminary determination of 
dumping or subsidizing in respect of subject good s. Therefore, these duties can only be applied 
following a preliminary determination of injury by the CITT and a preliminary determination of 
dumping or subsidizing by the CBSA. 
[Australia Question 7]: If a preliminary injury determination is not made is it then mandatory to 
issue a negative motivated decision that there is no indication of injury? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  Pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of the Special Import Measures Act  (SIMA), 
the CITT shall make its preliminary injury determination on or before the 60th day after the 
initiation of an investigation.  
If the CITT finds that there is no reasonable indication of injury or retardation and threat of injury, 
it issues a decision to that effect. Upon the making of a negative injury preliminary determination, 
the investigation is terminated in accordance with section 35 of SIMA. 
[Australia Question 8]: Do stakeholders have an opportunity to respond before the investigation is 
terminated? (e.g. as result of a negative preliminary or injury or dumping determination). 
Canada's Response:  Before the CBSA makes a preliminary determination, interested parties are 
given the opportunity to respond to requests fo r information and present their evidence to the 
CBSA. Following a preliminary determination, the CBSA operates a written hearing process. 
Interested parties are granted disclosure to evidence on the record and are given the opportunity 
to file written submissions presenting facts, argu ments and evidence, either in support of or in 
opposition to the complaint. The CBSA will cons ider the submissions received from interested 
parties in making its final determination. 
The CITT operates a written hearing process prior to making its preliminary finding of injury. 
Interested parties are granted disclosure to evidence on the record and are given the opportunity 
to file written submissions presenting facts, argu ments and evidence, either in support of or in 
opposition to the complaint. The CBSA will cons ider the submissions received from interested 
parties in making its preliminary injury finding. 
Following CBSA's preliminary determination, the CITT will post questionnaires on its website, which 
are to be completed by domestic producers, importers, foreign producers and governments, 
purchasers and trading companies. The CITT will prepare and circulate an investigation report based on the information it has collected in the questionnaire responses and relevant information 
on the record.  
Interested parties are given the opportunity to submit, in writing, case briefs or submissions, and 
witness statements in support of, or in opposition to, a finding of injury, retardation or threat of 
injury. Finally, an oral hearing is held to give parties the opportunity to call and cross-examine 
witnesses and to argue their case before the CITT. A hearing also provides the CITT with an opportunity to test written submissions and documentary evidence. 
[Australia Question 9]: Can the investigation be terminated at any point, or only as a result of a 
negative preliminary or final injury determination, or negative preliminary or final 
dumping/subsidy assessment? 
Canada's Response:  Pursuant to section 35 of the Special Import Measures Act , an anti-dumping 
or countervailing investigation may be termin ated at any time before the CBSA makes a 
preliminary determination if the CBSA is satisfied that there is insufficient evidence of dumping and/or subsidizing or if the CITT concludes that  the evidence does not disclose a reasonable 
indication that the dumping or subsidizing of subject goods has caused injury or retardation or is 
threatening to cause injury.  
However, once the CBSA's preliminary determination has been made, an investigation will only be 
terminated following a negative final dumping/subsidy determination by the CBSA (made within 
90 days of the preliminary determination) or a negative final injury determination (made within 
120 days of the preliminary determination) by the CITT. 
[Australia Question 10]: Are the timeframes for each stage of the investigation inviolate or can 
they be extended? 
Canada's Response:  The timeframes for each stage of an investigation are mandatory as 
prescribed in the Special Import Measures Act  (SIMA). Pursuant to section 39 of SIMA, the 
deadline for the CBSA's preliminary determination of dumping and/or subsidizing may be extended 
(from 90 days following the initiation of an investigation up to 135 days following the initiation of investigation).  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  As well, section 31(1) of the SIMA requires that the CBSA determine within 30 days, after the date 
on which the CBSA considers that a complaint is properly documented, whether the initiation of an investigation is justified. Pursuant to subsection 31(6) of SIMA, the 30-day period may be extended for the express purpose of addressing and confirming the standing of the complainant(s).  
Page 64, paragraph 3.48 
[Australia Question 11]: What factors are believed to be the cause of the "steep increase" in the 
number of anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14? 
Canada's Response:  Canada notes that the number of anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14 
was not typical of Canada's general declining trend in the number of anti-dumping investigations. For example, there were only 10 anti-dumping investigations initiated in the preceding three years, from 2009 to 2011.  
The increase in anti-dumping investigations in Canada in 2012-14 is limited to a narrow range of 
products that may be affected by underlying issues of global concern (e.g. global steel production overcapacity). Trade remedies investigations are legitimate tools to address situations where 
unfair trading practices of foreign firms and governments are causing or threatening to cause 
injury to domestic industry. Canada notes that its experience in anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14 is consistent with global trends over this time period. 
Page 66, paragraph 3.53 
[Australia Question 12]: Regarding the submissions to  expiry reviews, does industry need to fulfil 
the same requirements of an original application for an investigation or provide a lesser amount of information in submissions? 
Canada's Response:  Given the inherently different nature of original investigations and expiry 
reviews, the submission requirements differ for the two processes. Section 31(1) of the Special 
Import Measures Act sets out the requirements for initiating an original investigation. The 
definition of and requirements for a properly do cumented complaint are subsection 2(1) of the 
Special Import Measures Act  and section 37 of the Special Import Measures Regulations. For 
expiry reviews, the process is different. Parties fili ng submissions either requesting or opposing the 
initiation of an expiry review must present evidence and arguments relating to the factors set out 
in rule 73.2 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules . In both cases, submissions must 
contain positive evidence substantiating the claims being made. 
Page 67, paragraph 3.56 
[Australia Question 13]: Is an interim review a review of measures under Article 11 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement or an administrative o r  j u d i c i a l  r e v i e w  t h a t  c h a l l e n g e s  C B S A / C I T T  
findings under Article 13? 
Who may apply for an interim review? When may they make such an application? Under what 
circumstances can an interim review be undertaken? 
Are there any fees (for example, application fees) to applicants or other parties to apply for any 
processes under Canada's anti-dumping and countervailing system? If so, what is the amount of 
the fees?  
Canada's Response:  Interim Review 
Interim reviews are reviews of measures under Article 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
Pursuant to Section 76.01 of the Special Import Measures Act, the Canadian International Trade 
Tribunal (CITT) may initiate an interim review upon the filing of a request for an interim review by the Minister of Finance, the President of the CBSA, or any interested party or government, where 
the CITT is satisfied that such a review is wa rranted. The request for an interim review may be 
filed with the CITT at any time while its order is in  effect. The CITT may also  self-initiate an interim 
review if it determines that such a review is warranted.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  An interim review may be warranted, where, among other things, there is a reasonable indication 
that sufficient new facts have arisen or that there has been a sufficient change in the circumstances that led to the order. Examples of circumstances that may warrant an interim review are where domestic industry has ceased all production of like goods since the order was 
made, cessation of foreign production of the goods covered by the finding or order, the remand of 
the final determination of dumping or subsidizing to the CBSA as the result of NAFTA panel or Federal Court of Appeal decision, or where sufficient facts were not put into evidence in the course 
of the injury inquiry or expiry review despite th e exercise of reasonable diligence at that time 
(e.g. order was based on perjured evidence that came to light after the order was made). 
Fees There are no application fees for interested parties to apply for processes under Canada's trade 
remedies system. 
Page 67, paragraph 3.57  
[Australia Question 14]: Regarding CBSA's duty assessment determination, does the reference to 
duty assessment determination refer to the determination of duty at the conclusion of an original 
investigation, or is it a process under Ar ticle 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement? 
If it is the latter, is the review self-initiated by CBSA or upon application by importers? 
Regarding CBSA's re-determination, can a demand for additional duty, as a result of a duty 
assessment re-determination, occur only in circumstances where a lesser duty has been imposed or any circumstance? 
Does the re-determination amount of duty become the new amount of duty payable for the 
remaining lifetime of the measure or does it have a fixed period of application? 
Canada's Response:  Canada's anti-dumping duty assessmen t system operates on a prospective 
normal value basis, whereby anti-dumping duties are only collected in instances where the normal 
value exceeds the export price of the imported good s. As per the provisions of Article 9.3.2 of the 
WTO Anti-dumping Agreement , Canada provides for re-determination proceedings to be conducted 
on the basis of an importer's request or on the init iative of the designated officer. In the case of 
goods of a NAFTA country, the government of th at NAFTA country or the producer, manufacturer 
or exporter of the goods, when they are of a NAFTA country, may file a request. 
A re-determination may cover: 1) the normal value; 2) the export price; 3) the amount of subsidy; 
or 4) whether the good is subject to the me asure. Additional duty may result from a 
re-determination in cases where the re-determined normal value and/or export price results in a 
higher amount by which normal value exceeds ex port price or a higher amount of subsidy.  
Canada's anti-dumping system operates on the basis of prospective normal value duty 
assessment. Individual normal values are estab lished for subject goods exported by cooperative 
exporters. Subject goods that are imported for le ss than the established normal value are charged 
anti-dumping duty equal to the difference between  the export price and the established normal 
value. Re-determinations of the normal value, expo rt price and whether the good is subject to the 
measure are made on a transaction-by-transaction basis. However, in situations where an importer has paid duties in accordance with the "all other" margin of dumping, the normal values established as part of a re-determination could apply on a prospective basis, provided the exporter 
submits the necessary information. 
More broadly, all normal values are updated on a prospective basis through a re-investigation 
when there is reason to believe that the information used at the time of the final determination or 
at the conclusion of the most recent re-investiga tion should be updated (e.g. where normal values 
have risen or dropped considerably because of changing market conditions and/or changes in the exporter's costs). WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.3.6.3 Use of the IP System 
Page 100, paragraph 3.167  [Australia Question 15]:  In January 2014, Canada initiated procedures towards accession to:  
 Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of 
Marks ("Madrid Protocol"); Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks ("Singapore Treaty"); Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services 
for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks ("Nice Agreement"); and 
 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial 
Designs ("Geneva Act"); and 
 Patent Law Treaty. 
 
Australia congratulates Canada on the large reform program which seeks to implement the: Madrid protocol, Singapore treaty, Nice Agreement, Gene va Act and Patent Law Treaty. Australia would 
like further information in relation to Canada's estimated timeframe for accession to the above 
treaties?  
Canada's Response:  Following the adoption of amendments to the Patent Act , Industrial Design 
Act and Trade-marks Act , the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) is currently developing 
proposed amendments to the associated rules and regulations and adjustments to office procedures in the context of ongoing consultations.  
The amendments to the Patent Act  and Industrial Design Act  in Bill C-43, and the amendments to 
the Trade-marks Act  in Bill C-31 will come into force on a day fixed by order of the Governor in 
Council. This happens at the conclusion of the pa rliamentary and regulatory processes, which will 
then open the door for Canada to accede to or ratify the treaties. That date will be established 
after the relevant amendments to the Patent Rule s, Industrial Design Regulations and the Trade-
marks Regulations have been prepared and after CIPO's IT systems have been updated appropriately.  
Given the multiple remaining steps of the regulatory process, this will take time. We will continue 
to work with WIPO to seek advice on the legal and technical aspects of the treaties, as we continue to take steps to prepare for implementation. 
3.3.6.4 International Initiatives and WTO participation 
Page 101-103, table 3.28 
 [Australia Question 16]: Recently, Canada passed additional PBR legislation through Bill C-18, the 
Agricultural Growth Act passed some legislation (which came into force on 27 February 2015) that 
aligns it with UPOV 1991.  
Australia congratulates Canada on the passage of the agricultural growth act which came into 
force on the 27 February 2015. Australia would like further information in relation to 
Canada's intentions for accession to the 1991 UPOV convention? 
Canada's Response:  Recently, the Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) Act  was amended as part of the 
Agricultural Growth Act  to include the provisions of the 1991 Act of the International 
Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants  (UPOV 91). This amended law has been in 
force since February 27, 2015. As per the Government of Canada's policy on tabling treaties, on February 26, 2015, the UPOV 91 Convention was tabl ed in Parliament for the requisite twenty-one 
sitting days, completing the first step of the ratification process. If Canada is to proceed with 
ratification, to complete the process, Canada would need to deposit the instruments of ratification with the UPOV Secretary General, and would then become bound by the Convention one month 
after the date of deposition. Amendments to the PBR Act  to conform to UPOV 91 and ratification of 
the Convention are strongly supported by th e stakeholder community, and continue to be 
a priority for the Government of Canada. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.3.6.8 Geographical Indications 
Pages 106-107, paragraphs 3.194-3.197  [Australia Question 17]: Canada has gone beyond TRIPS requirements in relation to GI protections 
following on from new commitments undertaken by Canada in the Canada-Korea FTA (CKFTA). 
Canada commits to protect four Korean GIs – three types of ginseng and one type of rice – against any use on such goods not originating in the place indicated by the GI in question. This is in 
exchange for the Republic of Korea providing the same level of protection for "Canadian Whisky" 
and "Canadian Rye Whisky". Article 7 of Ca nada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement (CETA) establishes similar protection for a list of food GIs contained in an Annex, and provides exceptions for certain GIs on that list in certain cases.   
CETA establishes protection for a list of food GIs,  and provides exceptions for certain GIs on that 
list in certain cases. Could Canada provide more details in relation to the exceptions under this GI regime? 
Under CETA, the CETA committee on geographical indications can recommend amendments to the 
list of GIs in annex I by adding geographical indications. 
 Can Canada please explain what safeguards will be available to third parties in relation to 
initial protection and any later additions to annex? 
 Will there be the opportunity for third parties to object to the protection offered to a 
geographical indication?  
Canada's Response:  The CETA text provides for exceptions to GI protection, including for generic 
terms and for prior use by third parties. Any new additions to the annex will be done by consensus of the Parties. Officials may make use of all means at their disposal to determine whether to 
recommend a GI be added to the annex, including a search of existing rights (i.e. trademarks), 
prior uses, genericness, and third-party consultation s. Implementing legislation will be tabled at a 
later time. 
3.3.6.4 International Initiatives and WTO participation 
Page 100, paragraph 3.170   
[Australia Question 18]: Canada advanced IP-related trade interests in a number of bilateral and 
regional trade agreement negotiations in particular the:  
 Republic of Korea (CKFTA); and 
 European Union (CETA)  
This has had an impact on the GIs,  patents and counterfeit goods.  
With regard to explicit new IP standards and cooperation mechanisms with respect to geographical 
indications, could Canada describe the specific obligations in the CETA. Does Canada need to 
amend its legislation to meet these obligations? What is the timeframe for any legislative 
amendments? What safeguards will be available to third parties? For example, will third parties be 
provided with an opportunity to object formally to the protection offered to a geographical indication? 
Canada's Response:  Under the terms of CETA, Canada is obligated to protect 179 EU-based GIs 
for various agricultural products and foodstuffs. Once these terms are protected, any use of those terms in association with a good found within the specified product class that does not come from 
the country identified with the GI will be prohibit ed. This protection will be provided even where 
the true origin of the product is indicated or the GI is used in translation or accompanied by qualifying expressions such as "kind", "type", "sty le", "imitation" or the like. Canada is currently 
conducting analysis on the best way to implement these obligations, but no timeline has yet been 
set to introduce the enabling legislation for GIs. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1.2 Agriculture and fisheries / Border Measures Page 110, paragraph 4.5   
[Australia Question 19]: The report notes that Canada's average level of applied tariff protection 
for the agricultural sector based on the 2014 MFN tariff, remained at 22.5% and that this relatively high level of protection is driven essentially by dairy products (with an average tariff rate of 
238.7%), animal products (47%) and to a lesser extent, cereal products (28.2%).  
Would Canadian consumers benefit from lower prices and production costs and would Canadian 
producers be more globally competitive if Canada undertook further liberalisation of the most heavily protected sectors?  
Canada's Response:  Supply management has served Canada well for many years, and is the 
national system that dairy, poultry and egg pr oducers have chosen for themselves. The supply 
management system also ensures that consumers and the agri-food industry have a continuous 
and adequate supply of dairy, poultry and eggs.  
4.1.3 Domestic programmes 
Page 111, paragraph 4.8 
 
[Australia Question 20]: Canada has previously financed agricultural programmes to support the 
concept of multifunctionality. This includes rural beautification projects and on-farm assistance for 
some environmental initiatives.   
What current programs reflect the Canadian Government's commitment to the notion of 
multifunctionality? Has Canada undertaken an assessment of the value to rural and regional communities from such programmes? 
Canada's Response:  The term "multifunctionality" refers to the many functions of agriculture 
other than supplying food and fibre that contribute to the overall economy and well-being of society. Although there may be indirect benefits or multiple functions of agriculture that are 
directly linked to the primary productive purpose of agriculture (e.g., the maintenance of the rural 
landscape, the viability of rural communities, and th e protection of biodiversity), support provided 
to the agriculture sector, regardless of whether it is for multifunctionality purposes, must be reported in Members' annual notifications of domestic support and classified according to the rules 
in the WTO Agreement of Agriculture. Support th at meets the green criteria in Annex 2 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture would be eligible as green support and exempt from Members' WTO commitment levels. Support that does not meet the green criteria would be subject 
to the disciplines on domestic support. 
4.1.3.1 Business Risk Mana gement (BRM) programmes 
Page 113, paragraph 4.16 (a) 
 
[Australia Question 21]: Under the AgInvest scheme where Government contributes a matching payment for eligible farm savings, what conditions exist for the withdrawal of such savings? Can matching farm savings be used at any time and for any type of farm or household expenditure? 
Canada's Response:  AgriInvest is a savings account for a producer that provides flexible and 
timely coverage for small income declines or to support investments to mitigate risks and improve market income. There are no conditions for withdrawing the funds and producers can use funds as 
needed. Government's matching contributions are pr ovided on producer deposits up to 1% of the 
producer's Annual Net Sales (ANS). However, producers are free to contribute up to 100% of their 
ANS. 
Page 113, paragraph 4.16 (b) 
[Australia Question 22]: Does the AgriStability programme act as a form of market price support 
to farmers? When farm margins fall below the 70%  trigger, are Government funds made as direct 
transfer payments to farmers? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  AgriStability is a farm specific margin program that assists individual 
producers in cases where their whole-farm margin declines in excess of 30% of their historic reference margin caused by circumstances such as low prices, rising input costs or low production. 
Any combination of these three risks can trigger a payment if there is a large enough margin loss 
but there is no specific market price or production level (i.e. no price or production floor) that 
triggers a payment. Payments are made directly to  the producer reflecting the individual margin 
decline experienced by that producer. 
Page 113, paragraph 4.16 (c) 
[Australia Question 23]: Under the AgriInsurance programme: How is the subsidised insurance 
calculated? Does the Government subsidy go to the farmer or to the insurance provider? Is crop insurance not offered to Canadian farmers under normal market conditions by the commercial 
finance sector? If it is, what is the rationale for a Government sponsored insurance programme 
when the market provides such services? 
Canada's Response:  AgriInsurance provides protection against production losses caused by 
uncontrollable natural perils such as drought, flood, or disease. The program is actuarially sound 
and self-sustainable with producers paying a portion of the actuarially-sound premiums. AgriInsurance is administered by the provincial government agencies with the federal government 
sharing in the premium subsidies and administration costs as well as providing an oversight role. 
The federal and provincial governments share up to 60% of the cost of the premium with the 
producer paying the remaining portion. The government portion of premiums is paid into the provincial insurance fund along with the producer portion to ensure that the fund is sustainable.  
There are no multi-peril production insurance programs offered by the private sector in Canada. 
The federal and provincial governments have been facilitating multi-peril crop insurance since 1959 and historically the private sector has not been willing to provide sustainable, comprehensive 
crop insurance. 
Page 113, paragraph 4.16 (d) [Australia Question 24]: While the AgriRecovery framework is to help farmers who do not have the 
capacity to cover the extraordinary costs associated with recovering from a disaster, will the 
programme therefore be based on individual farm  assessments or more generic conditionality? 
What measures has the Canadian Government taken to encourage farmers to prepare for natural disasters themselves rather than rely to a large extent on Government assistance when conditions 
turn unfavourable? 
Canada's Response:  AgriRecovery is a Federal/Provincial Framework that allows governments to 
assist producers with the extraordinary costs of recovering from natural disasters. In order for an 
AgriRecovery initiative to be implemented there ne eds to be a joint federal-provincial AgriRecovery 
Assessment. This assessment uses numerous criteria  to assess disaster losses, extraordinary costs 
and program responses to determine the appropriat e AgriRecovery response. AgriRecovery is only 
used for infrequent disaster events and as part of  the assessment process there is an evaluation of 
whether the event is abnormal and recurring (e .g., more than a 1-in-15 year probability of 
occurrence). Also, the scope of disaster is analyzed in terms of its collective experience within a region, measurement of how significant the losses are (e.g., at least 30% reduction in production 
capacity), and the extent of disaster recovery costs. 
Disasters can have very diverse impacts across individuals and the AgriRecovery assessment 
process works with impacted producers to collect as much information and data as possible to 
calculate losses, other program responses and the recovery costs. The calculations used to 
determine whether or not an AgriRecovery response  is warranted are based on averages in order 
to best represent the circumstances of impacted producers. Additionally, depending on the type 
and scale of the disaster, producers are sometimes required to demonstrate need and provide 
proof of the recovery costs incurred, such as by su bmitting receipts for expenses incurred in taking 
the necessary actions to recover from the disaster. The framework only covers extraordinary costs brought on by the disaster and not income or prod uction losses associated with the disaster or 
normal costs producers incur from year-to-year. An event triggering an AgriRecovery response WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  initiates a scoping analysis to see if that type of event can be covered by another risk 
management tool, such as insurance.  
Producers are expected to prepare and manage their business risks, including disasters, by 
employing various risk management strategies, in cluding adoption of best management practices 
(e.g., diversification, biosecurity, zero-till, tile drainage etc.) as well as government risk 
management tools. The BRM suite of programs including AgriInsurance, AgriInvest, and AgriStability are designed to help producers manage farm losses associated with production or 
market disasters. In occasions where an AgriRe covery response is triggered, the producer's 
capacity to manage the impact of the event is considered. A producer will be considered to not 
have the capacity to manage when net farm income, including payments from existing programs, is insufficient to cover extraordinary costs. In the majority of cases where a producer has not 
participated in a program, the expected payment he would have received if he did participate is 
factored into the calculation for the level of AgriRecovery assistance. This encourages producers to make use of existing programs, with AgriRecovery only providing coverage where existing 
programs are not available or sufficient. Overall, the programs have built in parameters to ensure 
that consistently poor individual performance is factored into lower support levels to the point where some producers become ineligible for some programs. BRM programs are complemented 
with government support for Strategic Initiatives, or programs that promote adaptability, 
innovation, and competitiveness of the sectors. This encourages producers to react to market signals and not government programs. Further, as mentioned above, the need for an AgriRecovery 
response is intended to trigger analysis of existi ng programs with the aim of making improvements 
or introducing new elements that will ensure prod ucers have access to the coverage they need for 
similar disasters in the future. 
4.1.6.2 Agriculture and fisheries / Selected  Sub-Sectors / Milk and dairy products 
Page 119, paragraph 4.39 
 [Australia Question 25]: We note Canada provides significant assistance to supply managed 
products including dairy products including through the use of out of quota tariffs. We would 
welcome an explanation as to the necessity of these high out of quota tariffs for dairy in comparison to Canada's simply average applied agricultural MFN tariff of 22.5%.  
Canada's Response:  Supply management is based on matching domestic production to domestic 
demand while ensuring a reasonable return for producers and stable prices for consumers. 
Predictable levels of imports, maintained throug h the use of tariff quotas, are necessary to the 
functioning of the system. Canada has implemented and continues to abide by its commitments in 
its Uruguay Round schedule of tariff concessions. 
4.1.6.2 Milk and Dairy products 
Page 121, paragraph 4.42 
 
[Australia Question 26]: Paragraph 4.42 of the Secretariat report states that a weakness of 
Canada supply managed system for dairy, poultry and egg production is "the priority it gives to farmers over consumers." The report further stat es that "supply management results in limited 
competition, both domestic and international."  
Does Canada agree with the Secretariat's opinion on Canada's supply management system, 
specifically, that it results in limitations on competition? 
Canada's Response: Supply management has served Canada well for many years, and is the 
national system that dairy, poultry and egg producers have chosen for themselves. Furthermore, Canada has vibrant competition in our dairy sector that includes a variety of processing companies 
ranging from on-farm micro-sized processors to large plants owned by multinational companies. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT & 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 27, paragraph 1.33 & Page 98, paragraphs 3.162-3.164  [Australia Question 27]: Canada is a net IP importer. Canadian companies and educational 
institutions are strong at invention, but commercia lization of these inventions is done by foreign 
firms.  
The Canadian government introduced targeted me asures to overcome commercialization of IP.  
 Economic Action Plans 2012 and 2013; 
 increased the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program 
 introduced a C$400 million Venture Capital Action Plan and 
 increased support for incubator and accelerator organizations to help entrepreneurs. 
 
Recognising the short period of time since these measures were introduced, Australia would be interested in information on how well the initiatives have worked in assisting Canadian 
firms with IP commercialisation? Has Canada seen an increase in their export of IP? Has use 
of the IP system increased? 
Canada's Response:  The measures listed were announced in the 2012 and 2013 federal 
budgets, and became active only after some time (in some cases the following fiscal year) and will 
be implemented over the course of several years (in some cases five years). Other measures, such 
as the $40 million in additional funding to th e Canada Accelerator and Incubator Program came 
later in the 2014 federal budget.  
Canada has a robust results-based measurement system in place to track program impact. 
However, insufficient time has passed to be able to clearly assess the measures.  
Canadians have increased their use of the global IP system by 15% from 2010 to 2013. This has 
largely been driven by growth in trademarks and industrial designs (Table 1). 
To understand the idea of IP exports Canada breaks the data into two sub-sets, Canadians 
applying for IP abroad and Canadians applying in Canada. With respect to IP exports, Canadians 
have increased their IP applications by 20% from 2010 to 2013 (Table 2), again driven largely by 
trademarks and industrial designs. Use of the do mestic IP system by Canadians has only grown 
2% from 2010 to 2014 (Table 3). This is lower than  the growth rate of all users of the Canadian IP 
system, both domestic and foreign, as growth in IP applications at CIPO has grown 8% over the 
2010 to 2014 period (Table 4). Given the timing of  the growth and uncertainty of which IP rights 
are driving growth it is difficult, without a more in-depth study, to determine any linkages between IP data and the targeted measures presented above. Note that Tables 3 and 4 include 2014 data, 
which is presently unavailable for Canadians applying abroad. 
Table 1: Use of the Global IP System (I n Canada and Abroad) by Canadians, 2010-13 
Use of the Global IP System by Canadians 2010  2011  2012 2013  
Patents 24,216 24,970 26,828 26,304 
TM 54,853 59,884 59,724 63,204 
ID 7,258 7,451 10,637 10,092 
Total 86,327  92,305  97,189 99,600  
Year-over-year Growth  8% 7% 4%  
 
We have seen a 15% increase in IP applications by Canadians worldwide from 2010 to 2013.  
Table 2: IP Applications by Cana dians Abroad (IP Exports), 2010-13 
IP Applications by Canadians Abroad (IP Exports) 2010 2011 2012 2013 
Patents 19,666 20,216 22,119 21,737 
TM 34,404 38,547 37,983 41,755 
ID 6,407 6,661 9,790 9,246 
Total 60,477  65,424  69,892 72,738  
Year-over-year Growth  7% 5% 2%  
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Canada has seen a 20% increase in IP applications outside of Canada between 2010 and 2013. 
Table 3: IP Applications at CIPO by Canadians, 2010-14 
IP Applications at CIPO by Canadians 2010  2011  2012  2013 2014  
Patents 4,550 4,754 4,709 4,567 4,198 
TM 20,449 21,337 21,741 21,449 21,348 
ID 851 790 847 846 859 
Total 25,850  26,881  27,297  26,862 26,405  
Year-over-year Growth  4% 2% -2% -2%  
 
IP applications by Canadians, in Canada, have been  relatively flat since 2010, with only a modest 
2% growth. 
Table 4: Total IP Applications at CIPO, 2010-14 
IP Applications at CIPO 2010  2011  2012  2013 2014  
Patents 35,449 35,111 35,242 34,741 35,481 
TM 45,220 48,472 50,110 49,819 51,028 
ID 5,142 5,227 5,362 5,346 5,767 
Total 85,811  88,810  90,714  89,906 92,276  
Year-over-year Growth  3% 2% -1% 3%  
 
Total IP applications at CIPO is more modest, with  a growth rate of 8% over the period of 2010 to 
2014. 
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 
2.4 Unilateral Trade Liberalisation Initiatives 
Page 17, paragraph 2.63  
[Australia Question 28]: We welcome Canada's status as the first G20 nation unilaterally to 
remove all tariffs on a reportedly broad range of manufacturing inputs, machinery and equipment. Canada notes the observation by the OECD 'that by lowering effective protection in most sectors, Canada's policy is likely to reduce production cost s, improve efficiency and enhance innovation in 
downstream manufacturing industries, thereby bo lstering external competitiveness'. Further, 
Canada reports that it has considered how tariffs affect consumers, and accordingly has eliminated the MFN applied duties on baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment. Canada states 
that this represents $79million in annual tariff relief, and comes with the expectation that these 
savings will be passed on to consumers in the form of lower retail prices. Australia also notes that in agriculture, the average applied Canadian MFN tariff was reported in the 2014 WTO World Tariff 
Profiles as 15.9% in 2013. This includes, for dairy, an applied average MFN tariff at 238.7%.  
Given that lowered tariff walls promote long-ter m external competitiveness for producers, and 
lower prices for domestic consumers, does Canada oppose applying the same policy of tariff reduction to the dairy industry that has been applied in other sectors? 
Canada's Response:  Supply management is based on matching domestic production to domestic 
demand while ensuring a reasonable return for producers and stable prices for consumers. Predictable levels of imports, maintained throug h the use of tariff quotas, are necessary to the 
functioning of the system. 
2.8.12 Other Agricultural Policy Initiatives 
Page 26, paragraph 2.118 
 
[Australia Question 29]: Section 2.118 of the Government Report states that "Supply management 
provides competitive producers with the opportunity to receive fair returns on their labour and investments and promotes stable farm incomes."  
What criteria does Canada use to determine a 'f air return' to farmers? For example, how does 
Canada determine what are equitable returns to farmers compared to other sectors, such as manufacturing? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  The supply managed industries in Canada operate based on a periodic cost 
of production survey. The results of this survey are a consideration in domestic pricing mechanisms. 
2.8.12 Other Agricultural Policy Initiatives 
Page 26, paragraph 2.118 
 [Australia Question 30]: While the OECD Producer Support Estimate for Canada is around 11.6% 
(2013), most of this value was attributed to the support received by the dairy and poultry sectors 
through the 'supply management' system and associated border measures. Canada has reported that the policy of supply management has provided competitive producers with the opportunity to receive fair returns on their labour and investme nts, and promotes stable farm incomes. Canada 
also reports that it provides consumers with a steady supply of high-quality products at predictable 
and stable prices, and maintains jobs in many rural communities across Canada.  
Can Canada outline the specific circumstances of the dairy and poultry sectors that explain why 
supply management is not considered a suitable model for other sectors? Are these issues unique 
to the dairy and poultry sectors?  
How does Canada define what constitutes a 'fair return' with regard to dairy and poultry 
producers? How does Canada determine the returns to farmers compared to other sectors, such as 
manufacturing or services? Would the opportunity to receive fair returns on labour and investments in the dairy and poultry sectors be limited in the absence of supply management? 
Canada's Response:  The supply management system has been the choice of dairy, poultry, and 
egg producers since its creation in the 1970s, and provides producers with an effective means to 
manage risks that included unanticipated surpluses, depressed prices and unstable farm incomes.   
The supply managed industries in Canada operate based on a periodic cost of production survey. 
The results of this survey are a consideration in domestic pricing mechanisms. The supply 
management system has served Canada well for many years, and is the marketing choice of Canadian producers of dairy, poultry and egg products. 
[Australia Question 31]: Each of Canada's 13 provinces and territories has a liquor board, 
commission or corporation that oversees the control, distribution and sale of beverage alcohol in its jurisdiction. Together they form the Canadian Association of Liquor Jurisdictions with a mandate to co-operate with all provincial, territorial and federal agencies concerned with the control, sale 
and taxation of alcoholic beverages. Provinces main taining absolute control over the liquor in their 
jurisdiction also control pricing and revenue. 
Recently, protectionist measures have been creeping back in, particularly in British Columbia and 
Ontario, where measures have been introduced that favour domestic producers. The two main 
issues are transparency of mark-ups (i.e. ta xes and charges applied before retail sale) and 
creating additional sales channels only for loca lly-produced wines (often with tax concessions). 
Could Canada please clarify how the following actions conform to its WTO obligations and are 
consistent with international trade rules: 
1) Increasing sales channels for domestic wines only 
a)  In 2014, British Columbia (with no mark-up) and Ontario (at reduced mark-up) authorised 
local wine products to be sold in farmers' markets. More recently, BC allowed local wine 
only to be sold in private groceries. These practices, not only offer additional sales channels and opportunities only to local products, but also offer a tax advantage. 
b)  In February 2013, local alcohol manufacturers in BC were granted preferential access to 
open a number of "tied-houses" (licensed establishments), not allowed for other manufacturers. 
c)  Ontario allows private wine stores to deliver direct to a restaurant or bar, expanding the 
commercial benefit of private stores. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  d)  The Ontario Premier's Advisory Council on Government Assets proposal to establish new 
private stores to sell wine from smaller producers only would discriminate against a larger Australian producer that should be considered like a small Ontario producer. 
2) Tax discrimination 
a)  Federal excise tax discrimination on wine. Since 2006, the federal excise tax of 
CAN$0.62/L applies to imported wine  only, and not on Canadian wine. 
b)  In BC and Ontario, local wines have an additional retail opportunity in some private stores. 
This was negotiated bilaterally with the EU but is not accepted at multilateral level. 
However these two provinces have extended th e retail channel advantage to a tax benefit, 
de facto  applied on a discriminatory basis since only local wines are eligible for retail in the 
private stores. For example, while imported wi nes are subject to a mark-up of 89% in BC, 
local wines are exempted from this rate when sold in private outlets. 
c)  BC manufacturers may direct deliver, free of all mark-up, to private retailers and 
on-premise licensed establishments products made wholly from local agricultural products. 
Imported wines are subject to an 89% mark-up. 
3) Lack of transparency and arbitrary mark-up levy 
Some Canadian provincial liquor boards have  implemented or are considering so called 
"variable mark-ups" whereby the mark-up may vary by product. This goes against the 
principles of transparency and predictability of tax and mark-up levy by public entities. It also 
introduces an element of arbitrariness into the re tail price construction and constitutes an open 
door to possible discriminations. 
a)  The Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation introduced variable mark-ups on some product sub-
categories. 
b)  The BC Liquor Distribution Branch changed its mark-up structure into wholesale and retail 
mark-ups on 1 April 2015. While wholesale mark-up rates are published, there is no 
transparency on the final rate applied on the retail mark-up. 
c)  Cost of Service Differentials (COSD) app lied by the Canadian Association of Liquor 
Jurisdictions members must be transparent. They  are acceptable only if strictly reflecting 
the objective amount of additional costs nece ssary for the marketing and retail of imported 
products. Independent audits were conducted on these costs in 2010 but Canadian provinces continue to apply COSD on imported products in a non-transparent way. 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in 
alcoholic beverages is governed by the federal Im portation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA). The 
IILA provides the provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over 
the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the im portation of such liquor into the provinces and 
territories. Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores operated by the provincial/territorial liquor control authority or through authorized private retailers or a combination of both. Provincial 
and territorial liquor control authorities purchase or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages in 
line with market needs as related to such commercial considerations as price, quality, availability and other conditions of purchase or sale. Importantly, with respect to retail mark-ups, cost of service differential charges, which may lead to a higher mark-up on imported products, were found 
to be GATT compliant as long as they are no greater than the additional costs necessarily 
associated with marketing imported products. 
The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Boards (PTLBs) in Canada were established before the GATT was 
created, and their existence and activity is cons istent with the provisions of GATT Article XVII 
["State Trading Enterprises"]. In accordance with that Article, they are notified to the WTO as 
STEs. 
The provinces of Ontario and British Columbia are both in the process of adopting changes to their 
liquor distribution policies with a view to incr easing efficiency and effectiveness. The federal WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  government has worked closely with the provinces to ensure consistency of any changes with 
Canada's international trade obligations. 
We note that customers of farmers markets are usually interested in purchasing local products. 
Farmers markets also often have their own rules lim iting items being sold therein to products that 
are produced within a defined geographical area. These markets account for a very small portion 
of total volume and value of sales by domestic wineries. 
On April 16, 2015, the Ontario Premier's Advisory Council on Government Asset released its report 
"Striking the Right Balance: Modernizing Beer Retaili ng and Distribution in Ontario". This report is 
the Council's final report on beer and includes recommendations to government on the future direction for beer retailing and distribution in Ontario. The Council worked closely with the provincial officials to ensure that its final recommendations are fully consistent with Ontario's trade 
commitments. The government has accepted these recommendations. 
In terms of the federal excise tax on wine, an exemption was introduced in 2006 for wine 
produced from 100% Canadian-grown agricultural  product. Further information regarding the 
application of this relief measure can be found on the following Canada Revenue Agency webpage: 
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pu b/em/edn15/edn15-e.html. 
This measure does not impose an additional tax burden on imports vis-à-vis domestic products. 
The amount of targeted excise duty relief under this specific measure is relatively small and was 
largely modelled after similar programs in other countries. Furthermore, this measure does not have any significant impact on the demand for wine imports in Canada. Indeed, imports of wine into Canada have increased 30% since 2006.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  BRAZIL 
Report by Canada - WT/TPR/G/314 
II TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 2.8.7 Government Procurement Initiatives 
Page 24  
 [Brazil Question 1]: In February 2010, Canada concluded the Canada-U.S. Agreement on 
Government Procurement, which includes commitments at the sub-federal level. Are there any 
other negotiating initiatives in progress that include commitments at the sub-federal level? 
Canada's Response:  Yes 
[Brazil Question 2]: If so, could Canada please  elaborate on these plans and the anticipated 
timeframes? 
Canada's Response:  The sub-central commitments Canada agreed to in the Canada-U.S. 
Agreement on Government Procurement were incorporated into Canada's WTO Agreement on 
Government Procurement (GPA) coverage schedule. Parties to the Revised GPA thus benefit from 
broad access to Canada's provincial and territorial government procurement markets. Canada also undertook sub-central government procurement commitments in the recently concluded 
negotiations towards the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement 
(CETA). While CETA is not yet in force, the initial consolidated text can be found on the Government of Canada's website: http://www.inte rnational.gc.ca/ceta. With regards to other 
initiatives that involve ongoing negotiations, Canada is not in a position to comment. 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.3.1 Participation in the WTO 
Page 37, paragraph 2.22 
 [Brazil Question 3]: Canada has also been active in a number of plurilateral initiatives both under 
the auspices of the WTO and outside; these incl ude the expanded ITA initiative, and plurilateral 
initiatives leading to an Environmental Goods Ag reement and Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).   
Could Canada inform the current status of the negotiations of the Environmental Goods 
Agreement? 
Canada's Response: The sixth round of the WTO Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) 
negotiations took place from May 4-8, 2015. This round marked the beginning of the second phase of the negotiations during which participants will identify which products will be able to find 
consensus and be included on the final list of environmental goods. The seventh round is 
scheduled for June 15-19, 2015. 
[Brazil Question 4]: Is there a draft of the Envi ronmental Goods Agreement currently available? If 
so, where can it be obtained? 
Canada's Response:  The first five rounds of negotiations focused primarily on discussions related 
to participants' nominations of environmental goods. With the nominating phase complete, participants have recently begun the second phase of the negotiations during which they will 
identify which products will be able to find consensus and be included on the final list of 
environmental goods. As such, there is no draf t Environmental Goods Agreement available at the 
moment. 
[Brazil Question 5]: Could Canada provide information on the concept of environmental goods in 
the context of this agreement? What aspects are being taken into account to consider goods as 
"environmental"? 
Canada's Response: The environmental goods industry does not lend itself to a precise 
definition. Generally, environmental goods include goods that benefit the environment or help to 
address environmental challenges through their usage. They also include goods that are otherwise WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  environmentally preferable. For the purpose of the WTO Environmental Goods Agreement 
negotiations, participants are focused on ensuring the environmental credibility of the products nominated in the following categories: 
 Air pollution control 
 Solid and hazardous waste management 
 Waste water management and water treatment 
 Environmental remediation and clean-up 
 Environmental monitoring, analysis and assessment 
 Noise and vibration abatement 
 Environmentally-preferable products 
 Energy efficiency 
 Resource efficiency 
 Clean and renewable energy 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3.2 Incentives and Subsidies 
Page 80, paragraph 3.115  
[Brazil Question 6]: According to Canada Business Network, a government information service for 
business, there are some 755 support programmes pr oviding assistance to businesses in the form 
of grants, loan guarantees, tax refunds and credits,  and wage subsidies. Many are at the provincial 
level and thus, restricted to recipients established in the province. Others are sector specific, such 
as agriculture and cultural industries. An overview of the programmes listed indicates that most 
are specifically targeted to a particular sector or location and that many programmes offered were 
with respect to grants or contributions 
Some of the programs mentioned in the Report may be specific subsidies according to the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Have all of them been notified to WTO, as required under Article 25 of the ASMC? 
Canada's Response:  Most of the programs providing assistance to businesses identified in 
Canada Business Network's database fall outside of  the scope of the notification requirements of 
Article 25 of the ASCM. For example, while many are specific to a province, they are also provided 
and administered by provincial authorities and are not considered regionally-specific under the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  (ASCM). Moreover, some of the assistance 
apply to service sectors and are outside the scope of the ASCM. 
Canada's last subsidies notification was in 2013. The process for preparing the 2015 notification, 
which covers the period of April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, is currently being prepared.  
[Brazil Question 7]: Are different economic sectors treated differently under the programs? Canada's Response:  The database includes a range of programs with different requirements. 
Canada's subsidy notification to the WTO is prepared in accordance with the obligations outlined in 
Article 25 of the ASCM. In particular, Canada notifi es subsides which it believes fall within the 
definition of Article 1 of the ASCM and are specif ic within the meaning of Article 2 of the ASCM. 
Details on specific programs can be found in Canada's most recent subsidy notification 
(G/SCM/N/253/CAN). WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Canada is in the process of preparing its 2015 subsidies notification, which covers the period of 
April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, at which time any new programs introduced during that period will be considered for inclusion. 
[Brazil Question 8]: Could Canada please specify which of the programs provide assistance in the 
form of grants, loan guarantees, tax refunds and credits, and wage subsidies? 
Canada's Response:  The Canada Business Network, a coll aborative arrangement between federal 
and sub-federal government agencies to provide in formation to businesses, provides the following 
breakdown on its web site: 
 Grants: http://canadabusiness.ca/eng/page/2740/. 
 Loan guarantees: http://canadabusiness.ca/eng/page/2736/. 
 Tax refunds and credits: http://canadabusiness.ca/eng/page/2738/. 
 Wage subsidies: http://canadabusiness.ca/eng/page/2739/. 
 
Page 80, paragraph 3.116 
[Brazil Question 9]: The Secretariat Report mentions the existence of the "Technology 
Demonstration Program (TDP)", which provides contributions in support of large-scale technology demonstration projects in the aerospace, defence,  space and security sectors. Information on the 
program is also available at http://ito.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ito-oti.nsf/eng/h_00837.html.  It seems that 
in February 2015 there has been the announcemen t of the first approved project under the 
program. 
Could Canada please provide information on the companies and projects that have already been 
selected and approved, as well as on the amount  of money that will be disbursed under these 
projects? 
Canada's Response:  No company or project has been selected and approved to date.  
[Brazil Question 10]: Does Canada intend to noti fy the TDP to the WTO, in accordance with the 
Agreement on subsidies and Countervailing Measures? 
Canada's Response:  Canada is in the process of preparing the 2015 subsidies notification, which 
covers the period of April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, at which time any new programs introduced 
during that period will be included, as required under Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures . 
3.3.6.5 The Patent System 
Page 104, paragraph 3.181 
 [Brazil Question 11]: The CETA Agreement contains new commitments on intellectual property and 
pharmaceutical patents that would require changes to existing Canadian law.  
After CETA enters into force, what changes ar e envisaged as necessary to adapt Canadian IP 
legislation on patents to make it compatible with the new agreement? 
Canada's Response:  The pharmaceutical intellectual property (IP) elements included in CETA 
maintain the balance in the Canadian system of promoting innovation and investment for new medicines while ensuring timely access to affordable drugs. 
The Canadian Government has committed to implementing additional ( sui generis) protection for 
pharmaceutical products protected by eligible pate nts. Implementation will require amendments to 
the Patent Act .  
The Canadian Government has also committed to ensuring that litigants under its "patent linkage" 
regime (i.e., whereby the granting of a marketing authorization is linked to the existence of patent 
protection) are afforded equivalent and effective rights of appeal. Implementation will require 
amendments to the Patent Act  and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2.3.4 Sub-Sectors Page 133, paragraph 4.90  
[Brazil Question 12]: Canada is the world's leading potash producer and exporter, possessing the 
world's largest reserves. During the period 2010-13 , potash production, both in terms of quantity 
and value has fluctuated, achieving in 2011 the largest output both in volume and value terms 
(10,686 kilotonnes and Can$7.57 billion). Canada currently has 10 potash mining operations, 7 of 
which involve two Canadian-based firms, and 3 op erated by an American-based firm. The three 
producers together export their products to o ffshore markets through Canpotex Limited, an 
exclusive marketing and distribution company only  handling all Saskatchewan potash exports to 
overseas markets. In 2013, a number of antitrust lawsuits involving the company were settled in 
the United States after consumers filed suit. Appr oximately 95% of Canadian potash production is 
exported. Major markets for Canadian potash expo rts in 2013 were the United States, Brazil, 
Indonesia, and China.   
After the antitrust lawsuits were settled in US courts, what measures has Canada taken to prevent 
the occurrence of anticompetitive actions of this nature? 
Canada's Response:  The antitrust lawsuits filed in US courts against individual potash producers 
were civil claims brought by class action attorney s and premised on price-fixing allegations. There 
was never any finding of anticompetitive activity nor did any government investigation or finding of such activity occur. The cases were settled out of court. 
Canpotex sells Saskatchewan potash to markets outside Canada and the United States, and is in 
competition with a number of overseas producers (R ussia, Belarus, Israel, Jordan, Germany, Chile, 
Spain, UK, China, Brazil, the USA), as well as potash produced elsewhere in Canada, i.e. the 
province of New Brunswick. Canpotex Limited was never a party to these lawsuits. 
The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency responsible for the 
administration and enforcement of the Competition Act  (the "Act") and certain other statutes. The 
Act is a federal law governing most business conduct in Canada. It includes both criminal and civil 
provisions aimed at preventing anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. If the Bureau uncovers evidence of anticompetitive conduct, it will investigate and enforce the Act. 
As part of its mandate, the Bureau participates in a wide range of activities to promote and 
advocate the benefits of a competitive marketplac e, both in Canada and abroad. More competition 
generally leads to lower prices for consumers, as well as increased choice and innovation. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.4.1 Applied MFN rate 
Page 51, paragraph 3.17  
[Brazil Question 13]: In the last decade (since 2006), the Canadian average applied MFN tariff for 
non- agricultural goods has been reduced, whereas those for agricultural ones have increased, even if for a small percentage. Today, the averag e tariff for agricultural goods is almost than 
10 times higher than those for non-agricultural goods. Could Canada inform if there is any 
concrete plan to minimize this imbalance in the near future? 
Canada's Response:  The spread between average applied MFN tariffs for non-agricultural vs. 
agricultural goods is a function of broad-based unilateral tariff elimination undertaken by the 
Government of Canada in recent years, which has been primarily focused on non-agricultural 
goods. Since 2009, the Government of Canada has unilaterally eliminated close to 1,900 tariffs providing more than $525 million in annual tariff savings. This includes the elimination of all 
remaining tariffs on imported machinery, equipment and industrial manufacturing inputs, as well 
as on certain consumer products. The Government continues to work with Canadian businesses to identify further opportunities for tariff liberalization. 
[Brazil Question 14]: The table on Canada's tariff structure shows that the share of 
non-ad valorem  tariffs increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 3.9% in 2014. Bearing in mind that this 
type of tariff is not as transparent as the ad valorem  ones, does Canada intend to improve the WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  transparency of its tariff profile by eliminating or at least reducing the number of non- ad valorem  
tariffs? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has not increased the number of non- ad valorem  tariffs. The share 
of non- ad valorem  tariffs appears to have increased because Canada has reduced the number of 
tariff lines in its Tariff Schedule (simplifying the structure by reducing the number of tariff lines 
with the same duty rates). With respect to eliminating or reducing the number of non- ad valorem  
tariffs, Canada will of course comply with the outcome of the Doha Round of negotiations 
regarding tariff structure. 
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 2.1.1 Doha Development Agenda 
Page 8, paragraph 2.2 
 [Brazil Question 15]: (….) In Particular, Canada strongly supported the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement and it committed to its timely implementation.  
Could Canada please inform how the establishment of the Committee mentioned in Article 23.2 of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement is being implem ented? Who will be the participants in this 
committee? At what governmental level will it be created? 
Canada's Response:  Article 23.2 of the TFA requires Members to establish or maintain a national 
committee on trade facilitation to facilitate domestic coordination and the implementation of the TFA. Canada already has well-functioning networks in place between Government departments, as 
well as with private sector stakeholders to that effect. The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade 
and Development and the Canada Border Services Ag ency plan to meet the requirements of Article 
23.2 by using existing inter-governmental ave nues of communication between departments and 
agencies in Canada responsible for the application of import, export or transit requirements at the 
border, as well as existing mechanisms for consultation with private sector stakeholders, and by involving relevant experts/officials. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  CHINA 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1.1 Real Sector and structural reform 
Page 16, paragraph 1.8  
 [China Question 1]: Th e report states that "With respect to the goal of investing in infrastructure 
and transportation, the EAP 2014 committed".  
Please introduce the major sources of funding for infrastructure and transportation investment in 
Canada in recent years, especially of the usage of PPP and other financing forms in relevant sectors. 
Canada's Response:  Provinces, territories and municipaliti es own over 95 percent of core public 
infrastructure in Canada.  
Sources of funding 
Funding for infrastructure investments has generally been sourced from government contributions 
– from the federal, provincial and municipal governments – through general tax revenues, with no dedicated taxes for infrastructure investments. User charges have also been utilized in the case of 
assets like public transit projects, international crossings, and water/wastewater facilities. More 
recently, user charges have been levied on a few highways and domestic bridges. Levels of cost 
recovery vary by asset class. For example, no m unicipal transit system in Canada fully recovers 
operating costs from fares let alone any share of capital costs. 
While the vast majority of core public infrastr ucture is owned by provinces, territories and 
municipalities, the federal government provides financial contributions to infrastructure projects given the importance of modern and efficient public infrastructure for the country's economic 
prosperity, long-term economic growth and quality of life. 
Since 2006, the Government of Canada has made  a significant commitment towards provincial, 
territorial and municipal public infrastructure: 
 $33 billion through the 2007 Building Canada Plan, the first long-term, stable and 
predictable federal plan to provide funding to provinces, territories and municipalities to 
support their respective public infrastructure priorities. 
 Its successor, the 10 year, over $53 billion New Building Canada Plan launched in 2014 
(which includes $6 billion in funding from the 2007 Building Canada Plan), which 
includes: 
o over $32 billion over 10 years in dedicated funding for municipal infrastructure, 
including $21.8 billion under the Gas Tax Fund, and $10.4 billion through the 
Incremental GST Rebate for Municipalities; 
o $14 billion over 10 years through the New Building Canada Fund, which includes 
a $4 billion National Infrastructure Component (supporting investments in 
projects of national significance) an d a $10 billion Provincial-Territorial 
Infrastructure Component (supporting projects of national, regional and local significance in communities across the country); and 
o the $1.25 billion P3 Canada Fund, managed by PPP Canada Inc., which provides 
support for innovation infrastructure projects delivered through the public-private partnership (P3) approach. 
 Infrastructure stimulus measures, which have supported 30,000 projects across the 
country, as part of Economic Action Plan 2009. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  The Government of Canada has increased its annual support for provincial, territorial and 
municipal infrastructure from $571 million in 2003–04 to an estimated $5 billion in 2015–16. The most recent federal budget announced a new and innovative Public Transit Fund, the 
Government's largest targeted infrastructure program, to promote public transit infrastructure 
investment in a manner that is affordable for taxp ayers and efficient for commuters. The Fund will 
provide $750 million over two years, starting  in 2017–18, and $1 billion annually ongoing 
thereafter.  
Under the New Building Canada Fund, the maximum Government of Canada contribution is capped 
at up to one third of eligible project costs (generally capital costs related to construction). However, in the case of provincial highways, ma jor provincial roads, and public transit, the 
maximum Government of Canada contribution is capped at up to 50 percent of eligible costs. In 
the case of projects located in the territories, the maximum Government of Canada contribution is 
capped at 75 percent of eligible costs. A key exceptio n is in the case of projects that are procured 
through a public-private partnership or owned by pr ivate for-profit organizations, in such cases, 
the maximum Government of Canada contribution is capped at 25 percent of eligible costs.  
The Government of Canada is also the custodian of a broad range of infrastructure assets that play 
a critical role in delivering core services to Canadians, improving the safety and security of 
borders, enabling the safe and efficient movement of people and goods, supporting science and 
innovation, and providing access to national parks. Federal spending on these assets is largely paid 
through general tax revenues, with some user char ges, notably for international bridges, entrance 
to parks, etc. 
Financing 
With respect to the financing of infrastructure projects, governments typically finance the 
associated costs through a combination of general tax revenues, borrowings and contributions 
from more senior levels of government (e.g. provincial and/or federal funding). Under a traditional 
procurement approach, costs are paid as they are incurred in the construction of the asset. Under 
a public-private partnership (PPP) procurement approach, the construction costs are typically 
financed by the private partner through short-term borrowings. Under PPP models where the 
private sector is responsible for the maintenance and/or operations of the asset over a long-term period, a portion (between 75 percent to 85 percent) of the construction costs and associated short-term financing costs is repaid by the public sector through the construction period (namely 
at key milestones) and at substantial completion. The remaining capital costs are financed by the 
private sector through long-term borrowings, and repaid through performance-based availability payments through the contract period. Having this private sector capital at risk brings discipline 
and reduce maintenance and operations risks for the procuring government. 
1.2 Fiscal Policy 
Page 18, paragraph 1.19 
 
[China Question 2]: The report states that "The Government seems intent on delivering a balanced 
budget, even with the recent decline in crude oil prices." 
How does Canada evaluate the impacts of the recent decline in oil prices on Canada's fiscal 
revenue? Will it affect the goal of Canada  to deliver a balanced budget in 2015-16? 
Canada's Response:  With respect to the fiscal impacts of lower oil prices, it is important to note 
that the federal government does not collect royalties from natural resource firms. That revenue 
source is only collected by Canada's sub-national, provincial governments. As a result, the fiscal 
situation of the federal government is primarily affected by lower corporate profits among natural resource firms, which will result in lower corpor ate income taxes. Other revenue streams, such as 
personal income taxes and the Value Added Tax (GST) are also affected, but to a significantly 
lesser extent. 
Federal corporate income tax receipts are expected to decline by 2.9% in 2015-16, primarily 
reflecting the impact of lower oil prices. However, ongoing gains in economic activity and related 
tax receipts in the non-energy sectors of the economy mean that the Government will still balance WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  the budget this year – and indeed expects to po st a surplus of $1.4 billion – after taking into 
account the 1.0 billion set aside for contingencies. 
Of note, the Government's projections for nominal GDP, the broadest measure of the tax base and 
the basis for the Government's fiscal planning a ssumptions, are based on the average of private 
sector forecasts. 
1.5.2 Trade in services 
Page 28, paragraph 1.35 
[China Question 3]: The report states that "These include the launch of an international education 
strategy to attract international students to Cana da and the development of an extractive sector 
strategy."  
Please illustrate in detail the specific measures taken by Canada to attract international students. 
Canada's Response:  Canada's International Education Strategy was launched by the Minister of 
International Trade in January 2014, building on the Edu-Canada pilot which had been in place since 2007. Trade Commissioners in over 100 Canadian missions (embassies, consulates, high 
commissions, trade offices) around the world and across Canada provide core services to Canada's 
education sector clients and stakeholders to enhance their international business development initiatives and to coordinate Canada's participation in hundreds of education fairs and events 
where strong connections are made with international students, researchers, and institutions. 
Canadian national education associations are also eligible for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development's (DFATD) Global Opportunities for Associations (GOA) program which provides cost-shared funding to support new international business development initiatives. As 
well, DFATD provides scholarships annually to Canadian and international students for 
study/research in Canada and abroad under its International Scholarships Program and coordinates the promotion of other federally-funded international scholarship and fellowship 
programs. DFATD's International Education Division also provides information digitally for 
international students considering studying in Canada on its Education au/in Canada web site and Flickr gallery. 
[China Question 4]: How does Canada evaluate the effect of the above-mentioned measures? 
Canada's Response: Canada: tracks the number of international students coming to Canada 
based on their country of origin; monitors the use of funding by missions abroad for international education initiatives; measures actual results of funding awarded to national education 
associations under GOA in comparison with anticipated results; tracks the number of scholarships 
awarded under the International Scholarships Program; liaises with other federal departments and agencies to track their international awards; and measures visitors, views, and other online 
metrics to its digital assets (e.g., Web sites and Flickr).  
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 General Framework 
Page 32, paragraph 2.4 
 [China Question 5]: The report states that "The Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Advisory 
Board (SMEAB) is comprised of 18 private se ctor leaders from small and medium-sized 
enterprises; it meets biannually."  
Please explain how the private sector leaders of the consultative bodies are selected and what 
their main functions are. Can senior managers of foreign-invested enterprises become private 
sector leaders? 
Canada's Response:  The 18 members of the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Advisory Board 
are selected and appointed by the Minister of In ternational Trade. Members are selected based on 
their overall expertise and sound understanding  of international commerce, the Canadian 
economy, the business environmen t, innovation and competitiveness. Members participate as 
individuals and not as representatives of specific organizations. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  The members provide the Minister of International Trade with advice and recommendations on the 
commerce-related priorities, policies, programs and services of the Department for Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) in support of smal l and medium-sized enterprises. There is no 
stipulation that the members must work in or own a Canadian-owned enterprise, but relatively few 
foreign-invested enterprises fall into the category of small or medium-sized enterprises. 
Page 33, paragraph 2.5 [China Question 6]: The report states that "As of January 2015, the Advisory Council was in the 
process of being established."  
Please introduce the latest progress of the establishment of the Global Markets Action Plan 
Advisory Council by Canada. 
Canada's Response:  The inaugural meeting of the Global Markets Action Plan Advisory Council 
was held on March 27, 2015, and provided the Minister of International Trade with strategic insight 
and real-world perspectives to ensure that GMAP continues to reflect the priorities, needs and interests of Canadian businesses. More information can be found at  
http://www.international.gc.ca/media/comm/news -communiques/2015/03 /27a.aspx?lang=eng. 
Page 33, paragraph 2.6 [China Question 7]: The report states that "In the context of Canada's FTA negotiations, the 
Government of Canada is committed to engaging in broad-based consultations with the private 
sector, civil society groups, and individual Canadians to help inform Canada's negotiating objectives and priorities. Among the consultation mechanisms used to afford Canadians the opportunity to shape the trade agenda, the Government of Canada publishes a notice in the 
Canada Gazette soliciting comments from Canadians prior to Canada's participation in 
negotiations." 
Please illustrate the specific ways in which Canada solicits public comments in the process of its 
FTA negotiations. Will Canada publish the details of the relevant in-person meetings, conference 
calls and stakeholder events after such events? 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada is committed to encouraging the participation of 
all Canadians in the development of its policies and negotiating positions related to international 
trade. With regard to potential or actual negoti ations, the Government of Canada also engages in 
broad-based consultations with the private sector, civil society groups, provinces and territories, and individual Canadians to help inform Canada's specific negotiating objectives and priorities. 
Prior to formally launching bilateral or regional FTA negotiations, the Government of Canada 
typically publishes a notice in the Canada Gazette soliciting comments from Canadians. Consultations continue throughout the negotiating process. Working with all levels of government, 
Canada continues its broad-based consultation approach to elicit the views of business and 
industry, the academic research community, and interested citizen-based organizations and public interest groups, through both formal and informal mechanisms. Moreover, subject specific lead 
negotiators may conduct separate consultation and outreach activities to inform Canadian 
negotiating positions. 
The Government of Canada does not as a matter of  standard practice publish the details of the 
relevant in-person meetings, conference calls and st akeholder events after such events take place. 
The Government of Canada is mindful of maintaining the confidentiality of the participants and the 
nature of the information provided by those participants. 
[China Question 8]: The report states that "In the context of Canada's FTA negotiations, the 
Government of Canada is committed to engaging in broad-based consultations with the private 
sector, civil society groups, and individual Canadians to help inform Canada's negotiating objectives and priorities. Among the consultation mechanisms used to afford Canadians the 
opportunity to shape the trade agenda, the Government of Canada publishes a notice in the 
Canada Gazette soliciting comments from Canadians prior to Canada's participation in negotiations." WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  As Canada is actively participating in the TPP negotiations, please introduce the opinions and 
attitudes of major industrial sectors and interested parties towards the negotiations in Canada. 
Canada's Response:  Prior to Canada's joining the TPP, broad public consultations were 
undertaken. In December 2011, Canada launched a Canada Gazette  process seeking feedback 
from the public on Canada's participation in the TPP – which is standard for any trade negotiation 
in which Canada engages. The Government of Canada received 79 submissions from companies, associations and provinces, each representing a broad spectrum of Canadians.  
Overall there has been strong and broad support for Canada's participation in the TPP. Generally, 
the views expressed related to ensuring an ambi tious outcome in market access and easing the 
process of doing business across borders (regulat ory coherence, transparency of rules/costs, 
customs facilitation, digital economy, etc.). Issues such as intellectual property and investment 
protections were also frequently cited, among others. 
Since joining the TPP, negotiators have held a large number of stakeholder meetings, and have 
heard from hundreds of industry and non-industry  representatives. Key issues raised by major 
industrial sectors and interested parties remain focussed on areas of market access (goods, 
services, financial services, government procurement, temporary entry, and investment), as well as issues pertaining to intellectual property . The primary interest expressed by national 
associations and individual companies has remained ambitious tariff outcomes across all sectors.  
2.1.1 New Developments 
Page 33, paragraph 2.7  
[China Question 9]: The report states that "In 2011, the United States and Canada jointly 
launched the Beyond the Border Action Plan to im prove and speed up legitimate trade and travel 
between the two countries. The Plan is being impl emented in phases and includes improvements 
to infrastructure at the border, implementing the single window, enhancing benefits of the trusted 
trade and traveller programmes, improving cargo security, sharing immigration information, and 
supporting cross-border law enforcement activities. " 
Regarding the actions taken by Canada to facilitate trade, is Canada planning to further expand 
their application and conduct similar cooperation with other members?  
Canada's Response:  Beyond the Border is a bilateral Canada-U.S. initiative to further strengthen 
what is already the strongest trading relationship in the world. As such, the vast majority of Action 
Plan items within the Beyond the Border framework relate almost exclusively to facilitating the 
cross-border flow of legitimate travelers and goods between Canada and the U.S. These include 
negotiating a new comprehensive preclearance agreement, implementation of the Integrated 
Cargo Security Strategy, strengthening cross-border  law enforcement efforts, border infrastructure 
improvement, establishment of the 'Single Window ' approach and expansion of the NEXUS trusted 
traveler program.  
Canada's participation in initiatives such as Beyond the Border, as well as in other ongoing 
bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade negotiations shows Canada's commitment to economic growth through the negotiation of agreements that expand and facilitate trade. 
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreements 
Page 28, paragraph 2.25 
 [China Question 10]: The report states that "In order to improve its market access opportunities, 
Canada has pursued bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) as an important part of 
its trade policy and has gradually increase d the number of FTAs in recent years." 
What major factors will Canada take into consideration when prioritizing partners of 
FTA negotiations? 
Canada's Response:  In 2013, the Government of Canada released the Global Markets Action 
Plan. Under the Global Markets Action Plan, the Government of Canada is concentrating on the WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  markets that hold the greatest promise for Canadian business through vigorous trade promotion 
and ambitious trade policy.  
The Global Markets Action  Plan is publicly available http:// www.international.gc.ca/global-markets-
marches-mondiaux/ind ex.aspx?lang=eng. 
The Government of Canada takes into account a number of considerations when taking a decision 
regarding whether to launch FTA negotiations with a potential partner. These include: the potential to generate significant economic and commercial benefits for Canada; the level of Canadian 
business interest and domestic support; the willingness and capacity of prospective partners to 
negotiate with Canada, including as determined through detailed, pre-negotiation exploratory talks. 
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act 
Page, 41, paragraph 2.37 
 [China Question 11]: The report states that "Canada's 1985 Investment Canada Act (ICA) provides 
the main legal framework for reviewing foreign investment in Canada. The review of foreign 
investment has two main purposes: to assess if they are likely to benefit Canada and to see if they are likely to injure national security. All foreign investment to establish a new Canadian business 
and to acquire control of a Canadian business, must be notified unless the investment is 
reviewable (see below), in accordance with the ICA (Art. 11)."  
What major factors will Canada take into consideration when assessing if a certain investment 
program is "likely to benefit Canada" or "likely to injure national security"? 
Canada's Response:  Net Benefit Review  
 To approve an application under net benefit review, the Minister of Industry must be 
satisfied that the proposed investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. 
 In making his decision, the Minister carefully considers the plans, undertakings and other 
information submitted by the investor in light of the six net benefit factors listed in section 
20 of the Act. Undertakings are legally binding commitments. 
 The six factors listed in section 20 of the Act are: 
o The effect of the investment on the level an d nature of economic activity in Canada, 
including, without limiting the generality of  the foregoing, the effect on employment, 
on resource processing, on the utilization of  parts, components and services produced 
in Canada and on exports from Canada; 
o The degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or 
new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the 
Canadian business or new Canadian business forms or would form a part; 
o The effect of the investment on producti vity, industrial efficiency, technological 
development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; 
o The effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in 
Canada; 
o The compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural 
policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives 
enunciated by the government or  legislature of any province  likely to be significantly 
affected by the investment; and, 
o The contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  National Security Review  
 Under the Investment Canada Act , foreign investment, regardless of its dollar value, may be 
subject to a national security review if a potential security threat is identified. 
 An investment is subject to review under the national security provisions if the Minister of 
Industry, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, considers that the investment 
could be injurious to national security.  
 The Governor in Council (GIC, or Cabinet) can order a review, on the recommendation of the 
Minister of Industry. 
 The Minister of Industry will then conduct the review, in consultation with the Minister of Public 
Safety. If further steps are required, the Mi nister submits a report to the GIC with 
recommendations. 
 The GIC has the authority to take any measures it considers necessary to protect national 
security in relation to the investment. 
[China Question 12]: Please provide the number of foreign investment programs that are rejected 
because of failure to pass the above-mentioned review in recent years. 
Canada's Response:  Since the Act was introduced in 1985, only one transaction has been 
formally disallowed under the net benefit review process: MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates 
(MDA) proposed sale of its space division to the U.S. Company Alliant Techsystems (ATK) in 2008. 
For confidentiality reasons, the Government of Canada does not identify the number of national 
security reviews undertaken. 
[China Question 13]: Related reviews and re-exa minations may impose unnecessary burdens on 
foreign enterprises, especially SMEs. Does Canada have any plan to reduce review requirements, 
in particular, for SMEs and small amount investment programs? 
Canada's Response:  The net benefit review focuses on major acquisitions of control. Direct 
acquisition of control in the non-cultural sector by private-sector, WTO member investors are 
subject to net benefit review only if the enterprise value of the Canadian business meets or exceeds the established threshold. Currently, this threshold is $600 million in enterprise value of 
the Canadian businesses acquired. The threshold will increase to $800 million in enterprise value 
on April 24, 2017 and to $1 billion in enterprise value in April 24, 2019. Beginning in January 2021, the threshold will be indexed to reflect the change in nominal gross domestic product in the previous year. For foreign investors that are state-owned enterprises, the threshold 
is $369 million and based on the book value of the assets of the Canadian business (adjusted 
annually for changes in Canada's economic growth). Foreign investors making investments in Canada that fall below the established thresholds are required to notify the Government of their 
investment, and are not subject to net benefit review under the Act. 
Page 42, paragraph 2.38 [China Question 14]: The report states that "New provisions in the ICA were introduced in 2009, 
through amendment, to provide for the review of  investments on national security grounds. 
Accompanying regulations, known as the National Security Review of Investments Regulations, prescribe periods of time and investigative bodies for the reviews.  The Governor in Council (GIC) 
can order a national security review of new businesses, investments below the net benefit 
threshold, and minority investments. "  
What major factors will GIC take into consideration when determining whether to initiate a national 
security review? 
Canada's Response:  There are no national security review criteria enumerated in the Investment 
Canada Act  or the National Security Review of Investment Regulations . WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  [China Question 15]: What ways of complaint or appeal are available when a foreign investment 
program is determined "being likely to injure national security" and rejected? Can remedies be obtained if legitimate interests of the relevant foreign investors are injured? 
Canada's Response:  Under the national security provisions of the Investment Canada Act , 
decisions and orders of the Governor in Council, and decisions of the Minister are final and binding 
and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, are not subject to appeal or to review by any court. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements Page 46, paragraph 3.6  
[China Question 16]: The report states that "In addition to the RPP, CBSA is running a number of 
programmes aiming at facilitating trade and enhancing border security (Table 3.2). Through its Trusted Traders Strategy, qualified companies can benefit from streamlined and more efficient 
border processes. The Strategy includes the Partners in Protection (PIP), the Customs 
Self-Assessment (CSA), and the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) programmes. "  
Can foreign exporters or manufacturers with good business records and reputations participate in 
some of the above-mentioned programmes? 
Canada's Response:  Partners in Protection (PIP) program 
 To be eligible for membership in the PIP program, an applicant must own or operate facilities 
based in Canada or the United States (U.S.) that are involved in the cross-border movement of 
commercial goods. For businesses based in the U.S., membership in the PIP program is available to importers that conduct business in Canada (i.e., hold a valid Canadian business number and file 
Canadian customs declarations) and to carriers in al l modes of transport, provided that they hold a 
valid Canadian carrier code.  
Customs Self-Assessment (CSA) program 
 CSA authorizations are available to Canadian and U.S.-based importers and carriers.  
CSA authorizations are governed by the Accounting for Imported Goods and Payment of Duties 
Regulations (AIGPDR). Subsection 10.5(2) of the AIGPDR outlines the requirements for the 
issuance of a CSA authorization to importers and paragraph 10.5(3) outlines the requirements for 
carriers. Pursuant to paragraphs 10.5(2)(a) and (b), participation in the CSA program is available 
to importers;   
"(a) if the importer is an individual, the importer ordinarily resides in Canada or the United 
States or, if the importer is a partnership, the importer has at least one partner who is an individual who ordinarily resides in Canada or the United States;   
(b) if the importer is a corporation, the importer has its head office in Canada or the 
United States or operates a branch offi ce in Canada or the United States." 
N.B. 
It should be noted that Table 3.2 of the report incorrectly states that eligibility for CSA is available 
to CDRP registered drivers only. In fact, use of release prior to accounting (or a CSA clearance) is outlined under section 10.2 of the AIGPDR and states; 
 
Eligible goods may be released under paragraph 32(2)(b) of the Act prior to the accounting required under paragraph 32(1)(a) of the Act and may be released under subsection 33(1) of the Act prior to the payment of the duties required under paragraph 32(1)(b) of the Act on condition 
that 
 
(a) the importer of those goods is a CSA importer; 
(b) the carrier that transports those goods is a CSA carrier; 
(c) when reporting the goods, the oper ator of the conveyance provides in 
bar-coded format the CSA carrier's carrier code as assigned by the Agency and the 
CSA importer's business number; and WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  (d) in the case of eligible goods transported into Canada by a commercial highway 
conveyance as defined in section 1 of the Presentation of Persons (2003) 
Regulations , the driver of the conveyance holds an authorization under those 
Regulations. 
 
The Presentation of Persons (2003) Regulations  authorizations includes registered drivers under 
CDRP as well as FAST. There are no requirements for CDRP or FAST registration in the other 
modes (rail, marine and air).  
 Free and Secure Trade (FAST) benefit  
Membership in both the PIP and CSA programs is required to use the FAST lanes. 
For clarity, the use of the FAST dedicated lanes is permitted if the following conditions are met: 
 
  The importer is PIP and CSA approved;  
  The carrier is PIP and CSA approved;  
  All goods on-board are CSA-eligible goods; and, 
  The driver is a registered commercial driver under FAST or is Commercial Driver 
Registration Program (CDRP) approved. 
 Page 48, paragraph 3.7 
[China Question 17]: The report states that "The CBSA is also running a number of bilateral 
programmes with Canada's key trading partners, mainly the United States."  
Besides the USA, with which members does [Canada] have bilateral cooperating programmes in 
trade facilitation? Is Canada planning to exte nd such cooperation with developing members? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has cooperation programmes with several countries. For example, 
in March of 2013, Canada signed a Customs Coop eration Agreement with the European Union to 
support safe and secure trade. Canada also engages in cooperation with developing members. In 
August 2014, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Mexico's Tax Administration Service 
(SAT) signed a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC), demonstrating a joint commitment to ensuring the efficient and secure movement of goods between Canada and Mexico. This led to the 
development of a country-specific cooperation agenda focused on harmonizing customs data 
requirements, facilitating multimodal trade, and increasing collaboration on risk management and enforcement.  
Canada is committed to cooperating with international partners, including developing members at 
the WTO. For example, Canada is committed to sharing information with its domestic and international partners for security and trade facilitation. We remain committed to safeguarding 
information in our care. We share information upon request with partners through appropriate 
information sharing vehicles. For example, in November 2014, Canada signed a Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement (CMAA) with China to share information proactively or in response to threats.  
The CBSA also enters into Mutual Recogn ition Arrangements (MRA) between customs 
administrations signifying that both apply similar security standards and site validation practices when approving companies for membership in their respective Authorized Economic Operator 
(AEO) programs. It also allows both countries to recognize each other's members as trusted 
traders and grant them similar benefits. MRAs expand the international trade network of accredited low-risk companies. MRAs allow custom s administrations to work together to improve 
their capability to target high risk shipments while expediting legitimate cargo.  
The CBSA has signed four MRAs. In June 2008, the CBSA signed an MRA with the United States 
(US) Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, and additional MRAs were signed in 
June 2010 with the Japan AEO program, Korea AEO program, and Singapore Secure Trade 
Partnership program.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  The CBSA considers several factors before engaging with another Customs Administration toward 
the goal of reaching mutual recognition, including, but not limited to, the risk associated with the supply chains originating within the respective countries, import/export volumes, the maturity of the respective AEO program and the Government of Canada priorities.  
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
Page 63, paragraph 3.46  
[China Question 18]: The report states that "Although the CBSA can self-initiate anti-dumping and 
countervailing investigations, it generally initiates those following complaints from the domestic industry."  
In recent years, how many anti-dumping and counte rvailing investigations were self-initiated by 
the CBSA, and how many were initiated upon complaints by the domestic industry? 
Canada's Response:  During the period of review from 2011 to 2014, all anti-dumping and 
countervailing investigations reported were initiated upon complaints by the domestic industry. 
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) did not self-initiate any anti-dumping or 
countervailing investigation. 
Page 64, paragraph 3.48 
[China Question 19]: The report states that "Between 201 1 and 2014, the CBSA initiated 43 
anti-dumping (AD) investigations, with a peak of 17 investigations in 2013 (Chart 3.4). In 2014, 13 new investigations were initiated. In general, there has been a steep increase in the number of 
AD investigations in 2012-14, as compared with the previous three years."  
Please explain the main reasons for the steep increa se in the number of AD investigations during 
this review period. 
Canada's Response:  Canada notes that the number of anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14 
was not typical of Canada's general declining trend in the number of anti-dumping investigations. 
For example, there were only 10 anti-dumping investigations initiated in the preceding three years, from 2009 to 2011.  
The increase in anti-dumping investigations in Canada in 2012-14 is limited to a narrow range of 
products that may be affected by underlying issues of global concern (e.g. global steel production overcapacity). Trade remedies investigations are legitimate tools to address situations where unfair trading practices of foreign firms and governments are causing or threatening to cause 
injury to domestic industry. Canada notes that its experience in anti-dumping investigations in 
2012-14 is consistent with global trends over this time period. 
3.1.8 Standards and other technical requirements 
Page 69, paragraph 3.66 
 [China Question 20]: The report states that "Once a SDO makes the decision to develop a 
standard, it establishes a technical committee that generally includes consumer representatives, 
general interest group representatives, government officials and producers. The committee typically reviews existing (international) standa rds first for possible adoption or adjustment."  
How can foreign exporters and manufacturers, as inte rested parties, offer their opinions during the 
standard developing process of a Standards Development Organizations (SDO)? 
Canada's Response:  There are several ways that stakeholders outside of Canada can offer their 
opinions during the standards-development process of an SCC-accredited SDO. First, SDOs 
accredited by SCC are required to have an open standards-development process and a balanced 
matrix of committee members. Interested parties,  including foreign exporters and manufacturers, 
have several opportunities to comment on a draft standard: during the initial notification of work, 
during the development of the standard, and when the standard is posted for public review. In 
addition, qualified stakeholders from outside of Canada can also participate in the standards-development committee. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  [China Question 21]: What's the proportion of international standards adopted in the current 
technical standards of Canada? 
Canada's Response:  In fiscal year 2013-14, there were 116 National Standards of Canada 
(NSCs) approved by SCC, 82 of which are nati onal adoptions of international standards. 
Page 69, paragraph 3.70 
[China Question 22]: The report states that "The process of preparing technical regulations is 
decentralized. Various federal and provincial auth orities develop regulations, including technical 
regulations."  
Please introduce the respective functions of the federal and provincial authorities in formulating 
technical regulations. 
Canada's Response:  Responsibilities are defined in Canada's Constitution which means that 
some sectors are under provincial/territorial jurisdiction while with others fall under federal 
authority. There are also matters that overlap juri sdiction but, usually, where federal regulations 
exist, provincial/territorial regulations wo uld be superseded by federal regulations. 
[China Question 23]: What mechanism is adopted by the Federal Government of Canada to ensure 
that the compliance of technical regulations formulated by the local authorities with the TBT Agreement, SPS Agreement and other agreements of the WTO? 
Canada's Response:  Article 3 of the TBT Agreement requires that members take reasonable 
measures to ensure compliance by local government bodies. To this end, Canada works closely with sub-federal entities to inform them of their obligations, and also works with them to ensure their compliance with trade commitments and in preparing notifications as required. 
The federal government also has jurisdiction with regards to international and intra-provincial 
trade for SPS issues. There are a variety of consultative mechanisms in place for representatives of Federal/Provincial/Territorial governments to  discuss the development and implementation of 
policies and regulations. Where it is deemed that a federal SPS measure may have a significant 
impact on trade, Canada notifies the measure in accordance with its transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement. The Government of Canada is not aware of any SPS measures adopted 
by sub-federal authorities that have a trade impact. 
3.2.5 Export finance, insurance, guarantees 
Page 77, paragraph 3.107  
[China Question 24]: The report states that "Export Development Canada (EDC) is a Crown 
corporation with the mandate to support and develop export trade and help businesses respond to international business opportunities. It provides insurance products, financing and bonding 
solutions to companies engaged in export-related activities, as well as to their foreign customers 
(Table 3.13). EDC is financially self-sustained."  
Is the major mandate of EDC, realizing the policy goal of "supporting and developing export trade" 
or maintaining its own business and gain profit? 
Canada's Response:  The mandate of EDC is set forth in its enabling statute. It reads: "The 
Corporation is established for the purposes of supporting and developing, directly or indirectly, Canada's export trade and Canadian capacity to engage in that trade and to respond to 
international business opportunities." As a Federal Crown corporation, EDC cannot carry on any 
business or activity that is not consistent with its legislative mandate. As such, EDC does not differentiate between a major mandate or a lesser mandate. 
With respect to self-sustainability or profits, this  concept does not derive from its mandate. EDC's 
corporate plan provides that EDC is committed to remaining financially self-sustaining. EDC has a strong focus on ensuring that it maintains sufficient financial capital to support the on-going 
fulfillment of its mandate and responds to the evolving needs of Canadian exporters and investors, 
and to be able to do so for many years to come. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  [China Question 25]: How does EDC strike a balanc e between these two goals, especially when the 
global financial crisis increases credit risks of export? 
Canada's Response:  EDC has a strong focus on ensuring that it maintains sufficient financial 
capital to support the on-going fulfillment of its mandate and responds to the evolving needs of 
Canadian exporters and investors, and to be able to do so for many years to come. EDC's 
prudential risk management practices and policies have ensured that it can, and will, continue to meet the needs of Canadian exporters. 
Page 79, paragraph 3.109 
[China Question 26]: The report states that "EDC may also fund non-export related transactions, 
subject to ministerial approval. At the time of th e financial crisis in 2009, the Export Development 
Act was amended to include domestic financing, guarantee and insurance solutions in EDC's 
mandate."  
Please illustrate the fundamental principles of EDC in deciding to participate in domestic financing, 
guarantee and insurance solutions. 
Canada's Response:  The decision to provide EDC domestic financing, guarantee and insurance 
powers was made by the Government of Canada in order to add capacity to domestic credit and insurance markets due to limited offerings from the private sector. This enabled EDC to provide 
support for purely domestic transactions (financing, guarantees and insurance). In March 2014, 
the temporary domestic mandate granted to EDC in the 2009 budget in response to the financial crisis was removed, and new regulations  came into force to define how EDC can deploy its export 
mandate in support of transactions in Canada. The fundamental principle of EDC deciding to 
participate in domestic financing, guarantee and insurance solutions is EDC's mandate, in 
particular the mandate to support "Canadian capacity to engage in export trade."  
[China Question 27]: Are the rates of EDC's relevant domestic services consistent with general 
business conditions? 
Canada's Response:  EDC applies a consistent approach in the support of foreign transactions as 
it does in the support of transactions in Canada.  
3.3.2 Incentives and subsidies 
Page 80, paragraph 3.115  [China Question 28]: The report states that "According to Canada Business Network, a 
government information service for business, there are some 755 support programmes providing 
assistance to businesses in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax refunds and credits, and wage subsidies. Many are at the provincial level and t hus, restricted to recipients established in the 
province. "  
Please illustrate the major beneficiary sectors of the above-mentioned support programmes. Canada's Response:  The Canada Business Network is a collaborative arrangement between 
federal and sub-federal government agencies to provide information to businesses. Details on 
programs can be found in Canada's most rece nt subsidy notification (G/SCM/N/253/CAN).  
[China Question 29]: How does Canada avoid exce ssive disturbance to market competition caused 
by relevant support programmes? 
Canada's Response:  Canada, like many countries, maintains certain programs that support 
businesses in their efforts to expand and grow. Canada takes great effort to ensure that these programs are designed and implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  (ASCM). 
[China Question 30]: Has Canada appointed a specific institution to publish various federal and 
provincial support policies to investors? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  The Canada Business Network is a collaborative arrangement between 
federal and sub-federal government agencies to provide information to businesses.  
Page 81, paragraph 3.117 [China Question 31]: The report states that "The Business Development Bank of Canada, a federal 
crown corporation reporting to Industry Canada , provides financing and other services to 
businesses, in particular, SMEs, to promote investment in and development of Canadian businesses."  
Is the Business Development Bank of Canada fund ed by government appropriation or commercial 
financing? 
Canada's Response:  BDC does not receive appropriations from the Government of Canada. Like 
private sector financial institutions, its operations are financed through borrowings on the open 
market, share capital and retained earnings gene rated by the Bank. All shares of the Bank are 
owned by the Government, which rece ives an annual dividend on them. 
[China Question 32]: What is the major mandate of the Bank, to achieve relevant government 
policy objectives or to maintain its business and gain profit? 
Canada's Response:  BDC's mandate is to support Canadian entrepreneurship, giving particular 
consideration to the needs of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It has a public policy 
mandate to achieve relevant government policy object ives and fill market gaps. However, it is also 
required to operate in a financially sustainable ma nner by earning a return on equity at or above 
the government's long-term cost of capital. BDC has been profitable every year since 1995 and it 
pays annual dividends to the Government of Canada. 
[China Question 33]: How does it strike a balance between these two goals, especially when the 
global financial crisis increases the credit risks of export? 
Canada's Response:  BDC works to achieve a proper balance between its public policy mandate 
and its requirement to be financially sustainable. It operates as a complementary lender in the 
market, offering support that fills out or completes services available from the private sector. It fulfills a counter-cyclical role by increasing financing during periods of economic turbulence, when 
the private sector tends to restrict its financing. For example, during the 2009 global financial 
crisis, the approval rates of private banks for sm aller firms (with 1-99 employees), decreased to 
79 percent, a 15 percent decrease from 2007 and one of the lowest approval ratings of the 
decade. In response, BDC extended a record amount of financing in fiscal year 2010, increasing its 
loans volume from $2.8 billion to $4.3 billion. As the economy moves to more normal credit 
conditions, BDC moderates its activity levels to ensure that its support continues to be incremental to that available from the private sector. 
As private banks will not typically approve loans above a certain risk level, BDC aims to share risk 
with banks and partner on deals, to ensure that SMEs are able to access the financing they need. In financing riskier transactions, BDC prices according to risk, assigning higher interest rates as 
transaction risks increase. Its clients often require smaller loans and more flexible repayment 
terms than other business borrowers. BDC is a patient lender and can offer longer amortization periods and payment holidays to help SMEs get their projects off the ground or stay on track. Its 
Business Restructuring Unit helps clients save their business and supports them through the 
difficult decisions needed to turn things around. BDC's pricing reflects the creditworthiness of the 
borrower and the loan repayment terms. 
3.3.4.2 Federal Crown Corporations 
Page 87, paragraph 3.134 
 [China Question 34]: The report states that "Crown corporations are subject to the governance 
and accountability framework set out in the Financial Administration Act (FAA), and in some cases, 
their own constituent Acts. There are both self-financing Crown corporations, as well as those which receive government appropriations."  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  What mechanism is adopted by Crown corporations to maintain a balance between realizing 
national policy goals and gaining commercial profits? 
Canada's Response:  All Canadian federal Crown corporations derive their raison d'être from their 
statutory role as instruments of public policy on behalf of the Government of Canada. A large 
number of Crown corporations operate in a business environment where it may be challenging to 
manage both commercial and public policy objectives. 
The accountability frameworks under which Crown corporations operate are set out in Part X of the 
Financial Administration Act  and specific constituent Acts. These frameworks provide the necessary 
balance to accommodate the tensions managing both commercial and public policy objectives set out in the mandates of each Crown corporation.  
The FAA gives Crown corporations a degree of managerial autonomy in order that they may 
pursue commercial and public policy goals with minimum direct government involvement. To 
balance this managerial autonomy, it is necessary that both Parliament and the Government be kept fully informed of the results of Crown corporation operations and financial conditions through 
the provision of comprehensive and effective reporting documents, specifically annual corporate 
plans and performance reports.  
Through the corporate plan process set out in legislation and regulation, the activities and budgets 
(capital and operating budgets) of most Crown corporations are reviewed and approved on an 
annual basis by the Treasury Board in its role as a Cabinet Committee, and in its role acting on behalf of the Governor in Council. This annual review is designed to ensure that a Crown corporation's activities are within its mandate, that it is achieving expected results, and that it is 
providing value for money for Canadians. Where these objectives are not being met, mandates can 
be amended through legislation; funding mechanisms, financing restrictions or dividend plans can be changed; or, at the prerogative of the Prime Minister, the corporation can ultimately be 
dissolved.  
Summaries of approved corporate plans and budget s are subsequently tabled in Parliament and 
become public documents. Crown corporations are also required to submit an annual report, which 
although not approved by a Cabinet Committee, is tabled in Parliament by the Minister designated 
as responsible for each Crown corporation. 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2.1 Policy developments 
Page 125, paragraph 4.63 
[China Question 35]: The report states that "Since 2009 Canada has a corporate social 
responsibility (CSR) strategy for the extractive sector. This policy is put in place to encourage all 
Canadian firms working internationally to respect laws, operate transparently, consult with host 
governments, and implement CSR best practices. "  
What are the specific incentives in the CSR strategy to encourage firms, especially those operating 
internationally to implement CSR best practices? 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada expects Canadian companies operating abroad 
to respect all applicable laws and international standards, to operate transparently and in consultation with host governments and local communities, and to conduct their activities abroad 
in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. 
Incentives in Canada's enhanced 2014 CSR Strategy: As mentioned in section 2.1.1 (para 2.10) of 
the Report, the Government of Canada released an enhanced CSR Strategy for the Extractive 
Sector in November 2014. The Government has clearly signalled the importance it attaches to the 
voluntary participation of Canadian companies in dispute resolution mechanisms, and to good CSR performance.  
Dialogue facilitation and non-judicial dispute resolution processes can be crucial to the long-term 
success of projects abroad and the sustainabili ty of host communities. Canada offers two 
mechanisms to help communities and Canadian companies resolve differences: the review process WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  of the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsello r; and the issue resolution function of Canada's 
National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The 2014 CSR Strategy makes explicit the link between company participation in dialogue facilitation mechanisms and eligibility for trade advocacy serv ices from the Government of Canada. 
Under the enhanced Strategy, if a company refuses to participate in one of Canada's two dialogue 
facilitation mechanisms, it will not receive such support. Decisions by Canadian companies to participate in the review processes of the Counsellor's Office or the NCP remain voluntary, but a 
decision not to participate will now be made public. They will also be taken into account in the 
CSR-related evaluation and due diligence conducted by the Government of Canada's financing crown corporation, Export Development Canada (EDC), in its consideration of the availability of financing or other support. 
Legal incentives: Canadian companies must also comply with two Canadian laws aimed at 
combatting bribery and improving tran sparency globally. The first is the Corruption of Foreign 
Public Officials Act  (CFPOA), which implements Canada's obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery 
Convention by making it a criminal offence in Canada to bribe foreign public officials in the course 
of international business, and which was strengthened in June 2013.  
The second is the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act  (ESTMA), passed in December 
2014, and which is designed to deter corruption through transparency measures that require the 
reporting of certain payments made to all levels of governments domestically and abroad. The ESTMA will require extractive entities that are engaged in the commercial development of 
minerals, oil or natural gas, and subject to Canadian law, to report annually on specific payments 
of $100,000 or more made to any level of government in Canada or abroad, including Aboriginal 
governments. 
Both of these Acts are referenced in the 2014 enhanced CSR Strategy as a way to strengthen the 
environment affecting business activities abroad in a way that is conducive to advancing CSR 
performance and benefits on the ground. 
4.2.2.2 Natural Gas 
Page 129, paragraph 4.74 
 [China Question 36]: The report states that "While Canada is not yet exporting LNG, current 
proposals have an expected export capacity of 3 02 million tonnes per year, which is equivalent to 
40.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year and almost 3 times current natural gas production. 
Thus, according to the authorities, it is not expe cted that all these proposals will be approved or 
developed."  
Why did Canada fail to export LNG and please give an update of the regulatory review of LNG 
export applications? 
Canada's Response:  As natural gas supplies and reserves continue to increase in North America, 
Canadian producers are seeking ways to access ne w markets by exporting liquefied natural gas to 
Asia and Europe. However, Canada does not yet export LNG, since Canada does not yet have the necessary infrastructure in place (liquefaction plants, export terminals) for such exports.  
To date, 24 LNG export projects have been announc ed, 19 in BC and 5 in Eastern Canada. Each of 
these projects is at a various stage of regulatory review.  
LNG export project proponents typically seek LN G export licences to support their projects and 
their discussions with potential LNG buyers. LNG ex port licences require two approvals. First, an 
applicant who wishes to obtain an LNG export licence must apply to the National Energy Board 
(NEB), a federal agency that is independent of the elected Government. If the NEB approves the 
licence, the decision next goes to the Government  of Canada. If the Government also approves the 
licence, the Government then directs the NEB to issue the licence to the applicant.  
Since 2011, following both NEB and Government of Canada approvals, the NEB has issued 10 long 
term LNG export licences to Canadian projects fo r a total of 155 million tonnes per annum of LNG 
exports.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  The NEB has approved another export licence which requires Governor in Council approval before 
it can be issued. An additional twelve a pplications are under review by the NEB. 
At least one project, Pacific Northwest LNG, has publicly announced that it will be making a final 
investment decision for its project in 2015. Other projects are also advancing to towards a final 
investment decision. It is expected that Canada  will be exporting LNG to overseas markets by 
2020. 
To support such exports, Canada's plan for Responsible Resource Development is helping to create 
a competitive investment environment for the LNG industry by: 
• Creating a competitive tax regime; • Establishing a world class independent regulatory process that makes sound decisions 
based on science and the facts; 
• Providing clear timelines for investors and reducing duplication across jurisdictions;  
• Extending the maximum length of natural gas or LNG export licences from 25 years to 
40 years to improve regulatory certainty for natural gas or LNG exporters; and, 
• Strengthening environmental protection and the safety of our energy transportation 
systems to build confidence in Canada's ability to develop its resources safely and responsibly. 
4.3.1.2 Regulatory framework 
Page 136, paragraph 4.98  [China Question 37]: The report states that "The Bank of Canada assesses financial stability risk 
and oversees systemic payment, clearing and settlement systems."  
Please introduce the distribution of labor betw een the Department of Finance and the Bank of 
Canada, as they are both responsible for overseeing financial risks. 
Canada's Response:  The Minister of Finance has overarching authority over federal financial 
sector legislation and responsibility for all matters related to the financial affairs of Canada, including the overall stability of the financial system. The Department of Finance supports the 
Minister in fulfilling this role by providing policy advice and analysis on domestic and international 
financial stability issues, including issues related to oversight of the financial sector and financial institutions. 
The Bank of Canada contributes to the long-term resilience of the Canadian financial system by 
providing central banking services and conduc ting and publishing analysis and research. The 
Financial System Review,  a biannual report detailing the key vulnerabilities and risks to the 
stability of the Canadian financial sector, is one avenue where the Bank promotes discussion on 
financial system issues. 
The Senior Advisory Committee (SAC), a forum composed of senior officials from the Department 
of Finance, the Bank of Canada, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the 
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, meets 
regularly to discuss financial stability issues an d risks. The exchange of views among financial 
sector agencies on specific risks informs the ad vice provided to the Minister on legislative, 
regulatory and policy issues affecting the sector. 
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
1 TRADE AND ECONOMIC POLICY ENVIRONMENT 1.1 Economic Overview 
Page 4, paragraph 1.5 
 [China Question 38]: The statement states that "Monetary policy provided important stimulus 
during the global recession and continued to do so up to the present time."  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  As the overall global economic environment gradua lly improves, does the Bank of Canada have a 
plan to tighten monetary policy to some extent? 
Canada's Response:  The Bank's mandate is to conduct monetary policy to promote the economic 
and financial well-being of Canadians. 
• Canada's experience with inflation targeting since 1991 has shown that the best way to foster 
confidence in the value of money and to contribute to sustained economic growth, employment 
gains and improved living standards is by keeping inflation low, stable and predictable. 
• The current target, as measured by the total consumer price index (CPI), is at the 2% 
midpoint of the control range of 1 to 3%. 
• Seeing through various temporary factors, the Bank currently estimates that the underlying 
trend of inflation is 1.6 to 1.8%, consistent with persistent slack in the economy. 
• As indicated in the Bank's latest Monetary Policy Report  (April 2015), the negative effects of 
the oil price shock on the Canadian economy are materializing rapidly. Underneath the effects 
of the oil price shock, the natural sequence of stronger non-energy exports and investment is 
progressing. This sequence will be bolstered by the considerable easing in financial conditions 
that has occurred and improving U.S. demand. Therefore, the Bank expects the Canadian 
economy to return to full capacity around the end of 2016.By then, both total and core inflation 
are projected to be close to 2% on a sustained basis.  
In its latest interest rate announcement on 27 May, the Bank noted that although a number of 
complex adjustments are under way, its assessment of risks to the inflation profile had not 
materially changed since the April Report . Risks to financial stability remain elevated, but appear 
to be evolving as expected. Weighing all of thes e risks, the Bank judged that the current degree of 
monetary policy stimulus remains appropriate and therefore maintained the target for the 
overnight rate at 3/4%. 
With respect to the Bank's intentions regarding interest rates, Governor Poloz has indicated that 
forward guidance should be seen as a useful tool in  the central banker's kit, but one that should be 
reserved primarily for use at the zero lower bound, as a form of additional insurance that the 
economy will return to equilibrium. (Stephen S. Poloz, "Integrating Uncertainty and Monetary 
Policy-Making: A Practitioner's Perspective," Ba nk of Canada Discussion Paper 2014-6, October 
2014) 
That said, one would anticipate that over time, as the Canadian economy returns to more 
sustainable, balanced growth, policy rates will eventually be higher.  
The Bank remains transparent about the factors it takes into account when making monetary 
policy decisions. These factors are discussed in its Monetary Policy Reports  and Financial System 
Reviews , as well as frequent public speeches by  members of the Bank's Governing Council. 
1.2 Global Market Action Plan 
Page 6, paragraph 1.14 
[China Question 39]: The statement states that "The GMAP focuses on helping small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) find success internationa lly, and sets ambitious targets for growing the 
f o o t p r i n t  o f  C a n a d i a n  S M E s  i n  e m e r g i n g  m a r k e t s .  I t  a i m s  t o  i n c r e a s e  t h e  n u m b e r  o f  S M E s  
exporting to emerging markets from 11,000 to 21, 000 by 2018. This would mean that the share of 
SMEs exporting to these markets would rise from 29% to 50%."  
Please illustrate the progress of the GMAP since it was launched. Canada's Response:  Since its launch in November 2013, the Government of Canada has reached 
several milestones in achieving progress under the GMAP, including: 
  implementation of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement; WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
    conclusion of negotiations of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement; 
  announcement of a new export market development program of $50 million over five 
years in assistance to entrepreneurs for activities such as market research and 
participation in trade fairs and missions; 
  announcement of the expansion of the Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) with 
approximately twenty additional Trade Commissioners to target priority markets; 
  launch of the International Education Strategy (January 2014), the Defence Procurement 
Strategy and associated Export Strategy (February 2014), and the Strategy for the Extractives Sector (November 2014); 
  a series of "Go Global" workshops hosted by the Minister of International Trade to 
encourage small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to take advantage of international 
business opportunities, has attracted over 2,000 participants in 18 events across Canada; 
  launch of Canadian Technology Accelerators in  the UK, France and India, in addition to 
those existing in the U.S., to facilitate high potential technology-based Canadian 
companies' pursuit of business opportunities; 
  establishment of 27 formal partnerships between the TCS and private sector associations 
designed to strengthen linkages; and openin g of four new trade offices in China, as 
announced in May 2014. 
 Page 7, paragraph 1.22 
[China Question 40]: The statement states that "Strategy for the Extractive Sector 
(November 2014): Building on Canada's plan for Responsible Resource Development, this strategy ensures that mining and energy will continue to  represent an engine of economic growth and 
prosperity for Canadians. The strategy supports th e export of both equipment and services in the 
extractive sectors."  
Please introduce the specific policies of Canada to  support the export of equipment and services in 
the energy and mining sectors. 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada's Extractive Sector Strategy, for both the 
mining and oil & gas sectors, coordinates effort s, including through support provided by the 
government of Canada's "economic diplomacy," to help generate business success and fuel 
prosperity for Canadians as well as host governments and local communities abroad. The four 
pillars of the strategy are: securing and preserving access to international markets; transforming business opportunities into business successes; sustaining the business environment and local 
communities; and producing economic benefits for Canadians. The strategy includes efforts to 
continue to provide direct assistance to Canadi an exporters of equipment and services in the 
mining and oil & gas sectors. This includes the work of both the Canadian Trade Commissioner 
Service and Export Development Canada's network across Canada and abroad. 
The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) plays a valuable role in assisting Canadian 
companies, including equipment and service providers in the mining and oil & gas sectors, in their 
endeavours abroad. The TCS offers four key services in support of its Canadian business 
clients. These services are designed to reduce  market risks related to knowledge, cost and 
distances and as well as cross-cultural barriers. The TCS helps companies prepare for international 
markets, provides current market assessment, finds qualified contacts in-market and helps resolve 
business problems. 
Export Development Canada's (EDC) mandate is to support and develop, directly or indirectly, 
Canada's export trade and Canadian capacity to engage in that trade, as well as respond to 
international business opportunities. This includes, among others, opportunities in the mining and 
energy sectors where EDC supports Canadian exporters, including those expressing an interest in emerging markets. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 
2.1.1 Doha Development Agenda Page 8, paragraph 2.3  
[China Question 41]: The statement states that "Canada demonstrated its support for the DDA by 
working together with other members in reaching a successful outcome at the WTO's Ninth Ministerial Conference in Bali, Indonesia in December 2013. In particular, Canada strongly 
supported the Trade Facilitation Agreement and is committed to its timely implementation."  
China appreciates the long-time active participation of Canada in various WTO activities. Please 
introduce the progress in the domestic ratification of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. 
Canada's Response:  Canada's Economic Action Plan 2015 reaffirmed Canada's commitment to 
undertake the steps necessary to ratify and impl ement the TFA. Canada's ratification process 
includes tabling the TFA in Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days, legislative amendments, which could be initiated following completion of the tabling period, and once legislative 
amendments are complete, seeking the necessary authority for Canada to submit its instrument of 
acceptance to the WTO.  
Canada is currently working to ratify the agreement as soon as possible. Canada's Minister of 
International Trade tabled the TFA in Parliament on May 13. Canada will deposit its instrument of 
acceptance to the WTO following completion of the tabling period, introduction and passing of 
legislative amendments, and issuance of necessary authorizations. 
2.7 Trade promotion 
Page 20, paragraph 2.81 
[China Question 42]: The statement states that "Canada ma nages 161 trade offices in Canadian 
embassies and consulates located in 107 countries around the world, as well as five regional 
offices and an innovative network of trade commissioner satellites co-located with public and 
private sector partners across Canada."  
Please briefly introduce the management and operation modes of Canada's trade offices. How do 
trade offices and regional offices de fine their respective functions? 
Canada's Response:  As part of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, the Canadian 
Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) helps Canadian companies and organizations succeed globally. 
Created in 1894, the TCS has more than 120 years of experience helping Canadian companies succeed in foreign markets by promoting the economic interests of Canada in the global marketplace. Trade offices are located across Canada and in 161 offices around the world. 
Canada's international trade offices, located in Canadian embassies and consulates, are mandated 
to enable and contribute to Canada's prosperity  through the provision of trade promotion support 
services to Canadian businesses, helping them to identify and capitalize on opportunities in the 
global marketplace. The main value proposition is the on-the-ground intelligence and networking resources that uncovers market opportunities, makes introductions, facilitates business and, where 
necessary, troubleshoots. The TCS also promotes Canada as an investment destination for foreign 
companies and as a partner for innovation and commercialization. 
The TCS offers the following four key services in support of its Canadian business clients. These 
services are designed to compensate for or correct market failure risks related to knowledge, cost 
and distances, as well as cross-cultural barriers: 
1) Preparation for International Markets: Refining clients' international business strategies to 
maximize their potential for international business success.  
2) Assessing Market Potential: Helping clients assess the likelihood of achieving success in their 
target markets, including understanding the subtleties of local regulations, business environment and practices. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  3) Finding Qualified Contacts: Identifying and qualifying local contacts to assist clients in pursuing 
their market strategy. Examples include potential buyers, partners, supply chain managers, researchers, decision makers and influencers. 
4) Problem Solving: Providing advice and assistance in resolving business problems ranging from 
customs clearance to issues related to the expropriation and sale of assets. 
The TCS Regional Network is the domestic arm of  the Trade Commissioner Service consisting of 
five Regional Office Hubs plus an expanded network of Client Service Satellites (co-located Trade 
Commissioners). Serving clients in every province and territory of Canada, the core business is to 
engage high-potential clients in proactive sectors and provide customized and sustained international business development service. Regional Office Hubs are established in Vancouver (Pacific and Yukon Region), Calgary (Prairies and Northwest Territories), Toronto (Ontario), 
Montreal (Quebec and Nunavut Region), and Halifax  (Atlantic Region) to provide the TCS global 
network with direct access and connection to high potential clients in proactive sectors. Client Service Satellites  are co-located Trade Commissioners with host partners. They offer clients and 
the TCS global network added insight gained by their co-location. These Trade Commissioners are 
autonomous from the partner and report to a Regional Director. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  EL SALVADOR (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
FIRST SET Report by Canada - (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 
2.8.8 Cabinet Directive on  Regulatory Management 
Page 25, paragraph 2.111  
[El Salvador Question 1 (First Set)]: Could you provide further detail on the updating of the policy 
directive for national regulatory bodies? Also , ask Canada for a copy of that Directive. 
 Canada's Response:  The New Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management (CDRM) came into 
effect on April 1, 2012. It directs federal departments and agencies to implement the new 
regulatory reforms announced by the government. Canada's Cabinet Directive on Regulatory 
Management  is available at the following link: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/cdrm-
dcgr/cdrm-dcgrtb-eng.asp. 
2.8.11 Sanitary and phyt osanitary initiatives 
Page 25, paragraph 2.116 
 
[El Salvador Question 2 (First Set)]: Could you explain the legislative and regulatory changes that will help you adopt a more modern and adaptable approach to regulation, while maintaining a high level of supervision? 
Canada's Response:  The proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations  will consolidate and 
harmonize 13 sets of regulations with a single set of provisions that will apply internationally recognized food safety standards and principles (e.g. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
and Good Manufacturing Practices) to all food that is imported into Canada or prepared for 
interprovincial trade or export.  The proposed provisions will articulate specific and measurable outcomes, thereby providing industry with greater flexibility to determine how the outcome can be 
achieved.  
The proposed regulations also introduce licensing requirements for preparers of food intended for 
export or interprovincial trade and for importers. Licensing will provide the Government of Canada with information on where regulated parties are located and what activities they are conducting in 
relation to food, and provide e ffective risk-based oversight.  
Finally, the Safe Food for Canadians Act  provides the authority to incorporate pre-existing 
documents into regulation. This approach will allow Canada to adopt and implement changes to 
documents, such as technical or non-technical standards, methods and guidelines as soon as 
scientific assessments and consultations have been completed, rather than going through the Parliamentary process to formally amend regulations. Further to WTO obligations, Canada will 
notify to seek comments from Members and take these comments into consideration.  
Page 26, paragraph 2.117 [El Salvador Question 3 (First Set)]: Could you explain some of the new powers that would be 
granted to Health Canada in the future through modernization of the Food and Drugs Act ? 
Canada's Response:  As the April 27, 2015, Trade Policy Review Report states, the Food and 
Drugs Act  was amended in 2012 with two new authorities: the authority to issue food marketing 
authorizations (a form of ministerial regulation) and an explicit authority to incorporate documents 
by reference into food regulation. No additional amendments to the Act with respect to foods are 
expected in the near future.  
From a modernization standpoint, the focus has been on making use of these new legislative 
authorities to amend, as needed, the Canadi an regulations for foods. Since 2012, the new 
authorities have been used to successfully render more efficient the regulatory frameworks for the management and approval of food additives as well as maximum residue limits (MRLs) for veterinary drugs in foods. Building on these su ccesses, the Government of Canada on December WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  13, 2014, published a proposal in the Canada Gazette , Part 1 that will modernize in a similar 
fashion the regulatory system for contaminants and adulterating substances in foods through the use of incorporation by reference. This regula tory proposal has received strong stakeholder 
support and the Government's intent is to move towards its final publication in the Canada 
Gazette , Part 2. In addition to this, the Minister  of Health is making use of the marketing 
authorization authority to permit the use of a "gluten-free" claim on specially produced gluten-free oats and food products containing these oats. A notice of intent was published on November 14, 
2014, and the Government of Canada is working towards the publication of the final marketing 
authorization in the Canada Gazette , Part 2.  
Moving forward, the Government continues to explore where these new authorities may be used to 
modernize other components of Canada's food regulatory system. Current areas of focus include 
nutrition labelling, food fortification, health and nutrient content claims on foods and compositional 
standards for foods.  
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
3 TRADE POLICY AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.18 Standards and other technical requirements Page 69, paragraph 3.67 
[El Salvador Question 4 (First Set)]: What do you feel are the reasons for the significant reduction 
in standards in effect in Canada from 2010 to 2014? 
Canada's Response:  The significant reduction in the number of active Canadian standards over 
the past four years is due to the fact that the increased global prominence of international 
standards means that Canadian regulators and industry are increasingly making use of 
international and regional standards, as oppose d to Canada-specific standards. In addition, 
Canadian standards-development organizations have  withdrawn from their catalogues a number of 
outdated standards. 
Page 70, paragraph 3.71 [El Salvador Question 5 (First Set)]: Could you explain why, if regulations enter into force 
immediately after their registration or on the specific date stipulated, they cannot be enforced until 
after their publication in the Canada Gazette, which must be done within 23 days after their registration? 
Canada's Response:  The constitutional principle of the rule of law requires that the terms of a 
law must be knowable. There are two exceptions to this general rule. An unpublished regulation 
can be enforced if the regulation is exempt from publication or if the regulation expressly provides that it applies before it is published in the Canada Gazette , Part II. In such cases, however, it must 
be demonstrated that reasonable steps were taken to bring the substance of the regulation to the 
attention of those likely to be affected by it. 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
Page 72, paragraph 3.82 
 [El Salvador Question 6 (First Set)]: Could you explain which issues related to food safety fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories? 
Canada's Response:  The import, export and interprovincial trade of food fall under the 
jurisdiction of the federal government and these activities will be subject to the Safe Food for 
Canadians Act  and its Regulations  when they come into force. The provinces and territories have 
jurisdiction over trade that takes place within their borders. 
F o o d  s a f e t y  i s  a n  a r e a  o f  s h a r e d  j u r i s d i c t i o n  b e t w e e n  t h e  f e d e r a l  g o v e r n m e n t  a n d  
provincial/territorial governments. The prohibitions related to health and safety in the Food and 
Drugs Act  and its Regulations , including the prohibition to sell food that is unfit for human 
consumption, apply generally to all food sold in Canada, whether they are traded internationally, interprovincially or remain within a province or territory. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  The Government of Canada is not aware of any SPS measures adopted by sub-federal authorities 
that have an impact on international trade . 
Page 72, paragraph 3.85 [ E l  S a l v a d o r  Q u e s t i o n  7  ( F i r s t  S e t ) ] :  I n  w h a t  w a y  d o e s  C F I A  w o r k  w i t h  s m a l l  a n d  m e d i u m  
businesses to look into approaches that could be adapted to their operational needs and facilitate 
their compliance with the SFCA enforcement regulations? Does this include both Canadian and foreign businesses? 
Canada's Response: As the Government of Canada updates its food safety regulations, it is 
engaging micro and small businesses in a round of targeted consultations Spring 2015 (G/SPS/CAN/938, G/TBT/CAN/448). These consultations enable the Government of Canada to discuss general food safety approaches in order to assess options that would reduce regulatory 
burden on micro and small business while maintaining the integrity of Canada's food safety 
system. Feedback received from these targeted cons ultations will assist in the development of the 
proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations . To provide an overview: 
 
 Feedback is sought from interested stakeholders and participation is encouraged. Participants 
should read the discussion paper and complete the questionnaire which can be found on the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency's website. 
 The purpose of this consultation is to discuss a pr oposed approach to strengthen food safety in 
Canada and to seek input on what this would mean for micro and small businesses.  
 Options to be discussed for reducing burden include: 
- Full or partial exemptions from certain requirements  
- Cost accommodation - Providing more time to comply with requirements 
 
Canada would also like to hear more from companies on the type of tools and support that micro and small businesses might find helpful in their efforts to produce safe food and comply with new food regulations (e.g. tailor-made information, coaching, and/or training)There are a range of 
guidance/tools provided for industry (both domestic and international) to support compliance to 
current Canadian requirements. Canada will notify when regulations have been proposed and seek comments from WTO Members and will take any comments provided into consideration in the final 
regulations.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 47 - 
 
  EUROPEAN UNION 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
SUMMARY Page 8, paragraph 2.5 
 
[European Union Question 1]: As an export-oriented economy, Canada also attaches great 
importance to improving market access for services.   
How will Canada concretely improve the market access for services? Has Canada already 
developed a specific agenda on this subject? Are there specific service sectors in which market access has been significantly improved? 
Canada's Response:  Strengthening the multilateral trading system and the further liberalization 
of trade in services as part of the Doha Developm ent Agenda remains a priority for Canada. To this 
end, Canada is actively engaged in the post-Bali WTO work agenda on services with a view to achieve a balanced and realistic outcome on serv ices. While Canada continues to fully support 
work at the WTO, Canada remains actively engaged in several trade negotiations with a view to 
continue modernizing its approach to further facilitate trade in services. As part of the post-Bali WTO work agenda on services, Canada remains open to consider proposals by any trading 
partners on specific issues or sectors as well as seek improved GATS commitments from all 
WTO Members while taking into account respective level of economic development. Furthermore, Canada's Global Markets Action Plan has identified 22 priority sectors, of which services is an important component, for which comprehensive strategies are being developed to strengthen 
Canada's trade in priority markets. 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1.1 New Development 
Page 33, paragraph 2.7 
 [European Union Question 2]: Canada also contributed to the completion of the OECD's Service 
Trade Restrictiveness Index.  How does Canada explain why the OECD considers it more liberal 
than the majority of examined service sectors? 
Canada's Response:  As a supporter of services trade liberalization, Canada actively participated 
in the development and launch of the OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI). Canada 
views the STRI as an important initiative and is pleased that the STRI now represents the most 
extensive index developed to date on services trade restrictions, covering a large number of services sectors and key economies, including six non-OECD Member countries. Canada is satisfied 
with the results of the STRI for the 18 sectors examined. Canada scored an above-average level of 
openness in 12 of the 18 services sectors covere d in the STRI, which we believe to be a good 
reflection of how open and competitive Canada's services sectors are and how much value we 
place in ensuring the smooth flow of services exports across our border.  
2.1 General framework 
Page 32, paragraph 2.1  
[European Union Question 3]: " As noted in the previous Report, Canada's framework for trade 
and investment policy has shared competences be tween the federal government and the provinces 
as outlined in Part VI of the Constitution Act, 1867, as amended (Table 2.1). The federal 
government has jurisdiction on trade, but some matters like agriculture, fishing, labour, public 
works and the environment have shared jurisdiction with the provinces." Paragraph 2.120 states that in November 2014, Ministers agreed to participate in a comprehensive renewal of the AIT, 
using the existing AIT and considering the desi re to ensure more consistency with modern 
international trade agreements, it was proposed that early efforts focus on areas such as PP, goods, investment, services, TBT.. with the view to a renewed AIT in 2016 ." 
What are the existing legal mechanisms available to the Federal Government in order to ensure 
the enforcement of the contents of an international treaty in areas that fall within the jurisdiction 
of one or more provinces? Could Canada elaborat e on the legal mechanisms that may be reviewed 
under the above ongoing reflection on AIT in orde r to ensure the enforcement of the contents of WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 48 - 
 
  an international Treaty signed with a third party, in areas that fall within the jurisdiction of one or 
more Provinces and covering in particular the areas that are under review and mentioned in paragraph 2.120 of the Government report? 
Canada's Response:  Under Canada's constitution, the federal government has sole responsibility 
for negotiating international trade agreements and is fully responsible for compliance by provinces 
and territories.   
It is not expected that the renegotiated AIT will include any legal mechanisms that would ensure 
enforcement of international trade agreements at th e provincial/territorial level. The renegotiated 
AIT will cover exclusively domestic trade.  
[European Union Question 4]: Is Canada considering, under the existing review of the AIT, 
imposing monetary penalties on Canadian governments that would fail to comply with obligations under international agreements concluded by Canada in areas that fall under provincial 
jurisdictions? 
 Canada's Response:  There is currently no consideration being given to imposing monetary 
penalties on provincial/territorial governments that fail to comply with obligations under 
international agreements. Monetary penalties are imposed only on federal, provincial or territorial governments that fail to comply with the provisions of the AIT.  
[European Union Question 5]: Could Canada elaborate on whether the AIT, when reviewed, would 
be formally linked to other international agreements or provisions of other international agreements signed by Canada? As the Government of Canada works with provinces to renew the 
AIT by March 2016, is the intent to work on a sectoral basis or a negative list approach? 
 Canada's Response:  There is currently no intention to formally link the AIT to other international 
agreements or provisions of other internatio nal agreements signed by Canada. At most, 
discussions to renew Canada's internal trade fram ework would be informed by the approaches and 
norms of these international agreements. At this point, the discussions are at a preliminary stage and it would be premature for us to comment on whether a sectoral or negative list approach will 
be employed. 
2.3.1 Participation in the WTO 
Page 37 
 
[European Union Question 6]: Will Canada need to undertake legislative amendments in order to implement the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement? 
Canada's Response:  W h i l e  C a n a d a  i s  a l r e a d y  c o m p l i a n t  w i t h  t h e  v a s t  m a j o r i t y  o f  t h e  T F A ' s  
provisions, legislative amendments are required in order to ensure compliance with Articles 10.8 and 11.8. 
Canada's Economic Action Plan 2015 reaffirmed Canada's commitment to undertake the steps 
necessary to ratify and implement the TFA. Canada 's ratification process includes tabling the TFA 
in Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days, legislative amendments, which could be initiated following completion of the tabling period, and once legislative amendments are complete, seeking 
the necessary authority for Canada to submit its instrument of acceptance to the WTO.  
Canada is currently working to ratify the agreement as soon as possible. Canada's Minister of 
International Trade tabled the TFA in Parliament on May 13. Canada will deposit its instrument of 
acceptance to the WTO following completion of the tabling period, introduction and passing of 
legislative amendments, and issuance of necessary authorizations. 
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act 
Page 41, paragraph 2.37 
[European Union Question 7]: paragraph on Investment Canada Act reports that " Canada's 1985 
Investment Canada Act (ICA) provides the main legal framework for reviewing foreign investment in Canada….All foreign investment to establish a new Canadian business and to acquire control of a WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 49 - 
 
  Canadian business, must be notified unless th e investment is reviewable (see below), in 
accordance with the ICA (Art. 11). A number of legal amendments and other changes to the ICA 
were introduced during the review period (Table 2.4). " 
Could Canada explain what are the criteria to establish the nature and scope of a National Security 
Review? What criteria are used to determine that a foreign investment transaction is of net 
benefit? Under the criteria of net benefit to  Canada, how many investments have not been 
approved? 
Canada's Response:   
National Security Review  
 Under the Investment Canada Act , foreign investment, regardless of its dollar value, may be 
subject to a national security review if a potential security threat is identified. 
 An investment is subject to review under the national security provisions if the Minister of 
Industry, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, considers that the investment 
could be injurious to national security.  
 The Governor in Council (GIC, or Cabinet) can order a review, on the recommendation of the 
Minister of Industry. 
 The Minister of Industry will then conduct the review, in consultation with the Minister of Public 
Safety. If further steps are required, the Minister submits a report to the GIC with 
recommendations. 
 The GIC has the authority to take any measures it considers necessary to protect national 
security in relation to the investment. 
 There are no national security review criteria enumerated in the Investment Canada Act  or 
the National Security Review of Investments Regulations. 
Net Benefit Review 
 To approve an application under net benefit review, the Minister of Industry must be 
satisfied that the proposed investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. 
 In making his decision, the Minister carefully considers the plans, undertakings and other 
information submitted by the investor in light of the six net benefit factors listed in section 
20 of the Act. Undertakings are legally binding commitments. 
 The six factors listed in section 20 of the Act are: 
o the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, 
including, without limiting the generality of  the foregoing, the effect on employment, 
on resource processing, on the utilization of  parts, components and services produced 
in Canada and on exports from Canada; 
o the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or 
new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the 
Canadian business or new Canadian business forms or would form a part; 
o the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological 
development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; 
o the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; 
o the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural 
policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 50 - 
 
  enunciated by the government or  legislature of any province  likely to be significantly 
affected by the investment; and, 
o the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets. 
  Since the Act was introduced in1985, only one transaction has been formally disallowed 
under the net benefit review process: MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates' (MDA) 
proposed sale of its space division to the U.S. company Alliant Techsystems (ATK) in 2008. 
 
Page 42, paragraph 2.38 
[European Union Question 8]: "New provisions in the ICA were introduced in 2009, through 
amendment, to provide for the review of investme nts on national security grounds. Accompanying 
regulations, known as the National Security Revi ew of Investments Regulations, prescribe periods 
of time and investigative bodies for the reviews. The Governor in Council (GiC) can order a 
national security review of new businesses, in vestments below the net benefit threshold, and 
minority investments. The Minister of Industry makes a recommendation following consultation 
with the Minister of Public Safety, who in turn consults the domestic security & intelligence (S&I) 
community. The decision to permit, block, or allow with conditions, rests with the GiC. Investments are considered on a case-by-case basis." 
Could Canada inform on the remedies, whether administrative or judicial, available to an investor 
to challenge a determination made by the Governor in Council (GiC) rejecting an investment on the grounds of a National Security violation? 
Canada's Response:  Under the national security provisions of the Investment Canada Act, 
decisions and orders of the Governor in Council, and decisions of the Minister are final and binding 
and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, are not subject to appeal or to review by any court. 
[European Union Question 9]: The report notes that through the Investment Canada Act or other 
statutes, there are provisions that restrict or otherwise prohibit investment in certain sectors (Table 2.6). Provincial and territorial Acts and statutes may also contain provisions that restrict or 
prohibit investment in some sectors. 
What are the trends, experiences and lessons learnt  from the use of the ICA? Are there any plans 
by the Government to be implemented in the coming years that will further ease restrictions on investments? 
Canada's Response:  Foreign direct investment provides numerous benefits for Canadians and 
Canadian businesses, including increased access to capital, improved productivity, introduction of 
new technologies, and access to global markets. Recognizing the importance of investment flows 
into the country, Canada has a broad framework in place to promote trade and investment, and to 
ensure that foreign investment benefits Canada. The Investment Canada Act  is an important part 
of that framework.  
When the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) comes 
into force, the threshold will increase to $1.5 billi on for European Union countries, as well as for 
those countries with whom Canada has free trade agreements with relevant most-favoured nation provisions (i.e., Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexi co, Panama, Peru, South Korea, and the United 
States). This will further focus the Government's reviews on the most significant transactions, 
while helping to attract beneficial foreign investment to the Canadian economy. 
2.4.4 Investment Promotion 
Page 45, paragraph 2.43  
 [European Union Question 10]: " There are five basic funding programmes applicable to all 
business sectors; these programmes offer incentives such as tax credits, lower taxes, direct 
funding, and financing support.(…)". WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 51 - 
 
  Could Canada provide information on the amounts that have been allocated on each one of the 
five funding programmes? 
Canada's Response:  According to the Canada Revenue Agency's 2013-2014 Annual Report to 
Parliament, actual expenditures for administration of the SR&ED program for that period totalled 
$74,360,370. In 2014, the program provided over $3.1B in tax assistance to over 20,000 
claimants.   
The Advanced Manufacturing Fund (AMF) is a $200-million five-year program announced in 
Economic Action Plan 2013. The AMF supports large- scale transformative manufacturing activities 
and advances the adoption of cutting-edge technologies in Ontario. Funding for the AMF was available as of April 1, 2014 and all eligible projec t activities must be completed by December 31, 
2018. 
The Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)  contributes to the growth and prosperity of 
Canadian small and medium sized enterprises (SME s) by stimulating innovation, adoption and/or 
commercialization of technology-based products, services or processes in Canada. This is done 
through: 1) technical and related business advice and networking facilitated by a cross-Canada 
network of field professional staff; and 2) cost-shared merit-based contributions. IRAP's current budget is $235M which includes Contributions for Firms, Contributions to Organizations, the Youth 
Employment Program, the Business Innovation Access Program, and the Canada Accelerator and 
Incubator Program. 
EDC foreign direct investment financing programmes: 
Product 2014 Business Facilitated Volume $CAD 
Export Guarantee Program 752,469,410 
Structured Finance 2,428,113,080 
Foreign Investment Financing 5,318,914,823 
Buyer Financing 4,642,738,284 
Supplier Financing 305,594,803 
 
BDC is a financial institution which lends at commercial rates and as such does not have funding 
programmes.  
BDC's financial offering includes direct loans, growth and transition capital (mix of debt and 
equity), venture capital (VC) and securitization. As at March 31, 2015 its portfolio included 
$17,815 million in direct loans, $635 million in gr owth and transition capital, $613 million in VC 
and $407 million in securitization. BDC also provid es consulting services and had 1,309 consulting 
mandates with clients as of March 31, 2015. 
2.3.3.1 Trade with Australia and New Zealand 
Page 41, paragraph 2.32  
[European Union Question 11]: bilateral agreements states " Pursuant to long-standing Agreements 
on Trade or Trade and Economic Cooperation, Cana da has special trading relations with Australia 
and New Zealand. The agreement with Australia gives preferential tariff treatment to a specified 
list of products in the annex for both countries; whereas the agreement with New Zealand contains 
tariff and non-tariff measures provisions. With resp ect to New Zealand, special tariffs were given 
through exchanges of letters, and a special status  of preferred supplier was granted between the 
parties for agricultural, horticultural, and fisherie s products. Canada implements these preferential 
tariffs through the Customs Tariff. There is no waiver or other instrument in place under the WTO for these Agreements ." 
Can the authorities confirm that the above agreements are in force? If so, can they confirm 
whether they grant preferential treatment to trade in goods to the parties? The EU did not find the 
corresponding notification under the RTA database. Therefore, the EU would like to know Canada plans to notify these agreements to the WTO as th ey seem to have been in place for quite a long 
time and therefore could also be subject of a report on their implementation? 
Canada's Response: The agreements with Australia and New Zealand remain in force. Both 
agreements have resulted in preferential treatm ent on a limited number of goods traded between WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 52 - 
 
  the respective parties. The preferential rules of  origin under the agreements with Australia and 
New Zealand were notified on June 22, 1995. Please see G/RO/N/1/Add.1. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements 
Page 47, paragraph 3.6 
[European Union Question 12]: "In addition to the Release Prior to Payment (RPP), Canadian 
Border Service Agency (CBSA) is running a number of programmes aiming at facilitating trade and 
enhancing border security."  
Could Canada specify if foreign companies acting as importers are also able to participate in the 
programmes aiming at facilitating trade and enhancing border security, other than the Release Prior to Payment? Can Canada provide examples? 
Canada's Response: Partners in Protection (PIP) program 
 To be eligible for membership in the PIP program, an applicant must own or operate facilities 
based in Canada or the United States (U.S.) that are involved in the cross-border movement of 
commercial goods. For businesses based in the U.S., membership in the PIP program is available to importers that conduct business in Canada (i.e., hold a valid Canadian business number and file 
Canadian customs declarations) and to carriers in al l modes of transport, provided that they hold a 
valid Canadian carrier code.  Customs Self Assessment (CSA) program 
 
CSA authorizations are available to Canadian and U.S.-based importers and carriers.  
CSA authorizations are governed by the Accounting for Imported Goods and Payment of Duties 
Regulations (AIGPDR). Subsection 10.5(2) of the AIGPDR outlines the requirements for the 
issuance of a CSA authorization to importers and paragraph 10.5(3) outlines the requirements for 
carriers. Pursuant to paragraphs 10.5(2)(a) and (b), participation in the CSA program is available 
to importers;   
"(a) if the importer is an individual, the importer ordinarily resides in Canada or the United 
States or, if the importer is a partnership, the importer has at least one partner who is an 
individual who ordinarily resides in Canada or the United States;   
(b) if the importer is a corporation, the importer has its head office in Canada or the 
United States or operates a branch offi ce in Canada or the United States." 
 
Free and Secure Trade (FAST) benefit 
 Membership in both the PIP and CSA programs is required to use the FAST lanes. 
For clarity, the use of the FAST dedicated lanes is permitted if the following conditions are met: 
 
  The importer is PIP and CSA approved;  
  The carrier is PIP and CSA approved;  
  All goods on-board are CSA-eligible goods; and, 
  The driver is a registered commercial driver under FAST or is Commercial Driver 
Registration Program (CDRP) approved. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 53 - 
 
  3.1.5.2 Excise taxes and duties 
Page 60, table 3.8  [European Union Question 13]: Paragraph 3.36 states that " the excise tax provides for the 
imposition of an excise duty on domestic and imported spirits, wine, beer and tobacco products. 
Reduced rates may apply to beer by domestic brewers, and wine wholly composed of Canadian grown agricultural products.  "Domestic wines are exempted from federal taxes and private outlets 
benefit of fiscal advantages.  
Can Canada explain the rationale for preferential treatment of domestic products or exemption 
from taxes? 
Canada's Response:  In 2006, excise duty relief measures were implemented for Canadian 
vintners and Canadian brewers. This relief included  the introduction of an excise duty exemption 
for wine produced from 100% Canadian-grown agri cultural product, and reduced rates of excise 
duty on the first 75,000 hectoliters of beer pr oduced per year by Canadian brewers. Further 
information regarding the application of these relief measures can be found on the following 
Canada Revenue Agency webpages: 
For wine: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edn15/edn15-e.html 
For beer: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edbn8/edbn8-e.html 
These measures do not impose an additional tax burden on imports vis-à-vis domestic products. 
The amount of targeted excise duty relief under these specific measures is relatively small and was largely modeled after similar programs in other countries. Furthermore, these measures do not 
have any significant impact on the demand for beer and wine imports in Canada. Indeed, imports 
of beer and wine into Canada have increased 32% and 30%, respectively, since 2006.  
3.1.8 Standards and other technical requirements 
Page 69, paragraph 3.70 
 [European Union Question 14]: " The process of preparing technical regulations is decentralized. 
Various federal and provincial authorities develop regulations, including technical regulations. /…/ 
In accordance with Canada's obligations of notification under various trade agreements, a longer period for comments (at least 75 days) is observed  for technical regulations that affect trade." 
Could Canada inform whether the longer period for comments is also observed by provinces for 
technical regulations that affect trade?  
 Canada's Response:  Most sub-national regulators follow the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory 
Management  (CDRM) which states a longer period for comments (75 days) is required when 
technical regulations may affect trade.  
[European Union Question 15]: "Canada does not maintain a catalogue of technical regulations. 
However, Canada Gazette's Consol idated Index of Federal Statutory Instruments includes (but 
does not specifically categorize or indicate) technical regulations." The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) maintained a database for monitori ng standards referenced in Canadian federal 
regulations called RegWatch. This solution is being updated, according to the SCC and the 
database is no longer available for this reason . 
How does Canada ensure that its obligation of no tification is observed by sub-federal entities? 
 
Canada's Response:  Article 3 of the TBT Agreement requires that members take reasonable 
measures to ensure compliance by local government bodies. To this end, Canada works closely 
with sub-federal entities to inform them of their obligations, and also works with them to prepare 
notifications as required. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 54 - 
 
  Page 70, paragraph 3.74 
[European Union Question 16]: The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) maintained a database for 
monitoring standards referenced in Canadian fede ral regulations called RegWatch. This solution is 
being updated, according to the SCC and the data base is no longer available for this reason. 
Could Canada inform on the time line for the updated solution?  
 Canada's Response:  The SCC is currently working with the federal and provincial/territorial 
governments to develop a comprehensive database  of all standards referenced in federal and 
provincial/territorial regulations. SCC is aiming  to have the database completed by the end of 
2015. 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
Page 72, paragraph 3.84 
 
[European Union Question 17]: The report states that Canada is in the midst of important changes 
to its food safety system in view of Safe Food for Canadians Act (SFCA) implementation.   
New SFCA / Safe Food for Canadians Action Plan regulations (in effect from June 2015) will include 
the requirement of submitting licenses for all the food imports to Canada. We would appreciate 
more information concerning the objective of this new measure? Will all holders of import licences 
need to do business (and have business address) in Canada or in a country whose food safety system is recognized by Canada. 
Canada's Response:  The proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations  will consolidate and 
harmonize 13 sets of regulations with a single set of provisions that will apply internationally 
recognized food safety standards and principles (e.g. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
and Good Manufacturing Practices) to all food that is imported into Canada or prepared for 
interprovincial trade or export.  The proposed provisions will articulate specific and measurable 
outcomes, thereby providing industry with greater flexibility to determine how the outcome can be 
achieved.  
It should be noted that the regulations proposed under the Safe Food for Canadians Act  (SFCA) 
are still under development and are not yet in forc e. Canada will notify when regulations have 
been proposed and seek comments from WTO Memb ers and will take any comments provided into 
consideration in the final regulations.  
The regulatory framework proposed under the SFCA would require that persons who import food 
into Canada meet all applicable requirements, including, but not limited to:   
1) Holding a licence, which requires: 
  a fixed place of business in Canada, or  
  if a person does not have a fixed place of business in Canada, a fixed place of business in 
a foreign state from which they carry on busine ss related to the food that provides at least 
the same level of protection as that provided by the SFCA and its proposed regulations. In 
addition, the food would be required to be sent  or conveyed directly to Canada from that 
foreign state. 
2) Have preventive controls in place, including a preventive control plan; and 
3) Meet traceability requirements to maintain re cords indicating to whom the product was bought 
and to whom it was sold. 
The licensing of importers would permit Canada to  identify all persons importing food into the 
country. Imported products are inspected on a risk-basis, and currently importers without an 
address in Canada are not themselves subject to domestic inspection, making it challenging to WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 55 - 
 
  verify that all importers are meeting the requirements of applicable Canadian food safety 
legislation. Requiring an address in a foreign state that has food safety controls that provide at least the same level of protection as those in Canada would provide the CFIA with additional confidence as to the safety of imported foods.  
3.3.2 Incentives and subsidies 
Page 80, paragraph 3.114  
[European Union Question 18]: Page 80, para.3.114 reports  "There is no overarching legal 
framework governing incentives and subsidies in Canada. "Para 3.115 "According to Canada 
Business Network, a government information serv ice for business, there are some 755 support 
programmes providing assistance to businesses in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax refunds 
and credits, and wage subsidies. Many are at the provincial level and thus, restricted to recipients 
established in the province. Others are sector specific, such as agriculture and cultural industries. An overview of the programmes liste d indicates that most are specifically targeted to a particular 
sector or location and that many programmes offered were with respect to grants or contributions. 
It was not possible to determine the total amount of aid provided under each programme or category (Table 3.15)." 
Could Canada provide information on the amount of aid provided under each programme or 
category and sector, at provincial and federal level? 
Canada's Response:  Details on specific programs can be found in Canada's most recent subsidy 
notification (G/SCM/N/253/CAN). Canada is in the process of preparing the 2015 subsidies 
notification, which covers the period of April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, at which time any new 
programs introduced during that period will be included, as required under Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures . 
3.3.4.1 Stated trading enterprises 
Page 87, table 3.21  
[European Union Question 19]: According to the report, the Canadian SOEs -The Liquor Control 
Authorities have control over the importation and inter-provincial trade of alcoholic beverages.   
Are there plans by the government for the coming years to phase-out to liberalize trade in 
alcoholic beverages and phase-out control by the Liquor Control Authorities? 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in 
alcoholic beverages is governed by the federal Im portation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA). The 
IILA provides the provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over 
the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the im portation of such liquor into the provinces and 
territories. Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores operated by the provincial/territorial liquor control authority or through authorized private retailers or a combination of both. Provincial 
and territorial liquor control authorities purchase  or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages 
based on market needs and other commercial considerations, such as price, quality and availability. 
3.3.5.1 Overview 
Page 93, paragraph 3.142 
 [European Union Question 20]: Page 93 para 3.142 refers to the public works and to the 
Government' Services Canada and the paragraph 2.8.7 of the Government report refers to 
Government procurement initiatives (p 24); These leads to the following EU Questions:  
Could the authorities elaborate on the legal role that Public Works and Government Services 
Canada (PWGSC) Integrity Framework plays for public procurement in Canada and how it is 
enforced?  
Canada's Response: Under section 7(1)(a) of the Public Works and Government Services Act , 
the Minister has the responsibility "to investigate and develop services ... for enhancing integrity 
and efficiency in the contracting process".  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 56 - 
 
  Under the Integrity Framework, a departmental policy, the department in question cannot enter 
into a contract or a real property transaction with a supplier if the supplier, including company affiliates, or one of the current members of the bo ard of directors, has been convicted of listed 
offences in Canada or abroad in the past 10 years. This also applies to those who have pleaded 
guilty to the listed offences and have received an absolute or conditional discharge. 
PWGSC may cancel a contract following a conviction if the Terms and Conditions of the contract 
include any of the enhanced integrity provisions. As these provisions are not retroactive, if they 
were not in the Terms and Conditions when the contract was awarded, then PWGSC is legally 
obligated to honour contracts. 
When submitting a bid, the supplier certifies that it complies with the integrity measures, in other 
words, that neither it, nor any members of its board of directors nor any of its affiliates, have a 
conviction nor been conditionally or absolutely discharged of an offence under PWGSC's Integrity 
Framework. 
The supplier also provides the names of the members of its board of directors. These names, along 
with the supplier's name, are run through a database of convictions. Prior to awarding the 
contract, PWGSC verifies the certification made by the supplier. 
The following departments and agencies have entered into Memoranda of Understanding with 
PWGSC and apply PWGSC's integrity provisions in their contracts: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern 
Development Canada; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Canada Border Services Agency; Canada Revenue Agency; Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Defence Construction Canada; Employment and Social Development Canada; Jacques Cartier and 
Champlain Bridges Crown Corporation; Parole Board of Canada; Public Safety Canada; Royal 
Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee; and Shared Services Canada. 
[European Union Question 21]: What access to debarred parties have to legal remedies under this 
Framework? 
Canada's Response:  As the Integrity Framework operates through integrity clauses in 
procurement contracts and integrity provisions in real property transactions, debarred parties that 
are already in a contractual relationship with the Government of Canada would have the ability to 
sue the Government of Canada in Federal Court or Superior Court for breach of contract. They could also bring an application for judicial review; however, the courts have generally held that judicial review is not to be used to review commercial transactions.  
[European Union Question 22]: The Government of Canada's efforts to enhance integrity on 
federal procurement contracts has manifested itself through Public Works and Government Services Canada's Integrity Framework. The princi ples behind the framework are laudable but the 
implementation, in particular around reporting requirements and remedial measures, poses 
challenges for companies without a global headquarters in Canada. The Government of Canada's Economic Action Plan 2015 said there would be changes to the Integrity Framework.   
What aspects of the Framework will the Government of Canada change? 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada has committed to introducing a new 
government-wide integrity regime for its procurement and real property transactions that will be transparent, rigorous and consistent with best practices in Canada and abroad. It will ensure that 
all suppliers are given due process and a whol e-of-government perspective, which supports 
transparent competition and an ethical Canadian marketplace. 
The details of this new regime and how it will differ from the existing Framework will be available 
once it is announced. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 57 - 
 
  3.3.6.5 The Patent system 
Page 103  [European Union Question 23]: Given the ongoing developments of Canadian jurisprudence with 
respect to the "promise doctrine," does the Government of Canada intend to make any legislative 
changes to the Patent Act. 
Canada's Response:  In interpreting the Patent Act  to uphold basic requirements of patentability, 
Canadian courts are fulfilling their statutory role. Indeed, the rigour and integrity of Canadian 
courts is second to no jurisdiction in the world. The courts' attention to promised utility and the requirement of sound prediction as at the time of  filing seeks to uphold fundamental patent policy 
objectives, notably protecting the patent system against patent applications filed on the basis of 
speculation rather than true invention. The Government of Canada does not intend to intervene by 
way of amendment to the Patent Act .  
3.3.6.6 Copyright 
Page105, paragraph 3.186 
 [European Union Question 24]: Can Canada clarify how the "notice and notice" ensures online 
infringement is addressed in an effective way as there is no requirement for the ISP or the user to 
take down infringing material and the only way to enforce a takedown is through the courts. 
Canada's Response:  Under the Canadian legal system, only courts can rule whether an 
infringement has occurred, and issue an injunction to take down the material. Copyright holders 
are provided with the tools to effectively tackle online infringements, the notice and notice system 
being one such tool. Other tools include, but ar e not limited to, remedies that allow copyright 
owners to pursue those who enable copyright in fringement, such as illegal peer-to-peer file 
sharing sites, making available rights to control what is disseminated online and legal protection 
for digital locks. 
[European Union Question 25]: There is no information in the Report on Bill C-17, Amendments to 
the Food and Drugs Act, introduced as Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's 
Law) that authorises the disclosure of medicine-related confidential business information.  
Can Canada clarify how it will ensure that Article 21.1(2) and 21.1(3) of the Bill C-17, 
Amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, introduced as Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs 
Act (Vanessa's Law) that authorises the disclos ure of confidential business information complies 
with Article 39.3 of the Agreement on Trade-Re lated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
(TRIPS) on the protection of undisclosed information? 
Canada's Response:  Canada is of the view that the authorities to disclose confidential business 
information (CBI) in sections 21.1(2) and 21.1(3) in Vanessa's Law meet Canada's international 
obligations under TRIPS.   
Health Canada's guidance that sets out the policy on how Canada will use these new CBI 
disclosure provisions has been published for stakeholder comments and was open until June 8
th, 
2015. Canada ensured that international partners were made aware of the publication by notifying as per our obligation under the World Trade Organization/Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement.  
Section 21.1(2) reflects the Minister's current ability under common law to disclose CBI in relation 
to a therapeutic product if she is of the opinion that the product may present a serious risk of injury to health. The Guide further clarifies that: 
1.  Confidential business information disclosed under section 21.1(2) should only be that 
which is necessary to mitigate the serious risk of injury to human health. This meets 
Canada's obligations under article 39 of TRIPS where members are required to protect CBI 
in respect of new chemical entities against disclosure, except  where necessary to protect 
the public.  
 
2.  In order for the Minister to use section 21.1(2), he or she must have reasonable grounds 
to believe that the therapeutic product may present a serious risk of injury to human WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 58 - 
 
  health. The Guide also sets out the considerations that Health Canada will use to 
determine whether a therapeutic product presents  a serious risk of injury to human health, 
and the Guide indicates that there must be documented evidence that the therapeutic 
product could pose such a risk. 
 
For section 21.1(3), the Guide clarifies that:  
1. In order for the Minister to use this power, the purpose of the disclosure of CBI must be 
related to the protection or promotion of human health or the safety of the public.   
2. The "protection or promotion of human health" is intended to allow Health Canada to 
disclose CBI for the purpose of either protecting patients from safety risks or promoting 
the safe use of therapeutic products.   
3. "Promotion" should be interpreted narrowly, in keeping with Health Canada's role as a 
health regulator and its safety-related mandate to promote and protect the health of Canadians. In this context, the disclosure of  CBI for the purpose of "promotion of human 
health" could include CBI disclosure for th e purpose of determining the appropriate 
prescribing of therapeutic product therapies in order to optimize their use. 
 In keeping with current standard practice, Canada will continue to meet its obligations under 
article 39 of TRIPS by protecting CBI in respect of  new chemical entities disclosed under s. 21.1(3) 
against unfair commercial use through non-disclosure agreements with third parties and memoranda of understanding with international partners. 
Health Canada will continue work with stakeholders, including industry, to develop operational 
protocols to ensure that these provisions are administered in a way that is compliant with Canada's WTO obligations. 
3.3.6.9 IP Enforcement 
Page 107  [European Union Question 26]: To what extent does the new Canadian anti-counterfeiting legal 
framework provide for fighting counterfeits in transit via Canada?  
Canada's Response:  The Combating Counterfeit Products Act  is exclusively about adding new 
facilitating tools to enforce infringements of trademarks and copyrights, primarily for rights holders 
through its request for assistance mechanism. This Act does not diminish laws and regulations that 
already provide an enforcement framework for in transit shipments exhibiting health, safety or 
security issues. 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1.2 Border measures Page 110  
[European Union Question 27]: The EU notes that TRQs are fully used (100%). The management 
of cheese quotas limits the European operators' access to the Canadian market by concentrating most of the import licenses into the hands of 4 operators.  
Does the government consider reviewing the system to enhance importers' opportunities to obtain 
licences provided of course that they meet all the legal and administrative requirements? 
Canada's Response:  Canada's WTO cheese TRQ is administered under the Export and Import 
Permits Act  and according to Canada's obligations under the WTO. It is allocated every year based 
on the Allocation Methods Order — Cheese and Cheese Products, Ice Cream, Yogurt, Powdered 
Buttermilk and Concentrated Milk  (SOR/95-196). Allocation holders are free to use their allocation 
to import any product covered by the TRQ at any ti me during the year, provided that they respect 
the origin requirements of their allocation (overall, 66% of the TRQ is allocated for imports from 
EU countries, and 34% for imports from non-EU countries). Canada's WTO cheese TRQ is fully used every year. There are no plans to review the allocation policy. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 59 - 
 
  4.1.6.2 Milk and dairy products 
Page 119  [European Union Question 28]: The secretariat report notes in its para 4.42: "In a context of 
growing global demand for dairy products, the system also hinders the competitiveness of the 
industry and may be preventing it from taking advantage of international markets. Finally, the system is maintained at the cost of trade barri ers (quotas, and very high out of quota tariff 
rates)."  
How does Canada plan to maintain its supply management system as the import protection of the 
system is eroded by increasing dairy tariff rate quotas? Is Canada planning to change the supply management system in order to enable increased export of dairy and other supply managed 
goods? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has no intention of making changes to the supply management 
system.  
Under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the supply 
management system and its three key pillars (production control; import controls; and price controls) remain intact.  
4.2.2 Energy 
Page 127  [European Union Question 29]: What is the impact of the currently relatively low oil prices on the 
economic viability of the exploitation of unconventio nal oil sources, especially oil sands, and on the 
expected import and export volumes? 
Canada's Response: Canadian crude oil production is expected to continue to grow in 2015 and 
beyond as projects already under construction continue to move forward. Canada's National 
Energy Board estimates that Canadian production will average 3.9 million barrels per day in 2015, up from 3.8 million barrels per day in 2014.
2 
Typically, oil sands projects have long life spans of 30-40 years. Thus, projects that are already 
operational are not generally impacted by short-term price swings. However, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimates that low oil prices will reduce estimated 2015 capital investment in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin by one third, or $23 billion, in 2015.
3  
Regarding trade, the U.S. Energy Information Admini stration (EIA) estimates that the U.S. will still 
need to import 8 million barrels of oil per day by 2040 – up from 7.3 million barrels in 2014. While 
it is projected that Canada will supply over half of these US imports, Canada's oil production is 
projected to grow nearly 2 million b/d beyond what the US will absorb in the future. 
4.2.2.2 Natural Gas 
Page 129 
 
[European Union Question 30]: When does the gove rnment expect the necessary infrastructure to 
be in place and allowances to be issued to allow exports of LNG (liquefied natural gas) in significant amounts? Where does the government expect these exports to go and what is the 
expected ratio of short term export orders to long-term natural gas export licenses? 
Canada's Response:  24 LNG export projects, to date, have been announced - 19 in British 
Columbia (BC) and 5 in Eastern Canada. Each of these projects is at a various stage of regulatory 
review.  
At least one project, Pacific Northwest LNG, has publicly announced that it will be making a final 
investment decision for the project in 2015. Other projects are also advancing to towards a final 
                                               
2 Statistics Canada CANSIM 126-0001, NEB Estimated Production May 2015, https://www.neb-
one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/stt/stmtdprdctn-eng.html. 
3 CAPP, 2015 Interim Forecast http://www.capp.ca/~/media/capp/customer-
portal/documents/258247.pdf?la=en. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 60 - 
 
  investment decision. It is expected that Canada  will be exporting LNG to overseas markets by 
2020. 
The potential markets for Canadian LNG will ultimately be determined through contractual 
arrangements between the LNG producers and global customers. However, given that Canada's 
west coast offers the shortest shipping distances to the Asia-Pacific region from North America, 
and many of the announced proponents and partners in British Columbia based LNG projects are from the Asia Pacific Region, it is anticipated that  most of the LNG shipped from the west coast will 
be destined for that region.  
Similarly, Canada's east coast offers some of the shortest shipping distances from North America 
to European markets as well as competitive distances to Indian markets. It is anticipated that most of the LNG shipped from the east coast of Canada will be destined primarily to Europe and 
India. The exact quantities will be determined by private contractual arrangements between LNG 
producers and customers. 
Since 2011, the National Energy Board (NEB) has issued 10 long term LNG export licences to 
Canadian projects for a total of 155 million tonne s per annum of LNG exports. The NEB issued the 
licences after NEB and Governor in Council approval. The NEB has approved another export licence which requires Governor in Council approval before it can be issued. An additional twelve 
applications are under review by the NEB. 
It is anticipated that the vast majority of Canadian LNG projects will seek long term LNG export 
licences to support investment decisions for their capital-intensive long-term facilities. However, LNG exporters could choose to export LNG under short term orders. There is nothing barring an 
LNG exporter from holding both an export licence and an export order. This is a private sector 
business decision that will be based on market conditions. 
4.2.2.3 Electricity 
Page 130, paragraph 4.77 
 [European Union Question 31]: "(…) In addition, all provinces have supported, or are supporting, 
the introduction of non-hydro renewables through various mechanisms.(…)"  
Could Canada elaborate on which are the various mechanisms that the provinces are supporting 
for the introduction of non-hydro renewables? 
Canada's Response:  All provinces have or are currently supporting the deployment of non-hydro 
renewables. The most common mechanism used is a competitive Request for Proposals or Call for 
Clean Power , whereby the provincially-owned utility solici ts bids from private sector developers up 
to a certain level of capacity. Most provinces have had a number of such "calls for power" over the 
last decade, including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.  
Standard offer programs  have been implemented in British Columbia and Ontario, typically for 
smaller renewable energy projects, where a standard fixed price is offered for all renewable energy 
technologies and there are no restrictions on th e quantity of energy that is procured. Ontario 
implemented an advanced Feed-in-Tariff  in 2009, which has extended this concept to larger 
renewable energy projects with tariffs differentiate d by technology and size of the project. Nova 
Scotia has implemented a Feed-in-Tariff that is specific to tidal energy and small renewable energy 
projects. Some provinces are using several of these mechanisms at the same time, such as 
Ontario, where a standard offer program, a feed-in tariff program and competitive requests for proposals have been used concurrently.  
Other provinces, such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, have legislated 
Renewable Portfolio Standards  which obligate the provincially-owned utility to meet specific 
renewable energy objectives or targets in its supply mix by a certain date. Finally, Alberta 
incentivizes renewables by enabling projects to generate carbon credits which can be sold in an 
offsets market. 
With respect to smaller non-hydro renewable ener gy projects, typically used in the residential 
sector, provinces, such as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 61 - 
 
  Quebec, are using a variety of incentives and tax measures, such as tax credits  and equipment 
rebates . 
There is ongoing collaboration between th e federal and provincial governments on  research, 
development, and demonstration of non-hydro renewable energy technologies. The provinces and 
the federal government use a variety of mechanis ms for the deployment of non-hydro renewable 
energy. Nova Scotia tabled the Marine Renewable Energy Act  in April 2015 to ensure appropriate 
oversight and coordination of marine  renewable energy in the province. 
4.3.4 Environmental services 
4.3.4.2 Industry Structure Page 153, paragraph 4.164  
[European Union Question 32]: " (…) While the majority of municipal wastewater is treated by 
municipal sewers before being released into the environment, the situation is different for industrial wastewater, as over 85% is released to surface freshwater or tidewater." 
Is Canada planning to release any plan to encourage the treatment of industrial wastewater? 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, most wastewater systems are owned and operated by 
municipalities. Much of the Canadian population is  served by wastewater collection and treatment 
systems; however, wastewater receives various levels of treatment to remove pollutants prior to discharge, ranging from no treatment to very so phisticated, thorough treatment. As a result, 
wastewater quality and the amount of pollutants released to the environment vary across Canada. 
In Canada, all levels of government share the responsibility for managing the collection, treatment 
and release of wastewater effluent. The Government of Canada is responsible for managing the 
risks posed by substances listed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999  (CEPA 
1999). 
The Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations, which came into force in 2012, establishes 
Canada's national standards for wastewater treatment under the Fisheries Act and includes 
mandatory minimum effluent quality standards that can be achieved through secondary 
wastewater treatment. 
Under the Regulations, all owners or operators of  wastewater systems are required to monitor and 
report effluent quality and quantity. The Regulation s specify the type of sample to be collected and 
minimum sampling frequencies, based on the annual average daily volume of effluent deposited and the type of wastewater system. Systems that deposit larger volumes of effluent are required to monitor more frequently than those with smaller volumes. Owners or operators of wastewater 
systems may be required to install, maintain and calibrate flow monitoring equipment. 
The Government of Canada also has a number of other activities controlling water pollution 
including specific existing legal instruments for industrial sectors such as chemicals, mining and 
forestry. 
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 
2.3.4 Other Bilateral and Regional Initiatives 
Page 16, paragraph 2.56  [European Union Question 33]: Page 16 para 2.56 of the Government's report lists a number of 
investment agreements (FIPA) concluded by Canada, and provides a generic description of these 
agreements. Among them is the agreement concluded in 2014 with China.  
Could the Canadian Government provide a description of the main issues covered in its agreement 
with China? Is the text of the agreement available? 
Canada's Response: The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement 
came into force on October 1, 2014. This is an ambitious agreement similar to other FIPAs Canada 
has concluded since the 1990s. Canada's FIPAs are designed to ensure greater protection to WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 62 - 
 
  foreign investors against discriminatory and wholly arbitrary practices, to provide adequate and 
prompt compensation in the event of an expropriat ion, to permit transfers of money relating to 
investments freely and without delay, to enhance the predictability of the policy framework affecting foreign investors and their investments and to provide investor access to international 
arbitration to resolve disputes related to these disciplines.  
A description of the agreement and the text is available on the Department of Foreign Affairs, 
Trade and Development website at: http://www.international.gc .ca/trade-agreements-accords-
commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/china-chine.aspx?lang=eng. 
2.1.3 Plurilateral Negotiation and/or Agreements under the WTO 
Page 11, paragraph 2.19  
[European Union Question 34]: Can the author ities elaborate on how the GPA rules been 
implemented at federal level and how they ar e implemented in particular at provincial  level? 
Canada's Response:  Canada currently applies its federal international procurement obligations 
directly by enacting legislation implementing the agreements. In other words, in the conduct of 
procurement activities covered by Canada's international procurement commitments, federal 
procuring entities ensure that their procurement acti vities are consistent with the provisions of the 
agreement(s).  
 At the provincial level, procurement obligations are implemented through a combination of 
legislation, regulation and policy. The paragrap hs below include an overview of how various 
provinces implement their GPA obligations.  
Specific implementation of GPA rules into domestic law is not required in British Columbia . 
Instead, provincial officials apply GPA rules to co vered provincial government entities. Guidelines 
to the GPA and other procurement obligations have also been published in a joint BC-Alberta-
Saskatchewan  publication, "Guidelines to the Procurement Obligations of Domestic and 
International Trade Agreements," which is available at: http://www.newwestpartners hiptrade.ca/pdf/13-08-
21_Procurement_Guidelines_final%20for%20distibution.pdf  
New Brunswick 's Procurement Act  (Chapter 20) and Regulation 2014-93 
(http://www.gnb.ca/0062/acts/BBR -2014/2014-93.pdf), which ente red into force in 2014 and 
cover the procurement of goods and services, were designed to ensure compliance with 
international trade agreements to which Canada is a party, including the GPA. With regard to 
construction services, New Brunswick's GPA-covered entities procure in accordance with GPA obligations based on internal policies and procedures.  
Nova Scotia  implements its procurement obligations through its Public Procurement Act,  which 
can be found at http://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/61st_3rd/3rd_read/b023.htm  
In Ontario , entities listed in the GPA are covered by a single Procurement Directive 
(http://www.centralwestlhin.on.c a/~/media/sites/cw/Documents /Board%20and%20Governance/B
oard%20Reference%20Library/OPS-ProcurementDire ctiveDec2014.pdf?la=en). This Directive was 
updated recently to reflect Canada's GPA commitments. Examples of changes to the Directive include: 
a) Procurement Valuation methodology was updated to include premiums, fees, commissions 
and value of options; 
b) Procurement Document requirements were updated to discourage the use of technical 
standards (except where legislative requiremen ts exist) and to include a statement that 
WTO obligations apply; 
c) Evaluation section was updated to require evaluation of equivalency; and  
d) Bid Dispute obligations and processes were re ferenced to enable the review process. 
 Après examen de l'accord par l'Assemblée nationale du Québec , le gouvernement du Québec a 
adopté un décret pour se déclarer lié à l'AMP dè s le 6 avril 2014. Puisque le Québec s'est déclaré 
lié à l'AMP, la Loi sur les contrats des organismes publics (chapitre C-65.1) et ses règlements WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 63 - 
 
  obligent les entités contractantes visées à en respecter les dispositions  
(http://www2.publicationsdu quebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/ telecharge.php?t ype=2&file=/C_6
5_1/C65_1.html). 
Saskatchewan  did not need to change any laws or regulations following the entry into force of 
the revised GPA in 2014, as existing laws and regulations were already in compliance with the 
agreement. 
[European Union Question 35]: The EU notes that the reports do not mention the export credit 
activities in the area of agriculture notably the Agri-Food Credit Facility (ACF) that secures 
payments for a period of 360 days. 
Could Canada give more de tails about this programme? 
Canada's Response:  U n d e r  t h e  A g r i - F o o d  C r e d i t  F a c i l i t y  ( A C F ) ,  t h e  G o v e r n m e n t  o f  C a n a d a  
guaranteed a declining percentage of credit receivables based on the repayment period. The 
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) was the only user of this facility, in which it assumed the risk that was not guaranteed. The ACF was established in 1995 and first used in 1997-98. As of July 31, 
2014, the CWB permanently ended its participation and the ACF is no longer in use. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 64 - 
 
  HONG KONG, CHINA 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE INVESTMENT REGIME  
[Hong Kong Question 1]: Could Canada share with us the mechanism of the GMAP, including the 
assessment criteria adopted to identify the sector s of priority, and the strategies to help these 
sectors in different markets?  
Canada's Response:  There are 22 priority sectors under th e GMAP that map to Canada's export 
profile. These sectors are identified through consideration of a number of factors, including Canadian industry capabilities, interests and comparative advantages abroad; the intensity of Canada's existing and projected future bilateral/regional relationship involving a specific 
international market; the global economic environm ent; and the global market characteristics of 
specific sectors and sub-sectors of Canadian strength. Sector strategies have been created as follows: International Education Strategy (Ja nuary 15, 2014); Defence Procurement Strategy 
(February 5, 2014); and Strategy for the Extractive Sector (November 18, 2014). The Trade 
Commissioner Service also develops internal sector strategies used to better service Canadian industry. 
[Hong Kong Question 2]: Regarding the specific go als identified, other than the general principle 
"to use many vehicles, including the WTO, FTAs, investment, and other agreements as the tools to achieving its goals", are there specific action plan s to pursue each of these goals? Will there be 
regular reviews of the result of the GMAP? Ho w would Canada assess the success of the GMAP? 
Canada's Response: Strategic approaches are developed for each initiative which Canada 
undertakes or in which Canada participates related to international commerce. Canada's actions related to each initiative are aligned to the GMAP as the over-arching international trade and 
investment strategy. Being an organic strategy, th e GMAP is continually reviewed and adjusted to 
reflect the realities of the Canadian industry and the changing global economic environment. 
The Government takes into account a number of considerations when taking a decision regarding 
whether to launch trade agreement negotiations with a potential partner. These include: the 
potential to generate significant economic and commercial benefits for Canada; the level of Canadian business interest and domestic support; the willingness and capacity of prospective partners to negotiate with Canada, including as determined through detailed, pre-negotiation 
exploratory talks; and whether or not the Government of Canada has sufficient resources to 
pursue the initiative.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
[Hong Kong Question 3]: We would like to know if  Canada has any plan to carry out reviews on 
the economic case for maintaining the high tariffs on other clothing items, and whether there is any concrete timetable for lowering or removing the tariffs. 
Canada's Response:  Budget 2013 eliminated tariffs on imported baby clothing and certain sports 
and athletic equipment on an MFN basis, which represented $79 million in annual tariff relief. This was done as a test case to see whether tariff elimination could bring down prices for Canadian consumers. The Canadian government continues to work with consumers, retailers and 
manufacturers to identify areas where further tariff liberalization can benefit the Canadian 
economy. 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
Page 67, paragraph 3.58 
 [Hong Kong Question 4]:  We note with interest that anti-d umping measures are prohibited under 
Canada's FTA with Chile.  
Could Canada share with us the purpose of as we ll as the rationale behind such arrangements? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 65 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  The Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement was a unique outcome that 
reflected specific objectives at the time the agreement was signed in 1997. Canada has not proposed or agreed to such an approach in any of its subsequent free trade agreements. 
3.3.4.1 Stated trading enterprises 
[Hong Kong Question 5]:  The State is involved in SOEs in Canada through "Crown corporations". 
They are owned by federal or provincial governme nts and their operations are significant. Federal 
crown corporations accounted for approximately 0. 7% of GDP and provincial crown corporations 
accounted for 2.7% of GDP. There is currently no plan to privatize any federal and provincial crown 
corporation or government enterprises. 
Changes to the Investment Canada Act introduced during the period under review focused on 
provisions related to SOEs which included a definition for SOEs and guidelines on how SOEs are 
assessed under the Act. Some of investment restrictions in some sectors were relaxed during the 
review period. 
Could Canada explain further the re asons for changes made in relation to the definition for SOEs 
and relaxation of the investment restrictions in some sectors only? Will there be periodic reviews 
to assess the benefits to maintain, or otherwise privatize, the crown corporations?  
Canada's Response: Proposed investments are considered under the Investment Canada Act  on 
a case-by-case basis. In 2012, the Government of Canada introduced changes to underscore the 
importance of promoting commercially based foreign investment for Canada's resource sector and the Canadian economy as a whole. This included updating the definition of SOE to include, in addition to entities that are owned by a foreign government, entities that are influenced directly or 
indirectly by a foreign government. 
Under the Investment Canada Act, there are no sector-specific net benefit review thresholds for  
foreign investment except in the cultural sector. For foreign investors seeking to acquire control of 
Canadian cultural businesses, the threshold for review is $5 million in book value for direct 
acquisitions and $50 million in book value for indirect acquisitions. 
Since 2009, the Government has been undertaking a systematic review of federally-owned assets 
to improve their efficiency and effectiveness and to  ensure value for taxpayers. This review seeks 
to ensure that government ownership of federal asse ts remains in the best interests of Canadians.  
3.3.6.5 The Patent System 
Page 104, paragraph 3.181 
 
[Hong Kong Question 6]: The Report mentions that the CETA Agreement contains new 
commitments on intellectual property and pharmace utical patents that would require changes to 
existing Canadian law.   
Could Canada elaborate which are the new commitments on intellectual property and 
pharmaceutical patents under the CETA Agreement that would require changes to the existing 
Canadian Patent Act? When does the Canadian Government expect to put forward the proposals 
on these legislative changes? 
Canada's Response:  The pharmaceutical intellectual property (IP) elements included in CETA 
maintain the balance in the Canadian system of promoting innovation and investment for new 
medicines while ensuring timely access to affordable drugs. 
The Canadian Government has committed to implementing additional ( sui generis ) protection for 
pharmaceutical products protected by eligible pate nts. Implementation will require amendments to 
the Patent Act .  
The Canadian Government has also committed to ensuring that litigants under its "patent linkage" 
regime (i.e., whereby the granting of a marketing authorization is linked to the existence of patent 
protection) are afforded equivalent and effective rights of appeal. Implementation will require 
amendments to the Patent Act and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 66 - 
 
  Canada is currently conducting analysis on the best way to implement these obligations, but no 
timeline has yet been set to introduce the enabling legislation for patents.  
3.3.6.6 Copyright 
Page 104, paragraph 3.184 
 
[Hong Kong Question 7]: The Report states that the general "fair dealing" exception was expanded 
to expressly include new purposes of education, parody and satire.  
What is the definition of "educational instit ution" for the purpose of the new exception for 
education? It is noted from the new paragraphs 30.01(6)(b) and (c) under the Copyright Modernization Act that limiting/preventive measures shall be taken by the educational institution. What are the measures envisaged that would be seen as meeting the requirements under this 
section? Have there been any judicial interpretations on them? 
Canada's Response:  Under section 2 of the Canadian Copyright Act  "educational institution" 
means 
(a) a non-profit institution licensed or recognized by or under an Act of Parliament or the 
legislature of a province to provide pre-sch ool, elementary, secondary or post-secondary 
education, 
(b) a non-profit institution that is directed or controlled by a board of education regulated 
by or under an Act of the legislature of a province and that provides continuing, professional or vocational education or training, 
(c) a department or agency of any order of  government, or any non-profit body, that 
controls or supervises education or training referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), or 
(d) any other non-profit institution prescribed by regulation; 
Subsection 30.01(6)(b) and (c) places certain obligations on schools in order to safeguard against 
misuses of lessons. Schools must take measures that can reasonably be expected to prevent 
anyone from communicating, recording or copying lessons other than as permitted under the exception. Such measures could include, for exampl e, administrative policies to ensure that only 
students can access materials, introducing a code of conduct that prohibits students from sharing 
materials, etc. We are unaware of judicial interpretation of these provisions. 
[Hong Kong Question 8]: The terms "parody" an d "satire" are not defined in the Canadian 
Copyright Act. Were there any parliamentary deliberations or public/industry discussions on the 
meaning and scope of the fair dealing exception for "parody" and "satire"? Have there been any 
judicial interpretations on the meanings of these terms since the enactment of the Act? 
Canada's Response:  During consultations and parliamentary debate to adopt the Copyright 
Modernization Act , the meaning of the terms "parody" and "satire" were not deliberated. The 
public and industry did not bring this to the atte ntion of the government. Canada is not aware of 
judicial interpretations about the meaning of these terms. 
Page 105, paragraph 3.185 
[Hong Kong Question 9]: The report mentions the introduction of a new exception which permits 
the use of copyrighted works by individuals to  produce non-commercial user-generated content 
(UGC) (e.g. video "mash-up"), subject to safeguards.  
The boundary between non-commercial and commercial purposes may not always be clear in the 
digital environment. We would like to know how the provision operates in practice. How is "non-commercial" defined? For example, how does it apply to (i) intermediaries which disseminate the 
new work; and (ii) an individual user who shares a small amount of profits in relation to his user-
generated content from online advertising? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 67 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  Section 29.21(1) of the Copyright Act  allows an individual to use an existing 
work for the creation of another work without this  being an infringement of copyright in certain 
circumstances. The individual who creates this "u ser-generated content" (UGC) can also authorize 
its dissemination by an intermediary (e.g., YouT ube). The exception contains several conditions:  
• the use, and any authorization given, must be solely for non-commercial purposes; 
• where reasonable, the source of the existing material must be mentioned; 
• the individual must have reasonable grounds for believing that the existing work used to 
create the new work was not infringing copyright; 
• the existing material must have been publishe d or otherwise made available to the public; 
• the use may not have a substantial adverse effect on the normal exploitation or potential 
exploitation of the existing material; and 
• the new material may not be a substitute for the existing material.  
 
"Non-commercial" is not defined in the Copyright Act  and would therefore be interpreted in 
accordance with its ordinary meaning. Note that even if the use is for non-commercial purposes, it 
may still entail liability if the use has a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existi ng work or other subject-matter – or copy of it – 
or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is 
not a substitute for the existing one (ss. 29.21(1)(d)) 
If the conditions are met, the UGC exception only protects the creator of the new work or subject-
matter. As a result, if not authorized by the creator, an intermediary which disseminates UGC 
would not be able to rely on this exception to avoid potential copyright liability. 
[Hong Kong Question 10]: Are there any judicial interpretations on the definition of UGC since the 
enactment of the Copyright Modernization Act? 
Canada's Response:  Canada is not aware of any judicial interpretation on the definition of UGC 
since the enactment of the Copyright Modernization Act . 
[Hong Kong Question 11]: Has Canada made any assessment on the economic impact arising from 
implementation of the provision? Are there statisti cs or forecasts on the decrease or increase of 
licensing revenue pertaining to the underlying copyright works that have been used in the creation of UGC since the introduction of the UGC exception in Canada?  
Canada's Response:  Canada has not made any assessment of the economic impact arising from 
implementation of the UGC provision. The UGC provision contains several conditions, including that 
the use is for non-commercial purposes, and that the use does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or 
other subject-matter – or copy of it – or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the 
new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one (ss. 29.21(1) (d)). 
Page 105, paragraph 3.186 
[Hong Kong Question 12]: Canada has established "safe-harbour" provisions for Internet service 
providers and search engines and formalized its "Notice and Notice" regime in its Copyright Modernization Act.   
What are the policy considerations in formalizing the voluntary Notice and Notice regime (which 
has already been used by some Canadian Intern et service providers) instead of introducing a 
"Notice and Take Down" system? What is the observ ed efficacy of the "Notice and Notice" system 
in combating online copyright infringement since its codification? 
Canada's Response:  ISPs and search engines enable the exchange of ideas, disseminate creative 
content and connect people across Canada and the worl d. In the digital environment, it is vital that 
these intermediaries are not held liable for the acti vities of their customers, so long as they are 
simply providing a connection. Providing clear limitations on their liability ensures that these 
companies continue to provide users open access to the dynamic online environment. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 68 - 
 
  At the same time, ISPs are in a unique position to facilitate the enforcement of copyright on the 
Internet. Because ISPs are often the only parties that can identify and inform subscribers of the 
alleged infringement of copyright, the law requires all of them to participate in the "notice and notice" regime. ISPs that do not participate could be liable for civil damages. This approach to 
addressing online infringement is unique to Cana da. It provides copyright owners with effective 
tools to enforce their rights while respecting the interests and freedoms of users. 
Recent declarations by a coalition of U.S. movie di stributors such as Voltage Pictures suggest that 
the Canadian Notice and Notice system has been effective at deterring online infringements (see 
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-re leases/six-strikes-and-youre-n ot-even-close-to-out-internet-
security-task-force-calls-for-end-of-copyright-alert-system-300082007.html). 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3.1 Financial services 
4.3.1.2 Regulatory framework Page 137, paragraph 4.100 
 
[Hong Kong Question 13]: How long does it usually take for a foreign insurer to obtain the necessary order, licence and/or other permissions fr om the relevant Canadian authorities, both at 
the federal and the provincial levels, for operat ing a business? What is the average number of 
authorities that a foreign insurer must approach for obtaining the permission and/or licence required? Has Canada any plan to provide foreign insurers a single window to get the permission and/or licence required? 
Canada's Response:  Part XIII, section 579 (1), of the Insurance Companies Act  sets out the 
information, material and evidence that the Superintendent may require as part of an application for an order to insure in Canada a risk ("an order"). These include, inter alia , documents relating 
to the constitution of the foreign entity, statements on the financial condition and business of 
insurance undertaken by the foreign entity, and evidence that the foreign entity is authorized under the laws of the country where it is incorporated or formed to insure risks.  
Canada has committed in various trade agreemen ts that federal and provincial regulatory 
authorities will make administrative decisions on a completed application of a foreign insurer within 120 days, unless it is not practicable to do so. 
4.3.1.3 Banking services 
4.3.1.3.2 Cooperative fi nancial institutions 
Page 140, paragraph 4.116  
[Hong Kong Question 14]: We are interested to kn ow more about the scope and the details of the 
temporary transitional measures for eligible provincial credit unions, the latest progress, and the implementation schedule. What factors have been considered by the Canadian Government when 
developing the transitional measures? Would foreign-invested credit unions be eligible for the 
transitional measures? 
Canada's Response:  The Government has taken a series of concrete measures to support the 
growth and competitiveness of the credit union se ctor since 2010. For example, a federal credit 
union framework has been legislated, which provides a choice to credit unions and their members 
seeking to grow regionally or nationally.  
As part of its continued engagement with the credit union sector, the Department of Finance 
released a consultation paper on temporary transitional measures on April 1, 2015. The 
consultation period closed on May 30, 2015. Input from the consultation will help to make the federal credit union framework more effective by informing the future development of terms and 
conditions, for any potential measures.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 69 - 
 
  4.3.1.5 Securities 
Page 144, paragraph 4.134  [Hong Kong Question 15]: What is the latest de velopment of the Cooperative System, including 
the estimated timing for the System to start its operation? Will the securities firms operating in 
those provinces and territories which have yet to join the Cooperative System be affected? Is there any transitional arrangement during the launch of the Cooperative System? 
Canada's Response:  British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatch ewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward 
Island, Yukon and Canada are working together to implement the Cooperative Capital Markets 
Regulatory System. These jurisdictions represent ov er half of the total capital markets in Canada 
and about three-quarters of listed issuers on the TSX and TSX-V. 
Pursuant to current implementation milestones, th e Cooperative System is to be operationalized 
through several phases which include: public consultations on revised drafts of the uniform provincial and complementary federal legislation along with the draft initial regulations in mid-
2015; the enactment of legislation by the respective  legislatures of the participating jurisdictions 
by June 30, 2016; and the operationalization of the cooperative regulator in the fall of 2016.  
The Ministers representing participating jurisdic tions agree that the Capital Markets Regulatory 
Authority will use its best efforts to negotiate and implement an interface mechanism with any 
jurisdiction that chooses not to participate such that the Cooperative System is, effectively, of national application. 
Participating jurisdictions are working together to develop legal continuity and transitional 
measures in preparation for the launch of the Cooperative System. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 70 - 
 
  JAPAN 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.3.3 Price Controls 
Pages 85-86, paragraphs 3.129-3.131  
[Japan Question 1]: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) "non-excessive prices" are 
usually high enough for the companies to bring new products to Canada at a public list price that is relatively in-line with their therapeutic and economic value, taking into account that Canada is a wealthy nation, and should be paying its fair sh are for new innovations, and given the reference 
pricing challenges that take place all over the world. In this sense, the PMPRB is less of a major 
factor for the companies in determining appropriate prices in Canada. In fact, the PMPRB has become largely irrelevant as the ceiling price that is determined by PMPRB is commonly not the 
price that is reimbursed at the provincial level. The federal and provincial processes are misaligned 
at best. 
The more impactful price control challenge in Canada that could be raised as a barrier to trade is 
noted in this section: "the provincial governments affect the prices of medicines through their drug 
reimbursement programmes." The provinces' power to negotiate confidential list prices that are often well below fair market value and sometimes do not lead to timely reimbursement decisions via a fair and accountable process is a challenge for companies in Canada. The provinces and 
territories now operate the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, which is the consortium of 
jurisdictions, and are currently setting up an offi ce/secretariat to support this inter-governmental 
function. Given that the provinces represent the largest bloc of funders for new medicines via 
public drug plan formularies, the lack of a cl ear and balanced commercialization pathway for new 
pharmaceuticals, with a focus on bringing prices down to levels that are sometimes unreasonable, may be considered a barrier to trade. We would like to ask whether the government considers it 
an issue and whether there are any measures in consideration to improve the situation. 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the federal role in patented drug prices is limited to protecting 
consumers from excessive prices. This role is carri ed out by the quasi-judicial Patented Medicine 
Prices Review Board (PMPRB). Prices of new medicines are tested in relation to a basket of seven 
international comparator countries that includes France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the 
United Kingdom and the United States. The PMPRB has no role in setting specific market prices. 
Pharmaceuticals are a shared responsibility between  the federal and provincial and territorial (P/T) 
governments. The P/T governments are responsible for health care delivery in Canada, including 
determining which members of their population are eligible for public drug coverage and which drugs are covered by provincial and territorial drug plans. The publically funded drug plans 
consider clinical and cost effectiveness recommendations and other factors, such as program 
mandate, jurisdictional priorities and budget impact before making drug coverage decisions.  
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 
3.3.6.5 The Patent System 
Page 104, paragraph 3.181 
 [Japan Question 2]: See p.19 of the Technical Summary of Final Negotiated Outcomes released by 
the Government of Canada in October 2014 at: 
http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/sites/default /files/pdfs/ceta-t echnicalsummary.pdf  
Additional protection 
 Canada agreed to provide additional (sui gene ris) protection for pharmaceutical products 
protected by eligible patents in Canada 
 The period of protection will be calculated using reference points including the filing of the 
application for the patent and the first authorization to place the product on the Canadian 
market. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 71 - 
 
   The period of protection offered by Canada will never exceed a fixed cap of two years. 
 The cap on the period of protection in the EU remains higher, at five years. 
 Exceptions have been negotiated to allow for Canadian-made generic medicines to be 
exported during the period of additional protection. 
 This will temper the impact on the generic indu stry and its competitiveness in the important 
United States market. 
 No retroactivity: pharmaceutical products that are already approved and on the Canadian 
market would not receive additional protection 
 Any cost impacts not likely to be felt until 2023, using eight as an estimate of the average 
number of years that a pharmaceutical product would be on the market before becoming eligible for the type of additional protection negotiated in CETA, and assuming that CETA is 
ratified in 2015 
Should concessions to the EU in this area generate cost impacts on provincial and territorial 
governments, the federal government is prepared to address these incremental cost 
impacts. 
Will the Canadian government introduce Sui Generis protection for Pharmaceuticals (patent term 
restoration system) at the same time that Canada ratifies CETA? If not, when will the Canadian 
government do so? 
Will the Canadian government disclose a draft of proposed law for public comments before 
submission to the Parliament of Canada with respect to Sui Generis protection for Pharmaceuticals? 
Canada's Response:  Canada is currently conducting analysis on the best way to implement these 
obligations, but no timeline has yet been set to introduce the enabling legislation for patents. Once the legislation and related regulatory changes, as required, are adopted, the Government of 
Canada may then seek authorization from the Governor in Council to ratify the agreement. 
Implementing the additional ( sui generis ) protection for pharmaceuticals will require both 
legislative and regulatory amendments. Canada's  legislative process requires that any new 
legislation or proposed amendments be introduced in Parliament to allow for public debate. 
Canada's regulatory process requires proposed  amendments to be published in the Canada 
Gazette, Part I, followed by a public comment period. 
Page 104, paragraph 3.181 
[Japan Question 3]: See p.19 of the Technical Summary of Final Negotiated Outcomes released by 
the Government of Canada in October 2014. 
http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/arc hive/ceta-final-negoti ated-outcomes.pdf  
Patent linkage / right of appeal 
 Canada agreed to a general commitment to ensure  that litigants are afforded effective rights 
of appeal, which gives scope for Canada to end the practice of dual litigation. 
• ensures all litigants have equal appeal rights 
• will bring improvements to Canada's pharmaceut ical intellectual property regime by taking 
inefficiencies out of the system 
• litigation in this area is currently one of the largest draws on the federal court system WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 72 - 
 
  • guarantee of an effective appeal for brands and more certainty for generics 
 Background: 
• Both generic and brand-name drug manufacturers take issue with the status quo regarding 
the opportunities for litigation and appeal in Canada. 
• Brand-name manufacturers do not have an effe ctive right of appeal under the patent-linkage 
system. 
• Generic manufacturers note that a successful result under patent-linkage litigation is no 
guarantee of success in the case of subsequent litigation under the Patent Act. 
Will the Canadian government revise Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations 
and/or related laws in order to ensure all litigants have equal appeal rights at the same time that Canada ratifies CETA? If not, when will the Canadian government do so? 
How does the Canadian government intend to resolve "the practice of dual litigation"? 
Will the Canadian government disclose the revision proposal for public comments with respect to 
equal appeal rights? 
Canada's Response:  The Canadian Government has committed to ensuring that litigants under 
its "patent linkage" regime (i.e., whereby the granting of a marketing authorization is linked to the existence of patent protection) are afforded equivalent and effective rights of appeal. 
Implementation will require amendments to the Patent Act  and the Patented Medicines (Notice of 
Compliance) Regulations. 
Canada agreed to a general commitment to ensure that litigants are afforded effective rights of 
appeal. This will require amendments to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) 
Regulations. Canada's regulatory amendment proce ss provides for a period of public consultation 
during which time the details of implementation will be made public. 
Canada's CETA commitment in the context of ap peal rights will require amendments to the Patent 
Act and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. As part of the regulatory 
amendment process, proposed amendments will be published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for a public comment period. 
Page 104, paragraph 3.179 
[Japan Question 4]: Regarding the utility requirement for pharmaceutical patent applications in 
Canadian laws and jurisprudence, could Canada explain whether and how such requirement is consistent with Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreemen t? In particular, please indicate criteria for 
judging the legal doctrine regarding "promise of the patent" mentioned in the Secretariat Report. 
If such criteria were strict (e.g., requiring clinical results at the time of patent filings) for intended pharmaceutical products, the acquisition of pharmaceutical patent would be substantively 
encumbered and might be considered inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement. 
Canada's Response:  The utility requirement in Canadian law is identical regardless of the area of 
technical innovation. A patentee will be required to either demonstrate or soundly predict as at the 
time of filing, that its invention will do what the patentee asserts it will do. Such requirements are 
particularly critical in areas of innovation where the 'invention' is in effect a promised utility, such as a new use or selection patent. They are fully consistent with the TRIPS Agreement, which inter alia provides that patents are to be granted only for inventions that are 'useful', leaving Members 
free to determine the appropriate method of implementing its provisions within their own legal 
system and practice. Canada's rules are also consistent with sound patent policy, reflected both in i t s  o w n  l a w  a n d  i n  T R I P S ,  a s  a  s y s t e m  d e s i g n e d  t o  p r o m o t e  i n n o v a t i o n  r a t h e r  t h a n  t o  r e w a r d  
speculation.  
In applying these rules, Canadian courts do not impose any strict requirement of clinical results at 
the time of filing. To the contrary, Canadian co urts have developed the essentially permissive WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 73 - 
 
  d o c t r i n e  o f  ' s o u n d  p r e d i c t i o n ' ,  a l l o w i n g  a p p l i c a n t s  t o  c o n f i r m  u t i l i t y  o n  t h e  b a s i s  o f  a  m e r e  
prediction and not solely by demonstration. The nature of the evidence required to make a sound prediction will vary, depending upon the nature of the claimed invention.  Pharmaceutical patent applicants have particularly  benefitted from Canada's 'sound prediction' rule.  
3.3.6.8 Geographical indications 
Pages 106-107, paragraphs 3.194-3.197  
[Japan Question 5]: Regarding protection of geog raphical indications (GIs) stipulated under CETA, 
please explain how Canada will implement such protection. 
With respect to other countries' GIs, could Canada explain whether and how the GIs protection 
under CETA is consistent with the Most Favored Nation treatment under the TRIPs Agreement? 
Canada's Response:  Under the terms of CETA, Canada is obligated to protect 179 EU-based GIs 
for various agricultural products and foodstuffs. Once these terms are protected, any use of those terms in association with a good found within the specified product class that does not come from 
the country identified with the GI will be prohibit ed. This protection will be provided even where 
the true origin of the product is indicated or the GI is used in translation or accompanied by qualifying expressions such as "kind", "type", "s tyle", "imitation" or the like. CETA allows for 
several exceptions, including for prior use and generic terms. Canada is currently conducting 
analysis on the best way to implement these obligations, but no timeline has yet been set to introduce the enabling legislation for GIs. 
Canada takes its WTO obligations seriously. As indicated above, Canada is currently considering 
the modalities of implementing its obligations under CETA in respect of GI protection.  
3.3.6.4 International initiatives and WTO participation 
3.3.6.9 IP Enforcement 
Page 107 
 [Japan Question 6]: Considering that the Combating Counterfeit Products Act (Bill C-8) came into 
force on 1 January 2015, does Canada have a sche dule to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 
Agreement (ACTA)? If this is not the case, please explain which provision(s) of ACTA is (are) inconsistent with the Canadian laws and regulations. 
Canada's Response:  The Government has not taken any steps to ratify ACTA. Canada's current 
laws and regulations are consistent with ACTA. 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2.2.1 Crude Petroleum 
Page 127, paragraph 4.69 
 [Japan Question 7]: Canada exports the majority of its crude oil production, although domestic 
consumption has been rising slightly during the re view period, as stated in paragraph 4.69 of the 
WTO Secretariat's report. 
Under the relevant provisions of the GATT, export restrictions may be imposed for several 
purposes, including in situations of short supply. With regard to energy products, Article 605 of 
NAFTA incorporates the obligation, for example, not to: 
a) reduce the proportion of the total export ship ments of the energy goods made available to the 
other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party when compared to the proportion 
exported over an appropriate representative period prior to the imposition of the restriction; 
b) impose a higher price for exports of an energy  good to that Party than the price charged for 
such good when consumed domestically, by me ans of any measures such as taxation, etc. 
Could Canada elaborate on (1) its interpretation of Article 605(a) of NAFTA being consistent with 
the relevant provisions of the GATT, i.e. Arti cle 13 and Article 24 etc., (2) the standards upon 
which one judges that a price for exports of an en ergy good is higher than the price charged for WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 74 - 
 
  such good when consumed domestically? And, it seems that "any measures" such as licenses, 
fees, taxation and minimum price requirements stipulated in Article 605(b) of NAFTA include export taxes, then how does this provision relate to Article 604 (Export Taxes) of NAFTA? 
Canada's Response:  Article 605 of NAFTA provides that certain disciplines apply to restrictions 
relating to an energy or basic petrochemical good  that are justified under GATT Article XI:2(a) or 
GATT Article XX(g), (i) or (j). A situation where such restrictions would be triggered has never occurred. If such a restriction were ever triggered, Canada would do so in accordance with its 
international obligations under the NAFTA and the WTO Agreement, including GATT Article XI, XIII, 
XX, and XXIV. 
4.3.1 Financial services 
4.3.1.5 Securities 
Page 144, paragraph 4.134 
 [Japan Question 8]: In securities, the federal government and several provincial and territorial 
governments are working together towards the oper ationalization of a Cooperative Capital Markets 
Regulatory System. In other areas, including insurance and banking, are there any plans to 
establish a cooperative framework, with a view to integrating any regulations the federal 
government and several provincial and territorial governments have introduced? 
Canada's Response:  Under the Canadian Constitution, the Government of Canada has exclusive 
jurisdiction over banks and banking. 
Federal and provincial supervisors share responsibi lities for supervising the insurance sector. The 
insurance regulatory system in Canada reflects the cooperative federalism that characterizes the 
Canadian approach to government. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) is responsible for prudential supervision of insurers incorporated under the federal Insurance 
Companies Act (ICA). Insurers that are incorporated in a specific province are subject to the 
solvency oversight of that province. OSFI also regulates the solvency and soundness of licensed 
Canadian branches of foreign insurers. The relevant provincial supervisors supervise the market 
conduct of all insurers (including Federally Regulated Insurers "FRIs") operating within their 
provinces. 
While some provincial supervisors' delegated prudential supervision of insurers incorporated in 
their jurisdiction to OSFI in the past under supervisory memoranda of understanding (MoUs), this 
practice has been discontinued. Historically, pr ovincial supervisors harmonized their solvency 
standards with those of OSFI, to minimize regulato ry arbitrage. Over the past two decades, OSFI 
has updated its solvency regime for federally regulated insurers, in line with evolving international 
regulatory and market developments. However, the declining number of provincially incorporated 
insurers raised pertinent costs-and-benefits considerations for some provincial supervisors faced with a need to invest significant resources to continuously update and maintain their solvency 
regimes in line with international standards. While some provinces, especially those with a 
significant mass of provincial insurers (e.g., Québec) have chosen to retain their autonomy in prudential supervision, a number of provinces are considering other policy options. All the MoUs have expired and OSFI no longer conducts on-site examination of provincially incorporated life 
insurers and fraternal benefit societies. 
Coordination amongst provincial supervisors is fa cilitated by the Canadian Council of Insurance 
Regulators (CCIR). The CCIR is a long-established inter-jurisdictional association of insurance 
regulators (i.e., federal, provincial and territorial authorities) with the mandate to promote an 
efficient and effective insurance regulatory system in Canada. OSFI participates in the meetings of the CCIR as an observer. CCIR is also a member of the Joint Forum of Financial Market Regulators 
(JFFMR), a mechanism through which pension, insurance and securities regulators co-ordinate, 
harmonize and streamline the regulation of financ ial products and services in Canada. The other 
JFFMR members are the Canadian Association of Pe nsion Supervisory Authorities, the CSA and the 
Canadian Insurance Services Regulatory Organizations (CISRO). WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 75 - 
 
  4.3.1.3 Banking services 
Page 137, table 4.13 
[Japan Question 9]: Regarding requirements of di rectors, can we understand that the majority of 
directors of insurance companies are required to be resident Canadians (Canadian citizens or 
persons who have acquired permanent resident status) under federal legislation? If Canada 
maintains the requirement of Canadian residence for directors, please let us know the reasons for doing so. Additionally, can we understand that 25% of the directors of a corporation are required 
to be resident Canadians (same as above) by Article 105(3) of Canada Business Corporations Act, 
under federal legislation? And we would like to know whether Canada has any other requirements 
related to the nationality of directors as well. If so, please let us know the reasons for Canada's answers to both questions. 
Canada's Response:  Insurance Companies 
Part VI of the Insurance Companies Act  deals with Corporate Governance. It provides a legislative 
and regulatory framework that promotes strong corporate governance and appropriate 
management practices for federally regulated financial institutions. Section 167 (2) sets out 
requirements for insurance companies to have at least seven directors and the majority need to be resident Canadians. There is an exception for foreign insurance company subsidiaries where only 
one half of the directors must be resident Canadians.  
Insurance companies are critical to the Canadian financial system. Ensuring sound management 
and prudential regulation are critical. Residency requirements ensure that directors are available to answer to the prudential regulator with respect to critical on-going operational and financial issues, 
as well as in times of distress and crisis. Residency requirements also ensure that the best 
interests of the Canadian financial system are contemplated by insurance company management. The requirement for residency is the same for foreign and domestic insurance companies, with the 
exception of the lighter treatment afforded fo reign insurance company subsidiaries discussed 
above.  
Other Companies 
The Canada Business Corporations Act  requires, for most federally incorporated corporations, that 
25% of directors be resident Canadians. A simple majority of resident Canadian directors is required for corporations in the following sectors: uranium mining; book publishing or distribution; book sales, where the sale of books is the primar y part of the corporation's business, and film or 
video distribution. Similarly, corporations that, by an Act of Parliament or Regulation, are 
individually subject to minimum Canadian ownership requirements are required to have a majority of resident Canadian directors. 
For the purposes of the Act, resident Canadian means a natural person who is a Canadian citizen 
ordinarily resident in Canada, a citizen who is a member of a class set out in the Canada Business Corporations Regulations, or a permanent resident as defined in the Immigration and Refugee 
Protection Act other than one who has been ordinarily resident in Canada for more than one year 
after becoming eligible to a pply for Canadian citizenship. 
In the case of a holding corporation, not more th an one-third of the directors need be resident 
Canadians if the earnings in Canada of the holding corporation and its subsidiaries are less than 
5% of the gross earnings of the holding corporation and its subsidiaries. 
Under Part IV of the Canada Corporations Act , a simple majority of the elected directors of a 
Special Act corporation is required to be resident in Canada and citizens of a Commonwealth 
country. This requirement applies to every joint stock company incorporated subsequent to 
June22,1869, by any Special Act of Parliament. 
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 
[Japan Question 10]: Since both reports are silent on protection of undisclosed information under 
Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, please indicate relevant laws and regulations in Canada. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 76 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  Consistent with TRIPS Article 39.2, Canada has both civil and criminal trade 
secrets protections. Canada's domestic laws on  the protection and enforcement of undisclosed 
information (trade secrets) are primarily civil and under the jurisdiction of the provinces. These laws, for the most part, are not formalized in statute but are rather found in case law, and unlike 
in some other jurisdictions, there is no uniform  trade secret legislation. While there are many 
commonalities in the application of trade secret law amongst provinces, there are also differences, owing to the fact that Quebec has a civil law system and other provinces operate under a common 
law system.  
The various approaches to civil trade secret protection in Canada find their basis in relational 
obligations, such as contracts including confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements, employment agreements or fiduciary duties; unfair competition law; and torts.  
A successful plaintiff in a civil trade secret case is entitled to various forms of relief, including 
equitable remedies such as injunctions, specific  performance, award for unjust enrichment, breach 
of fiduciary duty or duty of confidence; damages for breach of contract, which may include loss of 
profit, royalties that would have been payable, ma rket value of information, lost opportunity, and 
punitive damages.  
Canada's domestic trade secret regime also recognizes lawful means of obtaining trade secrets, 
such as independent discovery, reverse engineering and inadvertent disclosure. 
There are also criminal provisions at the federal le vel for the protection of trade secrets in cases of 
economic espionage involving a foreign economic entity (section 19 of the Security of Information 
Act) and fraud (section 380) under Canada's Criminal Code . Canada's criminal laws also protect 
against acts that could lead to trade secrets theft, such as the unauthorized use of a computer 
(section 342.1 of the Criminal Code ). 
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 
2.1.1 Doha Development Agenda Page 8 
 
[Japan Question 11]: The Canadian Government's report notes that "Canada strongly supported the Trade Facilitation Agreement and is committed to its timely implementation". In light of this statement, how is Canada's ratification progressing? When does Canada anticipate being able to 
notify the WTO of its acceptance of the TFA? 
Canada's Response: Canada's Economic Action Plan 2015 reaffirmed Canada's commitment to 
undertake the steps necessary to ratify and impl ement the TFA. Canada's ratification process 
includes tabling the TFA in Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days, legislative amendments, 
which could be initiated following completion of the tabling period, and once legislative amendments are complete, seeking the necessary authority for Canada to submit its instrument of 
acceptance to the WTO.  
Canada is currently working to ratify the agreement as soon as possible. Canada's Minister of 
International Trade tabled the TFA in Parliament on May 13. Canada will deposit its instrument of acceptance to the WTO following completion of the tabling period, introduction and passing of 
legislative amendments, and issuance of necessary authorizations. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 77 - 
 
  MALAYSIA 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1.5.2 Trade in services 
Page 28, paragraph 1.35 
 [Malaysia Question 1]: The Government of Canada has been actively promoting trade in the WTO 
and though a number of trade policy tools such as  free trade agreements, including the negotiation 
of a Trade in Services Agreement, foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, double taxation agreements, and air transport agreements. Furthermore in Canada's Global Market Action Plan, services sectors are an important co mponent, for which comprehensive strategies are 
being developed to strengthen Canada's trade and investment in priority markets. These include 
the launch of an international education strategy to attract international students to Canada and the development of an extractive sector strategy.   
Despite Canada's participation in TISA, how Canada intends to contribute constructively to existing 
framework of Services negotiation under the DDA.  
Canada's Response: Services are an important and growin g part of Canada's economy with 
many Canadian firms active in a wide range of services industries around the world. As such, Canada is a strong supporter of efforts to liberalize market access and establish global rules for services trade. To this end, Canada is actively engaged in both the TISA negotiations and post-Bali 
WTO work agenda on services. While these negotiations are separate, they are complementary as 
they aim to further liberalize trade in services and Canada is seeking an ambitious outcome in both the TISA and GATS. Furthermore, in the TISA, Canada remains committed to the objective of one 
day multilateralizing the TISA by bringing it back to the WTO. In GATS, Canada's priority continues 
to be strengthening of the multilateral trading system and the further liberalization of trade in services. Canada will continue to be actively engaged in the post-Bali WTO work agenda on 
services. 
 
[Malaysia Question 2]: Appreciate if Canada share more information including on-line link on the 
Canada's Global Markets Action  Plan as indicated above. 
Canada's Response:  The GMAP identifies 22 priority sectors that map to Canada's export profile. 
S e r v i c e s  a r e  a n  i n h e r e n t  p a r t  o f  m a n y  o f  t h e s e  s e c t o r s ,  s u c h  a s  A e r o s p a c e ,  I n f r a s t r u c t u r e ,  
Information and Communications Technologies, Mining, Oil and Gas and Defence and Security. There are also specific service sectors such as Education, Financial Services, Professional Services 
and Tourism included among the priority sectors. Th e full text of the GMAP can be found on-line at 
the following link: http://international.gc.ca/global-markets-marches-mondiaux/plan.aspx?lang=eng. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 78 - 
 
  MEXICO (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
FIRST SET Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.2 Trade Policy Objectives 
Page 35, paragraph 2.15  
[Mexico Question 1 (First Set)]: Which governmental sectors participate in the ecoENERGY 
initiative and how? 
Canada's Response:  The ecoENERGY Innovation Initiative (ecoEII) has two major components: 
(1) research carried out by federal government researchers working in federal laboratories and 
(2) research carried out by stakeholders external to the federal government.  
For the first component (internal – federal – R&D), the ecoEII supports research carried out at 
federal departments and agencies, including: Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, the 
National Research Council, Agriculture and AgriFoods Canada, Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., the 
Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation, Industry Canada, and Public Works and Government Services Canada.  
For the second component (external R&D), the eligible recipients include researchers working at 
provincial, territorial, and municipal government  departments and agencies. The ecoEII publishes 
the list of projects supported under this component at the following web link: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/funding/current -funding-programs/eii/4985. Some of the 
government agencies that have received funding include: Alberta Innovates, Toronto and Region 
Conservation Authority, and l'Institut de recherche Hydro Québec.  
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreement 
Page 38, paragraph 2.27  
 [Mexico Question 2 (First Set)]: What approach do Canada and South Korea intend to take on the 
environment issue in the Free Trade Agreement that entered into force this year? 
Canada's Response:  As reflected in Canada's most rece nt FTAs, the Canada-Korea Free Trade 
Agreement's (CKFTA) core environment provisions  are aimed at ensuring robust environmental 
governance and environmental protection in th e context of liberalized trade. These include 
commitments to: high levels of environmental pr otection; the effective enforcement of domestic 
environmental laws and not waiving or derogating from such laws to promote trade or investment; transparency and public participation in the making of such laws; and providing domestic remedies 
for violations of such laws. 
Additionally, the CKFTA includes provisions affirming the Parties' commitment to the Multilateral 
Environment Agreements (MEAs) both have ratified, and to promoting trade and investment in 
environmental goods and services.  
The inclusion of these environment provisions in the CKFTA contributes to a long-term, sustainable 
trade relationship and helps ensure a level playing field. At the same time, it provides a mechanism for Canada and South Korea to work together on environmental matters of common 
interest. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3.5 Government procurement 
3.3.5.3 Legal framework and process 
Page 95, paragraph 3.152 
[Mexico Question 3 (First Set)]: What obstacles to implementation of domestic policy in regard to 
an environmentally responsible procuremen t process have already been identified? 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 79 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  An evaluation report (http://www. tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/bve-oae/rapports-
reports/2010-607/index-eng.html) was published in 2012 that outlines some of the obstacles the Government of Canada has encountered while implementing green public procurement for federal operations, including: 
- Procurement personnel have many different objectives to balance beyond the overall 
procurement values of fairness, transparen cy and competitive pricing. They must 
observe policies related to general procurement as well as many other policies related 
to achieving different government objectives, including environmental objectives. 
- It is difficult to measure actual 'green' purchases as many departmental financial 
systems were not built to specifically track 'green purchasing'. Further, there are challenges in determining which products are green for the purposes of statistical data 
collection. In particular, this notion is constantly evolving as technology and innovation 
results in more efficient and envi ronmentally preferable products. 
- In terms of causality, it is difficult to formally attribute reductions in environmental 
impact directly to procurement activity impacts. Many factors internal to government 
and external to government impact the fede ral government's environmental footprint. 
- While the federal government is a major buyer, its buying power alone is not sufficient 
to lead the market to produce 'green' products or to lower prices for green products. 
Considering that supply chains frequently extend beyond Canada, the impact of the federal government in a global marketplace is not that of a dominant buyer. Rather, the federal government is one of many participants in a broad market that is pushing 
that market towards greener outcomes. 
- Much of the lower risk procurement activity (e.g., low complexity, low dollar-value) is 
decentralised. There is an inherently greater challenge in influencing tens of thousands 
of small decentralised decisions, compared to relatively few and more important 
centralised decisions. 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3.4 Environmental Services Page 151, paragraph 4.154 
[Mexico Question 4 (First Set)]: What factors leading companies to increase financial allocations to 
environmental protection have been identified by Canada? 
Canada's Response:  The factors that motivate Canadian businesses to invest and increase 
spending on environmental protection initiatives is varied and depends considerably on the sector, 
size and individual circumstances and characteristics of each business. As a result, the 
Government of Canada does not track this information. Motivating factors could include corporate social responsibility, conformity with relevant environmental laws and regulations and 
productivity/efficiency considerations.  
The use of environmental practices is also becoming more commonplace amongst Canadian 
businesses. According to a 2010 Statistics Canada study, 48% of Canadian businesses surveyed 
used at least one environmental practice. The use of an environmental management system was 
the most commonly reported practice, followed by the implementation of a pollution prevention 
plan and the performance of an energy audit. Fu rthermore, 10% of Canadi an businesses reported 
they conducted greenhouse gas inventories. Canadian businesses have also been taking measures 
to prevent pollution. The study shows that 58%  of businesses in Canada used at least one 
pollution prevention method. The top three most commonly used methods were: good operating practices or pollution prevention training; recirculation, on-site recycling, reuse or recovery of 
materials; and prevention of leaks and spills. The 2010 Statistics Canada study on the 
Environmental Protection Expenditures in the Business Sector can be found at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16f 0006x/16f0006x20120 01-eng.htm.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 80 - 
 
  2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 General framework Page 32, paragraph 2.2 
[Mexico Question 5 (First Set)]: What have been the main changes to the Agreement on Internal 
Trade on labour matters? 
Canada's Response:  The Labour Mobility Chapter of the Agreement on Internal Trade was 
amended in 2009 through: the introduction of mutu al recognition of certification requirements 
across provinces and territories for all regulated occupations; reconciliation of occupational 
standards; and, elimination of remaining residency requirements. It was further amended in 2012 to cover financial services occupations, which had been excluded up to that point.   
[Mexico Question 6 (First Set)]: How does the Agreement on Internal Trade intend to reduce or 
eliminate barriers to the free movement of persons? 
Canada's Response:  In addition to the provisions of th e strengthened Agreement on Internal 
Trade Labour Mobility Chapter, as outlined ab ove, the federal, provincial and territorial 
governments work together on an ongoing basis th rough the Forum of Labour Market Ministers, at 
the ministerial level, and the Labour Mobility Coordina ting Group, at the officials' level, to identify 
and address remaining barriers to labour mobility.  
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreements 
Page 38, paragraph 2.27  [Mexico Question 7 (First Set)]: What approach do Canada and South Korea intend to take in 
addressing the matter of Labour Cooperation in the Free Trade Agreement that entered into force 
this year? 
Canada's Response:  Canada and South Korea are committed to working collaboratively in order 
to promote internationally-recognized core labour standards and cooperate with each other on 
labour matters throughout the implementation of  the Labour Chapter of the Canada-Korea Free 
Trade Agreement (CKFTA).  
National Points of Contact (NPCs) have been established within Canadian and Korean labour 
ministries in order to facilitate and foster communications between the two countries.  
Furthermore, the CKFTA Labour Chapter establishes a Ministerial Council that is mandated to meet 
within the first year of entry into force of the Agreement and thereafter as often as it considers 
necessary. Ministerial Council meetings are comprised of the Parties' respective Ministers of Labour 
or their designees. The purpose of these meetin gs is to oversee the implementation of the 
Chapter, exchange priorities, and discuss progress under it.  
In sum, the collaborative nature of the CKFTA Labour Chapter contributes to genuine cooperation 
and provides for adequate mechanisms for continued communication between Canada and South Korea. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.8 Standards and other technical requirements Page 69, paragraph 3.68  
[Mexico Question 8 (First Set)]: Which are the certification bodies established in the United States 
and how many are there? Is there a certification bo dy accredited by SCC in any country other than 
the United States? 
Canada's Response:  SCC accredits approximately 35 conformi ty assessment bodies in the United 
States. In addition to the United States, SCC also accredits conformity assessment bodies in a number of other countries, including Peru, Chile, the Netherlands, Germany, China, France, and 
Australia. SCC accepts applications for accreditation from any conformity assessment body 
residing in a WTO member country, consistent with the IAF-ILAC cross-frontier policy. Further information can be found here: https://www.scc.ca/en/accreditation  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 81 - 
 
  Page 69, paragraph 3.70 
[Mexico Question 9 (First Set)]: Who can submit comments on proposals that are published in the 
Canada Gazette Part I ? 
Canada's Response:  The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management  ( C D R M )  r e q u i r e s  t h a t  
federal departments and agencies demonstrate that interested parties have been consulted and 
that they have had an opportunity to particip ate in developing or modifying regulations and 
regulatory programs. Pre-publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette  gives various interested 
groups and individuals (including international stakeholders), an opportunity to review and 
comment on a proposed regulation before it is enacted and published in Part II of the Canada 
Gazette .  
Page 70, paragraph 3.71 
[Mexico Question 10 (First Set)]: What is the timeframe between the final publication of the 
technical regulation and its entry into force? 
Canada's Response:  Section 9 of the Statutory Instrument Regulations  states that no regulation 
shall come into force on a day earlier than the day on which it is registered, unless it expressly 
states that it comes into force on a day earlier than that day and is registered within seven days after it is made, or is a regulation of a class that is set out as an exception. Section 11 of the 
Statutory Instrument Regulations  requires that most regulations be published in the Canada 
Gazette , Part II, within 23 days of their registration.  
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
5 TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT 
Page 30, paragraph 5.1 
 [Mexico Question 11 (First Set)]: What is the incorporated mechanism in the FTAs that allows the 
Parties to ensure compliance on environmental matters? 
Canada's Response:  Canada's approach to environmental provisions in FTAs is based on the 
principle that trade liberalization and environmental protection should be mutually reinforcing 
objectives. As reflected in its most recent FTAs, Canada's core environment provisions are aimed 
at ensuring robust environmental governance an d environmental protection in the context of 
liberalized trade. These include commitments to: high levels of environmental protection; the 
effective enforcement of domestic environmental laws and not waiving or derogating from such 
laws to promote trade or investment; transparency and public participation in the making of such 
laws; and providing domestic remedies for violations of such laws. 
Canada's most recent environment chapters and parallel agreements also include their own 
distinct government-to-government dispute sett lement mechanisms. These mechanisms adopt a 
collaborative approach based on consultations and, as necessary, recourse to non-binding review and recommendations by an independent panel. 
[Mexico Question 12 (First Set)]: What challenges  have there been with implementation of the 
Cabinet Directive on Environmental Assessment? 
Canada's Response:  A s  p a r t  o f  t h e  G o v e r n m e n t  o f  C a n a d a ' s  c o m m i t m e n t  t o  s u s t a i n a b l e  
development and in keeping with the 2010 Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of 
Policy, Plan and Program Proposals,  Canada conducts Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) 
of all trade negotiations. SEAs are systematic and comprehensive exercises that evaluate the environmental effects of an initiative and its alternatives from the earliest stages of the 
negotiations, taking into account the complex, ev er-evolving and future-oriented nature of such 
negotiations.  
The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada has chosen to use the 
agreement-by-agreement approach for conducti ng SEAs of Trade Agreements. Using this 
approach, the broad environmental effects of the ag reement are identified and analyzed in a series WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 82 - 
 
  of steps, identifying possible environmental op portunities and risks at each stage of the 
negotiations.  
While this approach may be analytically challenging, it keeps the process manageable and focused 
while still allowing for integrated analysis at vari ous stages. Another advantage of this approach is 
that the sectoral data and information gathered can be used from one agreement to the next, with 
a view to building a sustainable future.  
SECOND SET 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1.5 Developments in Trade Page 22, paragraph 1.27  
 [Mexico Question 1 (Second Set)]: In paragraph 1. 27. Canada explicitly recognizes the need to 
diversify its exports away from the U.S. market, and has been encouraged to enter into new free 
trade agreements. How will this objective be comb ined with that of strengthening trade relations 
with those countries with which it already has free trade agreements?  
Canada's Response:  The Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP), Canada's trade and investment 
policy and promotion strategy to support Canadian companies in achieving success internationally, 
sets an approach by identifying 80 priority ma rkets where Canadian opportunities and interests 
have the greatest potential for success, including markets with which Canada already has free trade agreements. In a number of these markets, the potential is chiefly in a limited number of 
sectors. While the GMAP does focus on achieving new, improved and preferential access to foreign 
markets for Canadian businesses through the negotiation of various trade policy instruments, the 
plan also details the trade and investment prom otion support the Government is providing to 
increase the participation of Canadian companies in foreign markets abroad, thereby strengthening 
trade relations with those countries. 
The advice of the Canadian private sector is  that the goals of diversifying exports and 
strengthening existing or new free trade relationsh ips are not mutually exclusive. For one thing, 
business interprets this as the same breed of two-pronged strategy they pursue: seek out new 
accounts without neglecting your existing key accounts. For another, the regional operations of global companies headquartered in or operating in new and existing FTA partners provide vectors to global markets: penetrating a global supply chain in one market is a viable strategy for 
expanding participation in that chain in other markets. 
In addition to the support for Canadian businesses to pursue international markets already 
provided through the Trade Commissioner Service (TCS), Export Development Canada and the 
Canadian Commercial Corporation, several trade promotion initiatives have been launched under 
the GMAP since it was announced in November 2013, including: 
  announcement of a new export market development program of $50 million over five 
years in assistance to entrepreneurs for activities such as market research and 
participation in trade fairs and missions; 
  announcement of the expansion of the TCS wi th approximately twenty additional Trade 
Commissioners to target priority markets; 
  launch of the International Education Strategy (January 2014), the Defence Procurement 
Strategy and associated Export Strategy (February 2014), and the Strategy for the Extractives Sector (November 2014); 
  a series of "Go Global" workshops, encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs) to take advantage of international business opportunities, has attracted over 2,000 participants in 18 events across Canada; 
  launch of Canadian Technology Accelerators in  the UK, France and India, in addition to 
those existing in the U.S., to facilitate business opportunities for high potential technology-WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 83 - 
 
  based Canadian companies; opening of four ne w trade offices in China, as announced in 
May 2014 
1.6 Foreign Direct Investment 
Page 29, paragraph 1.36 
 
[Mexico Question 2 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 1.36 mentions that in 2014, Canada ranked 7th in 
the world according to UNCTAD. What advantages does Canada offer to encourage foreign 
companies to invest in it. Also, what do Canadian companies look for in other countries when 
making investments?  
Canada's Response:  While Canada holds many advantages to investors in various sectors of the 
economy, the following are examples of key ad vantages that are regularly communicated to 
foreign audiences: 
‐  It has a very welcoming business environment and is one of the easiest countries in which 
to start a business in the G-7, according to the World Bank. 
‐  It has led all G-7 countries in economic growth over the past decade (2004-2013) and is 
projected to be among G-7 growth  leaders over the 2014-2016 period. 
‐  Canada has balanced its budget in 2015-16, with a federal debt-to-GDP ratio that is 
projected to decline to 27.9% in 2017-18 and to meet its target of 25% of GDP by 2021. 
‐  The World Economic Forum  (WEF) has declared Canada's banking system to be the 
soundest in the world – for the seventh consecutive year 
‐  Canada's combined federal-provincial general corporate income tax rate of 26.3% in 2015 
is below the level of most other G ‑7 countries and about 13 percentage points lower than 
the U.S.  
‐  R&D-intensive sectors in Canada also enjoy the lowest costs in the G-7, these being 15.8% 
lower than in the U.S. according to KPMG's 2014 Competitive Alternatives Report 
‐  Canada offers business the most educat ed talent pool among countries of the Organization 
for Economic Co-operation and Development  (OECD), with more than half of its population 
aged 25 to 64 having a te rtiary level education.  
‐  Once CETA comes into force, companies operating in Canada will have guaranteed 
preferential access to both the EU and North American markets; this represents over 980 
million consumers with a combined GDP of US$39 trillion, or one-half of the world's output 
of goods and services. 
‐  The following link provides competitive advantages for all of Canada's priority investment 
sectors: http://www.international.gc.ca/investor s-investisseurs/sector-secteurs/industrial-
industriels.aspx?lang=eng.  
 
Canadian companies, like all foreign investors, will normally base their investment decisions on 
"drivers" such as: 
‐ Market conditions (market size, access to other markets, etc.) 
‐ Capital and funding (financial incentives, venture capital/private equity) 
‐ Business locations and networks (cluster or business incubator, universities and academic 
research) 
‐ Quality of infrastructure (ICT, physical, transport links) 
‐ Economics (stability, inflation, etc.) 
‐ Political stability (legal framework, etc.) 
‐ Regulatory environment (well-protected IP, low corruption level) 
‐ Tax (corporate tax rate, tax credits, etc.) 
‐ Labour (salary levels, availability, flexibility, etc.) 
‐ Cost to business (company forming and registration) 
‐ Etc. 
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.2 Trade Policy Objectives 
Page 34, paragraph 2.13 
 [Mexico Question 3 (Second Set)]: In paragraph 2.13, Canada mentions its Action Plan, which lists 
sectors that have a strong competitive advantage and plans to develop strategies to help these 
sectors flourish. What is Canada's strategy for ma king its automotive sector attractive once again WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 84 - 
 
  so as to receive foreign direct global investment, given the competition it faces from the rest of the 
world? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has a solid value proposition and has much to offer in the 
automotive sector. Its approach is comprehensive and includes:  
  A stable economy with low corporate taxes. 
  A regulatory environment aligned with the United States, through the United States-
Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council. 
  A well-developed infrastructure including a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit. 
  A commitment to pursuing new opportunities that deepen trade and economic cooperation 
with a number of countries, such as the European Union and South Korea through the Canada Europe Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Canada 
Korea Free Trade Agreement (CKFTA). 
  A talented workforce providing high quality and skills. This quality has been recognized 
with Canadian assembly plants having won one-third of all J.D. Power plant quality awards 
in North America since 1990 - which is double Canada's share of regional production. 
These awards are given by the indust ry to recognize quality of plants. 
  Support for automotive research and development (R&D), via programs such as the 
National Research Council and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, as well 
as R&D tax credits from the Scientific Research and Experimental Development program. 
  Financing tools from the Business Development Bank and Export Development Canada to 
help automakers and suppliers grow their business. 
  The Automotive Innovation Fund (AIF), which financially supports strategic, large scale 
R&D projects to build innovative, greener and more fuel-efficient vehicles.  
Page 35, paragraph 2.15 
[Mexico Question 4 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 2.15 refers to strategies that the Action Plan has 
maintained with the world markets, specifically the Extraction Sector Strategy. We would like to know if there are programs for cooperation and exchange of best practices with other countries to 
share information on actions carried out by Canada in this sector.  
Canada's Response:  Canada's Extractive Sector Strategy includes both the oil & gas and mining 
sectors. Canada works in close collaboration with many countries through a variety of programs and collaboration instruments in the area of cooperation and exchange of best practices in the 
extractive sector, including through some of the following examples.  
Canada's international development assistance in the extractive sector leverages Canadian 
government, private sector, academia and civil society expertise to help developing countries 
realize the potential of their natural resource wealth as a means toward sustainable economic 
growth and poverty reduction. 
Canada provides support to resource-rich developing countries to: Strengthen national, regional, 
and local governments and regulatory institutions so they can manage the extractive sector 
transparently and responsibly; improve local economic development through diversification and support for local businesses; enable communities to maximize benefits from the extractive sector to promote inclusive growth and community empowerment. 
Through platforms like the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable 
Development (IGF), for which the Government of Canada hosts the Secretariat, Canada has established an unparalleled platform for engagement with the 50 members of this voluntary 
partnership, along with the over 110 industry, ci vil society and multilateral organizations that 
regularly participate in its activities. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 85 - 
 
  Through the creation and support of the Cana dian International Resources and Development 
Institute (CIRDI), Canada assists developing countries' governments to meet their respective needs for governance and management of their extractive sector. As an independent institute, CIRDI welcomes project proposals that align with its mandate and fit within its program areas. 
CIRDI can be contacted directly to discuss potential collaboration. 
The Government of Canada has also signed many international collaboration agreements with 
other countries to continue an open dialogue towards cooperation and the sharing of best practices 
in the extractive sectors, including oil & gas and mining. Ongoing collaboration is being carried out 
with many partner countries, including Brazil, Chile, China, the European Union, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mongolia, Norway, Poland, Peru, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. 
2.4.4 Investment Promotion 
Page 44, paragraph 2.42  
[Mexico Question 5 (Second Set)]: In paragraph 2.42, Canada explains the foreign direct 
investment promotion activities of the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service. We would like to know if there are collaborative approaches with its counterparts and other bodies with the same 
functions in other countries.  
Canada's Response:  Counterparts in other countries are often competing to attract investment. 
Therefore, there is usually little scope for collaborative approaches, except as a means to benchmark and study each other's best practices. However, following a trilateral commitment in 
San Diego (2013) to develop a roadmap to prosperity, Canada's Minister of International Trade Ed 
Fast, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and Mexican Secretary of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal met in Toronto (October 2014) to endorse the North American Competitiveness 
Workplan (NACW).  
One of the pillars of the NACW is Investment Cooperation under which Invest in Canada (through 
the Trade Commission Service), Select USA and ProMexico will be working together to promote 
North America as the premier innovative and competitive regional economic platform for 
international investors 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.1.1 Investment Promotion 
Page 49, paragraph 3.8 
 [Mexico Question 6 (Second Set)]: In paragraph 3.8 ., Canada explains that implementation of the 
single window system is still pending for seven of the nine Departments participating in the 
procedure. What remains to be done for the system to be fully operational, and how will this system be compatible with similar systems in countries that are trading partners with Canada in 
the NAFTA? Also, we would like to know if this single window system will allow information 
exchange initiatives to be carried out in the future with other countries. 
Canada's Response:  Implementation of the Canadian single window system is no longer 
pending. As of March 29, 2015, the new Integrated Import Declaration (IID) single window release 
service option is fully operational, allowing importers/brokers to submit and obtain electronic 
release for goods regulated by Participating Government Departments and Agencies (PGAs): 
o submission of an IID is voluntary; 
o the IID only includes the data required for Canada to make a border-related 
release decision;  
o the IID can be used for PGA and non-PGA-regulated goods; and  
o an IID can be sent by an importer/broker for processing up to 90 days prior to the 
arrival of the goods at the first point of arrival in Canada or following the arrival of goods. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 86 - 
 
    The following five of the overall nine Departments involved are currently utilizing the IID 
service option: 
o Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada  
o Health Canada  
o Natural Resources Canada  
o Public Health Agency of Canada  
o Transport Canada  
  Although the single window system is a standalone program, Canada has worked with its 
NAFTA trading partners to align the data requir ed by trade to the greatest extent possible, 
utilizing the World Customs Organization Data Model as their foundation for these exercises. Alignment exercises such as this and the continued engagement and 
harmonization of border processes between Ca nada, the United States and Mexico will 
further the streamlining and modernization efforts of these countries while keeping security and risk management at the forefront.  
 
  Information exchange between countries is currently not in the scope of the Canadian 
single window solution. Single window systems are standalone and are unique in their 
design without the ability to communicate.  
 3.1.4.3 Preferential tariffs Page 56, paragraph 3.26 
 
[Mexico Question 7 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 3.26. mentions that in 2013, Canada concluded the review of its voluntary GPT regi me, withdrawing this preference from 72 trading partners who 
were considered to be higher income or trade-competitive countries. We would like to know 
whether any of those countries has asked Canada to review its status and, if so, whether that preference has been reinstated.  
Canada's Response: As announced in Economic Action Plan 2013 and published in Part II of the 
Canada Gazette on October 13, 2013, Canada graduated countries from its GPT program if they met one of the following criteria: 
(1) countries classified for two consecutive years as high income or upper-middle income 
economies according to the latest World Bank income classifications; or 
(2) countries that have a 1% or greater share of world exports for two consecutive years, 
according to the latest World Trade Organization statistics. 
All countries that met the criteria in 2013 were graduated on January 1, 2015. There are no 
exceptions.  
In proceeding with those changes, Canada showed flexibility by delaying the implementation date 
by six months (from July 2014 to January 2015) to allow additional time for importers to make any 
necessary adjustments to their sourcing patterns. In addition, Canada took steps to ensure that 
duty-free imports from least developed countries wo uld not be affected by the changes to the GPT 
by grandfathering the list of countries from which LDCs can source fabrics. This means that 
apparel from LDCs produced using textiles from former GPT beneficiaries will continue to be 
eligible for duty-free access into Canada. 
3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports 
3.1.5.1 The GST/HST and provincial sales taxes 
Page 58, paragraph 3.31  
[Mexico Question 8 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 3.31 mentions that most imported commercial 
goods are relieved of the provincial component of the HST. We would like to know which goods or 
which type of products are subject to the provincial tax upon importation into Canada. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 87 - 
 
  Canada's Response: When goods are imported at the border for commercial purposes, only 
federal sales taxes are applied. This is because it is difficult to determine the final provincial destination and charge the appropriate provinci al sales taxes or provincial portion of the 
Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) at the time of importation. Commercial goods subject to this 
treatment are defined as "goods that are imported for sale or for any commercial, industrial, 
occupational, institutional or other like use". 
Importers who import commercial goods for use in tax-exempt activities must self-assess the 
provincial part of HST if they bring them to a harmonized province. For instance, a dentist who 
imported dental equipment for use in Ontario woul d have to self-assess the 8% Ontario provincial 
component of HST and Customs officials would collect the 5% federal Goods and Services Tax (or federal portion of the HST).  
3.3.4 State trading, state-owned enterprises, and privatization 
3.3.4.1 Stated trading enterprises Page 86, table 3.22 
 
[Mexico Question 9 (Second Set)]: Table 3.22, Crown Corporations, 2014, mentions the support 
offered to the dairy sector based on its performance.  How is this type of support classified with the 
WTO? 
Canada's Response:  Canada notes that Table 3.22 lists the "assets" of the Canadian Dairy 
Commission (CDC) and other Crown Corporations and not domestic support provided by the Canadian Dairy Commission. The CDC has the mandate of coordinating federal and provincial dairy 
policies and setting production quotas that stabilize revenues and help to avoid production 
surpluses. Once a year, the CDC sets the support price of butter and skim milk powder based on 
national cost of production study and following consultations with industry stakeholders. The CDC 
also monitors national production and demand and recommends the necessary adjustments to the 
national production target for industrial milk. It has the authority to purchase, store, process, or sell dairy products on the domestic or export market, within WTO commitments. Market price 
support for butter and skim milk powder is reported as amber product-specific support in 
Supporting Table DS:5 of Canada's annual notification of domestic support.   
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1.6 Selected sub-sectors 
4.1.6.2 Milk and dairy products 
Page 120, paragraph 4.39  
[Mexico Questions 10, 11 & 12 (Second Set)]: Paragr aph 4.39 mentions that the dairy sector is 
regulated through a national supply management system, and footnote 30 states that this also applies to poultry (chicken and turkey) and eggs.  
Paragraph 4.42 points out the weaknesses of the supply management system, including effects on 
consumers when costs are transferred to them, and the fact that it hinders the competitiveness of the sector and its capacity to take advantage of international markets.  
Based on the foregoing, we would like to know whether Canada intends to make changes to the 
supply management system under the framework of the recent negotiations with Europe and the 
TPP, and, if so, what those changes might be.  
Canada's Response:  Canada has no intention of making changes to the supply management 
system.  
Under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the supply 
management system and its three key pillars (production control; import controls; and price 
controls) remain intact.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 88 - 
 
  4.2.2 Energy 
4.2.2.1 Crude Petroleum Page 127, paragraph 4.69  
[Mexico Question 13 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 4.69 me ntions that the petroleum sector is open to 
private investment. We would like to know whether there are limits on participation by foreign investment and, if so, what those limits are. 
Canada's Response:  Foreign direct investment provides numerous benefits for Canadians and 
Canadian businesses, including increased access to  capital, improved productivity and greater 
consumer choice. Recognizing the importance of investment flows into the country, Canada has a broad framework in place to promote trade and investment, and to ensure that foreign investment 
benefits Canada. The Investment Canada Act  is an important part of that framework. 
Under the Investment Canada Act , when a non-Canadian entity establishes a new Canadian 
business or acquires a Canadian business, they must file a notification, or an application for net 
benefit review.  
The net benefit review focuses on major acquisitions of control. Direct acquisition of control in the 
non-cultural sector by private-sector, WTO member investors are subject to net benefit review 
only if the enterprise value of the Canadian bu siness meets or exceeds the established threshold. 
Currently, this threshold is $600 million in enterprise value of the Canadian businesses acquired. The threshold will increase to $800 million in enterp rise value on April 24, 2017 and to $1 billion in 
enterprise value in April 24, 2019. Beginning in January 2021, the threshold will be indexed to 
reflect the change in Canada's nominal gross domestic product in the previous year. 
A notification is required when establishing a new business or when the value of the Canadian 
business being acquired is less than the established threshold.  
For investments by foreign state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the threshold is $369 million and 
based on the book value of the assets of the Canadian business. This threshold is adjusted annually to the change in Canada's nominal GDP. 
Proposed investments are considered under the Investment Canada Act  on a case-by-case basis. 
In 2012, the Government announced that investments by SOEs to acquire control of a Canadian oil sands business will be found to be of net benefit on an exceptional basis only. 
4.2.2.2 Natural Gas  
Page 129, paragraph 4.74 
 [Mexico Question 14 (Second Set)]: In relation to paragraph 4.74, we would like to know whether 
there are limits on participation by foreign investment in the natural gas sector and, if so, what 
those limits are. 
Canada's Response:  Foreign direct investment provides numerous benefits for Canadians and 
Canadian businesses, including increased access to  capital, improved productivity and greater 
consumer choice. Recognizing the importance of investment flows into the country, Canada has a broad framework in place to promote trade and investment, and to ensure that foreign investment benefits Canada. The Investment Canada Act  is an important part of that framework. 
Under the Investment Canada Act , when a non-Canadian entity establishes a new Canadian 
business or acquires a Canadian business, they must file a notification or an application for net benefit review.  
The net benefit review focuses on major acquisitions of control. Direct acquisition of control in the 
non-cultural sector by private-sector, WTO member investors are subject to net benefit review only if the enterprise value of the Canadian bu siness meets or exceeds the established threshold. 
Currently, this threshold is $600 million in enterprise value of the Canadian businesses acquired. 
The threshold will increase to $800 million in enterp rise value on April 24, 2017 and to $1 billion in 
enterprise value in April 24, 2019. Beginning in January 2021, the threshold will be indexed to reflect the change in Canada's nominal gross domestic product in the previous year. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 89 - 
 
  A notification is required when establishing a new business or when the value of the Canadian 
business being acquired is less than the established threshold.  
For investments by foreign state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the threshold is $369 million and 
based on the book value of the assets of the Canadian business. This threshold is adjusted 
annually to the change in Canada's nominal GDP. 
4.3.1 Financial Services 
4.3.1.1 Overview  
Page 135, paragraph 4.95 
 [Mexico Question 15 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 4.95 mentions that the banking industry is relatively concentrated, as six banks account for 90% of total assets. We would like to know if 
Canada is undertaking any type of policy to reduce this level of concentration.  
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada recognizes that Canadians benefit when 
financial service providers compete vigorously for their business, improving price, service, and 
product selection. A competitive financial services sector has been a longstanding policy priority for 
the Government.  
A key aspect of this is the ability of smaller financial institutions to compete. In recent years, the 
Government has taken a number of measures to enhance the competitive position of smaller 
players. For example, 
• The Government has put in place a framework for provincial credit unions to 
continue federally, providing a choice for individual credit unions seeking to grow 
regionally or nationally.  
• The Government has improved the ability of smaller banks to access funding from 
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), which benefits the 
competitive position of smaller players.  
• And the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) has 
established a small bank advisor to address challenges faced by smaller federally-
regulated banks. 
In addition, Canada's banking framework encourages foreign entry and provides entrants with 
choice on how to establish in Canada, either as branches or subsidiaries. Foreign bank subsidiaries have the same rights as a Canadian bank. Currently operating in Canada, there are: 28 domestic 
banks, 24 foreign bank subsidiaries and 29 foreign bank branches (3 lending branches, 26 full 
service branches).  
Going forward, the government will continue to examine ways to promote competition in financial 
services. 
4.3.1.3 Banking Services 
4.3.1.3.2 Cooperative fi nancial institutions  
Page 140, paragraphs 4.115-4.116 
 [Mexico Question 16 & 17 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 4.115 mentions that cooperative credit institutions can voluntarily subject themselves to oversight by the Office of the Superintendent of 
Financial Institutions. Are there any plans for that oversight to become mandatory?  
Paragraph 4.116 indicates that in January 2014, the federal government announced its intention to 
develop transitional measures for credit unions. What is the status of those regulations? 
Canada's Response:  Credit unions are an important part of the Canadian economy and 
contribute to competition in financial services. They are key suppliers of financing to small and medium-sized businesses and serve Canadians across the country, especially in smaller 
communities and rural areas.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 90 - 
 
  The credit union sector is under the jurisdiction of the province or territory in which it operates. 
Centrals are incorporated and regulated at the provincial level. Under the current system, some centrals have chosen to register federally under the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, and voluntarily subject themselves to OSFI's oversight. 
Recently in 2014, the federal government clarified its mandate with regard to credit union centrals. 
This is one of a series of concrete measures to support the growth and competitiveness of the credit union sector since 2010.  
In particular, OSFI will cease its supervision of provincial credit union centrals once the 
amendments to the legislation come into fo rce on January 15, 2017. The measures further 
strengthen Canada's financial system by ensuring that provincial governments appropriately supervise and support their own financial institutions.  
In addition, a federal credit union framework has b een legislated, which provides a choice to credit 
unions and their members seeking to grow regionally  or nationally. The federal option is designed 
to offer a choice to credit unions and their members, and be complementary to the existing 
provincial system. 
As part of its continued engagement with the credit union sector, the Department of Finance 
released a consultation paper on temporary transitional measures on April 1, 2015. The 
consultation period closes on May 30, 2015. Input from the consultation w ill inform the future 
development of terms and conditions for potential measures, helping to make the federal credit union framework more effective.  
4.3.1.4 Insurance Services 
Page 140 
 [Mexico Question 18 (Second Set)]: We would like to know whether citizens of Canada can procure 
insurance services outside Canadian territory, and what conditions they must meet to do so. 
Canada's Response:  Canadian citizens are not restricted from procuring insurance abroad. 
However, foreign insurance companies are required to maintain a commercial presence in Canada 
when they conduct business in Canada (i.e. "insure in Canada a risk").  
The Insurance Companies Act  requires foreign insurance companies to establish a physical 
presence in Canada, either through a branch or a subsidiary of the parent corporation, if the company is "insuring in Canada a risk". Guidance on whether an activity is considered to be 
"insuring in Canada a risk" is provided in the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions 
advisory number 2007 – 01 – R1 . (http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/eng/fi-if/app/rla-
prl/Pages/Adv_insurance_riskr1.aspx) 
4.3.2 Postal and courier services 
Page 144  
[Mexico Question 19 (Second Set)]: Which government  entity is responsible for overseeing Canada 
Post Corporation to prevent the granting of cross-subsidies? 
Canada's Response:  Canada Post Corporation is a government entity that is responsible for the 
management of its own operations. No other government entity is specifically tasked with 
overseeing Canada Post. The Corporation is part of  the Minister of Transport's portfolio. Therefore, 
the Minister of Transport is responsible before the Parliament of Canada for answering questions 
regarding Canada Post. 
Each year in Canada Post's Annual Report, which is made public on Canada Post's website and 
through its public tabling in both Houses of Canada's Parliament, external auditors (KPMG in 2014) audit the Annual Cost Study Contribution Analysis of the Canada Post Corporation 
(https://www.canadapost.ca/assets/pdf/aboutus/f inancialreports/2014_ar_complete_en.pdf). The 
Cost Study provides costing data that serve as the basis for ensuring that Canada Post is not competing unfairly by cross-subsidizing its competitive services with revenues from exclusive privilege services. In the 2014 and previous Annual Reports, external auditors were of the opinion WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 91 - 
 
  that Canada Post did not cross-subsidize its co mpetitive services with revenues from exclusive 
privilege services. As a competitive service, Purolator is covered under the Annual Cost Study Contribution Analysis.  
4.3.3 Tourism 
4.3.3.3 Policy actions 
Page 149, paragraph 4.148 
[Mexico Question 20 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 4.148 refers to Canada creating a Federal Tourism 
Strategy whose objectives include facilitating access by and movement of travellers visiting 
Canada. We would like to know if that Strategy is related to the Electronic Authorization System (ETA), and how the two complement one another.  
Canada's Response:  Canada's Federal Tourism Strategy (FTS) adopts a whole-of-government 
approach to bring greater coherence to the federal policies and programs that support tourism, 
and to make the federal government a more effect ive partner with industry and other levels of 
government in support of a competitive tourism sector.  
Some 20 federal departments and agencies are responsible for implementing a number of 
measures in support of the FTS and the four prio rities outlined in paragraph 4.148, including the 
priority to facilitate the access and movement of travellers while ensuring the safety and integrity 
of Canada's borders. These departments, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada, help 
implement the FTS and to ensure that Canada remains a destination of choice for foreign and Canadian travellers. As such, we consider the Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) to be a key federal initiative that supports the FTS.  
The eTA falls under the purview of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the federal department 
responsible for setting the conditions to enter an d remain in Canada, and is intended to enhance 
the identification and interdiction of inadmissible persons outside of Canada. However, as a new 
screening tool, the eTA program also provides opportunities to facilitate the entry of genuine 
temporary residents while protecting the health, safe ty and security of Canadians. In this respect, 
and consistent with the priorities of the FTS, the Canadian Government recently announced its 
intention to expand eligibility for eTA to low-risk travellers from Brazil, Bulgaria, Mexico and 
Romania to make it easier and faster for legitimate travellers from these countries to come to Canada.   
[Mexico Question 21 (Second Set)]: What regulations apply to professional services?  
  Are there limits on foreign suppliers providing professional services? 
  What commitments has Canada assumed in the GATS in matters of professional services? 
  Does Canada consider that the visa requirement represents a violation of the legitimate 
expectations of foreign investors, who could lose business opportunities and are at a 
disadvantage with respect to other countries that are not asked to comply with this requirement?  
Canada's Response:  Many of the occupations in the professional services sector are regulated by 
provincial/territorial regulatory bodies. The regulations serve to protect public health and safety, 
and to ensure that people working in those pr ofessions are competent/qualified to supply the 
service. Each regulated occupation has its own requirements for obtaining a license or certificate. 
These requirements can differ between provinces and territories. In general, the requirements 
include: an assessment of education and experien ce against the profession's standards, written 
examinations and/or interview, evaluation of language and communication skills, and a specified 
period of supervised work experience. For no n-regulated occupations, some employers may 
require that job applicants be registered or cert ified by the relevant professional association.  
Foreign professionals seeking to work in regulated occupations in Canada are generally required to 
follow the same domestic regulatory procedures to obtain a license or certificate. In some 
occupations, certain jurisdictions have establis hed a temporary licensing regime, which allows 
foreign professionals to provide their services on a temporary basis for a specific project.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 92 - 
 
  For more detailed information on specific requirements, please consult the appropriate regulatory 
body or occupational organization. 
In the area of professional services, Canada has taken GATS commitments for the following sub-
sectors: a) Foreign Legal Consultants (advisory services on foreign and public international law 
only); 2) accounting, auditing, and book-keeping services; 3) taxation services, excluding legal 
services; 4) architectural services, including various related sub-categories; 5) engineering 
services, including various related sub-categories; and 6) urban planning and landscape 
architectural services. For further details on the commitments taken in each of these sub-sectors, 
including limitations on those commitments, please refer to Canada's GATS Schedule of Specific Commitments.  
Canada does not consider a visa requirement to be a violation of foreign investors' expectations. 
Canada believes foreign investors and governments understand the aim of a visa requirement is to 
uphold the integrity of a country's immigration and asylum systems. Canada's visa policy decisions 
are made on a country-by-country assessment based on a number of objective criteria, which 
include a country's immigration issues, such as immigration violation rates and asylum claims, 
safety and security issues, border management, the integrity of travel documents, human rights, and bilateral relations. Visa exemptions are the exce ption, not the rule. Citizens from a majority of 
countries require a visa to visit Canada. As the recent Canadian federal budget (Economic Action 
Plan 2015) signalled, Canada is co mmitted to facilitating travel for lo w-risk individuals from certain 
visa-required countries, including Mexico. Once im plemented, the Electronic Travel Authorization 
(eTA) will give Canadian authorities a tool to do that.  
4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 
4.1.7 Fisheries Page 123, footnote 40 
[Mexico Question 22 (Second Set)]: 3.45. The Special Import Measures Act  and related regulations 
set out the rules and procedures for the imposition  of corrective trade remedies in Canada. There 
have been no major changes to the legislation during the period under review.
40 
40 The Special Import Measures Regulations has been amended in 2013 to remove the expiration 
date on the status of China and Viet Nam as "prescribed countries" 
Could Canada provide more information on the amendments to the Special Import Measures 
Regulations carried out in 2013 on the status of China and Viet Nam as "prescribed countries", as 
mentioned in footnote 40 to the document WT/TPR/S/314? 
Canada's Response:  When these provisions were enacted, automatic expiry dates were included 
(December 11, 2016, and December 31, 2018, for China and Vietnam respectively). The 
amendments remove the automatic expiry dates for prescribed countries under subsections 
17.1(2) and 17.2(2) of the Special Import Measures Regulations .  
[Mexico Question 23 (Second Set)]: Could Canada point out any implications of those 
amendments? 
Canada's Response:  The amendments to the Special Import Measures Regulations did not 
change Canada's practice . Canadian anti-dumping investigations continue to be initiated on the 
assumption that market conditions prevail in the sector being investigated, unless Canadian 
industry can show evidence to the contrary. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 93 - 
 
  NEW ZEALAND 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.1 Agriculture and Fisheries 
4.1.4 Export Measures 
Page 116, paragraph 4.26   
[New Zealand Question 1]: At para 4.1.4, the Secretariat's report states that Canada's reported 
export subsidy outlays for butter, skim milk powder, cheese, and other milk products were near commitment levels from 2009-12, and are estimated to have increased in the 2012-13 period. This makes Canada one of the largest users of export subsidies following reform by the United States 
and European Union who have unilaterally reduced or eliminated their export subsidy outlay.   
In light of the Bali Declaration on Export Competition and the particularly damaging market-
distorting effects of export subsidies, can Canada  please describe its plan on exercising restraint 
on its future use of export subsidies, and for future outlays to be substantially below its export 
subsidy commitments?  
What justification does Canada have for maintaining its export subsidy outlays at their existing 
high levels?
4  
Canada's Response:  Canada's use of export subsidies fully complies with its WTO commitments. 
Page 117, paragraph 4.30 
 
[New Zealand Question 2]: The Secretariat's report states at para 4.30 that Canada's agricultural 
producer support estimate has decreased to 11.6%  of total value of production in 2013, down 
from 17.2% in 2009. However, New Zealand notes that the reduction in levels of producer support 
has not been consistent across sectors. The producer single commodity transfer for milk remains 
high at 43.8% of revenue in 2013. This indicates that Canada's dairy sector has a low level of market orientation.  
What are Canada's intentions to reform its dairy support to better align the level of support given 
to the dairy industry with the level of support given to other industries? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has no intention of making changes to the supply management 
system. 
4.1.6.2 Milk and dairy products 
Page 121, paragraph 4.4 
[New Zealand Question 3]: The Secretariat's report states at para 4.42 that in the context of 
growing global demand for dairy products, Canada's supply management system hinders the 
competitiveness of the dairy industry and may be preventing it from taking advantage of 
international markets. A growing number of Canadian dairy farmers and industry bodies have also 
recognised this and are expressing an interest in gaining better access to international markets.   
What consideration has Canada given to reforms to the system of support for dairy to better 
enable the Canadian dairy industry to take advantage of the growing demand for dairy products in international markets? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has no intention of making changes to the supply management 
system. 
                                               
4 Export subsidy outlay as % of commitment: 89% in 2009-10, 87% in 2010-11 and 2011-12, and 
estimated at 99% for 2012-13. From WT/TPR/S/314, Table 4.2. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 94 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports 3.1.5.3 Other provincial taxes Page 60, paragraph 3.38  
[New Zealand Question 4]: New Zealand notes the reference in the Secretariat's Report at para 
3.1.5.3 to provincial taxes, which states that some provinces levy additional taxes on products 
such as tobacco, fuel and alcoholic beverages, and that these are generally applied equally to 
imports and domestic production, with the exception of reduced rates for certain domestic 
products in select provinces. New Zealand understands that several provincial liquor boards have decided to implement or are considering implementing "variable trade mark-ups" whereby the mark-up applied may vary by product. This incl udes the Nova Scotia Liquor Board which has 
proposed variable mark-ups in some product sub-categories and the British Colombia Liquor Board 
which has separated mark-ups into wholesale and retail, where retail mark-ups are not published. New Zealand notes that the negotiated margin proposal by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario 
was withdrawn due to concern expressed by several WTO members.  
[a] New Zealand requests an explanation regardin g how these mark-ups, if implemented, will be 
applied in a transparent and consistent manner, and how the Canadian Government intends to 
ensure these mark-ups are applied in a non-discriminatory manner. 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in 
alcoholic beverages is governed by the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act  (IILA). The 
IILA provides the provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over 
the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the import ation, sending, taking or transportation of such 
liquor into the provinces and territories.  
The federal government works closely with the provinces to ensure consistency of any changes 
with Canada's international trade obligations. 
[b] New Zealand notes that provincial and territorial  liquor control authorities have authorised 
several new sales and retail channels reserved for local product.  This includes authorisation for 
local wine products to be sold in farmers' markets in British Colombia with no mark-up and in 
Ontario with a reduced mark-up. New Zealand notes with concern the decision of the British Colombia Liquor Board to allow exclusively local wi ne to be sold on the shelves of private grocery 
stores. Unlike wines sold in the retail channels available to imported product, the local wines sold 
in grocery stores will not be subject to a mark-up.   
Can Canada please provide an explanation as to how these retail routes being used exclusively for 
local product can be considered anti-discriminatory? 
Canada's Response:  With respect to farmers markets, we note that customers of farmers 
markets are usually interested in purchasing local products. Farmers markets also often have their own rules limiting items being sold therein to products that are produced within a defined 
geographical area. 
Stores in British Columbia that are limited to se lling 100% BC wine have operated for many years 
and have been grandfathered through various trade agreements to which Canada is a Party. 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.4 Investment Regime  
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act Page 43, paragraph 2.39  
 
[New Zealand Question 5]: The Canadian Government's report states at para 2.39 that Canada and the European Union (EU) are currently conducting a legal review of the Comprehensive 
Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) text.  New Zealand is concerned that proposed changes to 
Canada's WTO Tariff Quota for cheese as part of CETA will unilaterally reduce the quantity of market access available to WTO members, and would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the WTO, including fundamental MFN obligations. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 95 - 
 
  What steps is Canada taking to ensure that any changes to its Tariff Quota allocation for cheese 
are consistent with Canada's WTO commitments and do not unilaterally disadvantage other WTO members? 
Canada's Response:  Canada will continue to administer its WTO TRQ for cheese under Canada's 
Export and Import Permits Act  in conformity with its WTO obligations. The size of the WTO cheese 
TRQ will remain at 20,411,866 kg. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 96 - 
 
  NORWAY 
[Norway Question 1]: Starting in March 2010 and completed in January 2015, Canada eliminated 
all remaining tariffs on manufacturing inputs, machinery and equipment used in the industrial manufacturing sector. This makes Canada the first tariff-free country for industrial manufactures in 
the G-20, and is an important trade liberalization initiative. Norway recognizes the tariff relief as 
an important measure to strengthen the manufacturing businesses, support foreign investments and increase trade collaboration within the manufacturing sector. What has been the effect of the 
elimination of tariffs so far? 
Canada's Response:  Since 2009, Canada has unilaterally eliminated over 1,800 tariffs, providing 
more than $450 million in annual tariff relief for Canadian manufacturers. This includes the elimination of all remaining tariffs on manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment used for 
manufacturing, which was completed on January 1, 2015. Establishing Canada as the first tariff-
free country for industrial manufacturers in the G-20, this initiative helps bolster competitiveness, productivity, investment and innovation. As the tariff elimination was completed this year, the 
impact assessment of this measure is ongoing. 
A 2013 OECD study of the trade policy implications of global value chains focused on Canada's 
unilateral elimination of tariffs on a broad range of manufacturing inputs, machinery and 
equipment. The OECD concluded that by lowering effective protection in most sectors, Canada's 
policy is likely to reduce production costs, improve efficiency and enhance innovation in downstream manufacturing industries, thereby bolstering external competitiveness. 
[Norway Question 2]: The oil sector is a substantial part of the Canadian economy. With a 
decrease in export to the American market and a shift towards Asia in particular, there is a 
demand for improved infrastructure. Several new pipeline projects are under development in order to provide access to new markets. How will Canada proceed to achieve improved infrastructure for 
oil and gas transportation in a safe and effective manner? 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada recognizes the important economic potential 
provided by Canada's large crude oil and natural gas resources. To take advantage of this 
opportunity, it will be necessary to expand the existing pipeline network and build new pipelines to 
ensure that our increasing production can reach new markets, particularly markets in Europe and Asia.  
There are several pipeline projects proposed to bring Canada's crude oil to new markets, including: 
Northern Gateway, the Trans Mountain Expansion,  Keystone XL, the expansion of the Enbridge 
Mainline, the Line 9 flow reversal, and Energy East. These projects are at different points of development, regulatory review or construction.  
Through the plan for Responsible Resource Deve lopment (RRD), the Government of Canada is 
taking key steps to facilitate the diversification of Canada's energy exports markets, while strengthening environmental protection, improving the efficiency of the regulatory process and 
enhancing engagement with Aboriginal peoples in all aspects of resource development.  
Safe transportation systems are critical to ensu ring the responsible development of our natural 
resources. The Government is moving forward with several initiatives to further strengthen the safety regimes for pipelines, marine and rail, by building on the principles of: i) incident 
prevention; ii) preparedness and response; and, iii) liability and compensation.  As part of the RRD 
Plan, the Government introduced the Pipeline Safety Act on December 8, 2014 to further enhance Canada's world-class pipeline safety regime (link to Bill C-46: 
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Public ation.aspx?DocId=6825928&Language=E&Mode=1
). 
The Government of Canada will only approve projec ts that are safe for Canadians and safe for the 
environment. 
[Norway Question 3]: Accessible procurement regula tions and systems on the federal, provincial 
and municipal level are important in order to achi eve broad participation and competition. Public 
procurement is an important aspect of international trade, and is not to be used as a strategy for WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 97 - 
 
  economic policy. The CETA agreement will open up  for international participation in procurement 
processes in Canada to a larger extend than be fore. What is the expected result of increased 
competition within this field after the en try into force of the CETA agreement? 
Canada's Response:  The objectives of Canada's government procurement contracting are to 
acquire goods and services and to carry out construction in a manner that enhances access, 
competition and fairness, results in value for taxpay ers, and, as appropriate, achieves an optimal 
balance of overall benefits to the Crown and to Ca nadians. The Canada-EU CETA will contribute to 
achieving these objectives through increased competition in the Canadian government 
procurement market on the one hand, and greate r access to the EU government procurement 
market for Canadian suppliers on the other hand. 
[Norway Question 4]: Canada is currently taking part in a number of multilateral, regional and 
bilateral free trade negotiations. Considerable resources are allocated to negotiating bilateral 
agreements parallel to ongoing multilateral negotiations within the WTO. To what extend does Canada think the increasing number of bilateral and regional free trade agreements will have an 
influence on the multilateral negotiations? 
Canada's Response:  The WTO plays a crucial role in establishing the international framework of 
rules, supporting open markets, settling trade disputes, and providing a bulwark against 
protectionism. Multilateral trade negotiations remain the first-best option to stimulate global trade 
and strengthen economic growth. At the same time, bilateral and regional FTAs can complement the multilateral trading system by building on existing rules and disciplines to create "WTO-plus" agreements.  
As such, FTAs are an important complementary means to reduce barriers to trade, given their 
potential to yield faster and more ambitious outcomes than what can normally be achieved multilaterally. In this regard, Canada sees such agreements as having the potential to positively 
influence the future shape of multilateral rules and help modernize the multilateral trading system. 
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
3 CONSULTATIONS AND TRANSPARENCY 
Page 27, paragraph 3.1  
[Norway Question 5]: Canada, like Norway, values transparency and involvement in policy 
development. We are interested in knowing more about the formal and informal consultation and outreach processes in trade policy (mentioned in  3.1. of the Canadian report). Could Canada 
provide us with further information about these formal and informal processes? 
Canada's Response:  Engaging with domestic stakeholders is an essential component in building 
support for and commitment to Canada's international trade agenda. The Government of Canada 
engages with a wide variety of domestic partners and stakeholders such as provinces and 
territories, business councils, industry associations and non-governmental organizations. Each of these mechanisms has involved 
Canadian interests in different ways, but with the same end goal of providing informed and diverse 
perspectives on Canada's trade agenda. Formal consultation mechanisms have been established to ensure transparency and stakeholder involvemen t in trade policy development, and informal 
consultations are undertaken on specific issues to promote dialogue as required. 
Key formal consultation mechanisms that facilitate engagement and consensus-building with the 
provinces and territories, municipalities, industry  stakeholders, and the general public include: 
  High Level Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Meetings: DFATD holds regular senior-level 
meetings with provincial and territorial counter parts at the Ministerial and Deputy Minister 
level to strengthen FPT relations and collaboration on various international trade initiatives.   
  Committee on Trade (C-Trade): C-Trade is a Committee comprised of senior FPT trade 
policy officials that meets regularly to engage provinces and territories on issues related to ongoing trade negotiations as well as trade policy initiatives and disputes.   WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 98 - 
 
    Trade Negotiation Consultations: The Government of Canada is committed to encouraging 
the participation of all Canadians in the development of its policies and negotiating positions related to international trade. With regard to potential or actual negotiations, the Government of Canada also engages in broad- based consultations with the private sector, 
civil society groups, provinces and territories , and individual Canadians to help inform 
Canada's specific negotiating objectives and priorities.  
Prior to formally launching bilateral or regional FTA negotiations, the Government of 
Canada typically publishes a notice in the Canada Gazette soliciting comments from Canadians. Consultations continue throughout the negotiating process. Working with all levels of government, Canada continues its broad-based consultation approach to elicit the 
views of business and industry, the academic research community, and interested citizen-
based organizations and public interest gr oups, through both formal and informal 
mechanisms. Moreover, subject-specific lead negotiators may conduct separate 
consultation and outreach activities to inform Canadian negotiating positions. 
  Joint DFATD-Federation of Canadian Municipalities Working Group (JWG) on International 
Trade: The Government of Canada has committed to a strengthened relationship with the 
Federation of Canadian Municipa lities (FCM) to ensure that communities of all sizes across 
Canada benefit from, contribute to, and work alongside the Government of Canada toward 
shared objectives. DFATD engages the FCM through the JWG on International Trade, which provides a forum for dialogue with federal officials enabling municipal perspectives and 
concerns to be factored into the international trade policy development process. Meetings 
at the working level are held semi-annually, with senior-level meetings annually. 
 
  SME Advisory Board to the Minister of International Trade: The SME Advisory Board 
enables dialogue between DFATD and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), provides 
advice on issues related to obstacles to  export, DFATD programs and services, and 
improving global competitive advantage. The 18 member board is appointed by the 
Minister of International Trade, and includes presidents and CEOs of SMEs who are actively 
engaged in exporting. The Board also has four participant-observers: Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Association of Importers and Exporters, Canadian Federation of Independent 
Business, and Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; and five OGD observers: Industry 
Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Bu siness Development Bank of Canada, Export 
Development Canada and Canadian Commercial Corporation.  
 
Informal consultations are also undertaken on specific issues and are a regular occurrence. They are established to promote dialogue and engage wi th partners and stakeholders in order to seek 
advice on trade policy issues.  
Canada highly values the involvement of Canadians in identifying priorities in the area of trade 
policy. The formal and informal consultation mechanisms promote transparency and accountability, and facilitate involvement of domestic stakeholders. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 99 - 
 
  PERU (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH)  
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 2 EVOLUTION OF TRADE POLICY (2011-2015) 
2.3. Regional, bilateral and plurilateral initiatives  
2.3.4. Other bilateral and regional initiatives  
Page 17, paragraph 2.58-2.61  
 [Peru Question 1]: Could Canada provides a link to a site from which we could obtain further 
information on the texts of the "Science and tech nology agreements" referred to in paragraphs 
2.58-2.61? 
Canada's Response:  Information on the texts of Canada's Science and Technology Agreements 
can be accessed at the following address: 
http://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/eng /science/agreements.jsp (English) 
http://www.deleguescommerciaux.gc.ca/fr a/sciences/ententes.jsp (French). 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1. Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.3. Rules of origin 
Page 50, paragraph 3.13  [Peru Question 2]: Canada's non-preferential rules of origin are in place to, inter alia , distinguish 
MFN imports from those under the General Tariff. Th ere have been no changes in the MFN rules of 
origin since the previous review. For goods to qualify for MFN tariff treatment, at least 50% of their production cost must be incurred by the indu stry of one or more MFN beneficiaries (including 
Canada). In addition, goods must be finished in a country receiving MFN treatment in the form in 
which they are to be imported in Canada. Preferential rules of origin vary across preferential agreements (Table 3.3). FTA rules of origin are largely based on a tariff-shift methodology. In 
some cases, they contain a process, value, weight or volume requirement. 
Could you explain what is meant by the "industry" of one or more MFN beneficiaries? Also, could 
you explain the method used to calculate whether 50% of the production cost was incurred by the 
industry of an MFN beneficiary? 
Canada's Response:  "Industry" of one or more MFN beneficiaries means a producer of any 
country set out in the List of Countries in the Customs Tariff which is entitled to the MFN rates of duty, the only country not being entitled to the MFN rates of duty is North Korea. 
To qualify for the MFN tariff treatment, at least 50% of the cost of production of the goods must 
be incurred in one or more MFN beneficiary countries or Canada. Canadian content may be included as MFN originating in the calculation of the 50% requirement. Cost of production may 
include: (a) materials (exclusive of duties and taxes); (b) labour; and (c) factory overhead. The 
goods must be finished in a MFN beneficiary countr y in the form in which they were imported into 
Canada. 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailin g, and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.2 Safeguards Page 68, paragraph 3.59 
 
[Peru Question 3]:  (…)The CITT may conduct global safegu ard inquiries, exclusion inquiries, mid-
term reviews and extension inquiries pursuant to  the CITT Act, the CITT Regulations, and the CITT 
Rules. (…).  
What are the exclusion inquiries that the CITT may conduct? How are they initiated? 
Canada's Response:  If the CITT determines, in a global safeguard inquiry, that increased imports 
of goods are causing or are threatening to cause se rious injury, it must also determine if the goods WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 100 - 
 
  being imported from certain countries with which Canada has entered into a bilateral free trade 
agreement are substantial and contribute to the serious injury. In principle, Canada must exclude imports from that country from any global safeguard measures that it applies. Furthermore, if certain conditions are met, imports from NAFTA  countries must also be excluded from global 
safeguard measures. 
Nonetheless, Canada may apply safeguard measures  on imports from a country with which Canada 
has entered into a bilateral free trade agreement or from a NAFTA country that was previously 
excluded from global safeguard measures, if the CITT determines, after a complaint by a domestic 
producer, that a surge in imports from this country is undermining the effectiveness of global 
safeguard measures. Sections 30.01, 30.011 and 30.012 of the Canadian International Trade 
Tribunal Act set out this exclusion inquiry process. The CITT must decide within 30 days of receipt 
of a complaint if it will conduct such an inquiry. It must report to the Government within 60 days of initiating an inquiry. 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 4.1.6.2 Milk and dairy products 
Page 119, paragraph 4.36 
 [Peru Question 4]: (…)The industry is on a concentration path, with the number of farms declining 
by 10% between 2008 and 2013, and about 75% of the milk production being processed by only 
14% of the processing plants (owned by the three largest processors). Support levels for the dairy industry remain high; the Producer SCT as a share of revenue was 43.8% in 2013. (…).  
To what extent are the 14% of the plants (owned  by the three largest processors) that process 
about 75% of the milk production benefiting from the levels of support targeting the dairy sector? 
Canada's Response:  Dairy processors do not benefit from the levels of support targeting the 
dairy sector.  
4.1.7 Fisheries 
Page 125, paragraph 4.60 
[Peru Question 5]: In 2013, government financial transfers (GFTs) to the fisheries sector were 
estimated at Can$718.6 million, returning to leve ls similar to the ones over the 2005 to 2008 
period. GFTs represented 22% of the total 2013 landed value of Canadian fisheries (including production from aquaculture). The provision of infrastructure and unemployment insurance accounted for 51.5% of the total support.  
According to paragraph 4.60, the provision of  infrastructure and unemployment insurance 
accounted for 51.5% of the total support. What types of support accounted for the other 48.5% of the total support? Does the support for the fisheries sector target specific types of fisheries (in 
terms of size, geographical location, other)? 
Canada's Response:  In calculating government financial transfers (GFTs) to its fisheries sector, 
Canada uses as a guide the methodology of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) Committee for Fisheries (COFI). As noted in the Report by the Secretariat, 
the provision of infrastructure and unemployment insurance accounted for slightly more than half of Canada's total support in 2013. Of the remainin g transfers, the majority was accounted for by 
the following activities: 
  Support for fisheries research (approximately 21.5% of total support), in the form of 
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) internal salaries, operation and maintenance costs and capital expenditures. These activities support the provision of a scientific basis for the 
sustainable management of Canada's fisheries. 
  Fisheries management (approximately 12% of total support), which refers to spending on 
activities undertaken to ensure sustainable utilization of the fishery resource. This involves 
the development of fishery management plans, policies and programs; regulating access 
to and participation in the fishery through licensing; sustainable development of aquaculture; and other related activities. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 101 - 
 
    Enforcement (approximately 7% of total support), which involves ensuring compliance with 
Canadian fisheries legislation in order to conserve and protect the fishery resource for the benefit of Canadians.  
 
DFO delivers some programs targeted at specific types of fisheries, and which represent one-time 
investments intended to promote long-term sust ainability. For example, the Atlantic Lobster 
Sustainability Measures (ASLM) program, which was initiated in 2009 and ended in March 2014, 
provided funding in support of industry efforts to maintain healthy lobster stocks in all lobster 
fishing areas and improve lobster abundance in areas where stocks had declined. In fiscal year 2012/13, ASLM program expenditures totaled $7.9 million. 
DFO also delivers a number of programs intended to facilitate Aboriginal participation in fisheries 
and aquaculture and associated economic opportunities, and in the management of aquatic 
resources. This programming aligns with the constitutional obligations of the Government of Canada with respect to Aboriginal and treaty rights, and supports and promotes enhanced 
Aboriginal participation in fisheries, oceans management and aquaculture. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 102 - 
 
  SINGAPORE 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.2 Trade Policy Objectives 
Page 34, paragraph 2.12 
 [Singapore Question 1]: We note that Canada adopts a targeted, high-quality approach towards its 
air transport agreements as part of its trade po licy goals to improve international connectivity for 
Canadians, which is part of a strategic plan to prioritize markets and support commercial success in trade. As "targeted and high-quality" is not self-explanatory, we would appreciate if Canada could share the parameters it uses to determine what constitutes "targeted and high-quality", and 
if Canada could provide any examples of air tr ansport agreements which they deem to be of 
"high-quality". Given that Table 4.16 on page  146 shows the total number of non-resident 
international travellers to have stagnated since 2011, we are interested to understand Canada's 
views on whether such a "targeted and high-quality" approach has helped increase connectivity to 
Canada and served Canada well in terms of trade. 
Canada's Response:  Canada's approach to negotiating Air Transport Agreements (ATAs) is 
guided by the Government of Canada's Blue Sky Policy, which sets objectives in order to ensure 
that there is a regulatory environment to encourage long-term and sustainable competition, provide opportunities for Canadian airlines and airports to grow and compete, support Canada's international trade objectives as well as business and tourism sector priorities, and ensure a safe, 
secure, efficient and economically-viable air sector. In line with those objectives, Canada has 
adopted a proactive approach to the liberalization  of ATAs for passenger and all-cargo services, 
where it is in Canada's overall interest to do so. This approach has resulted in the negotiation of 
high-quality ATAs that address Canadian interest s and priorities. The Global Markets Action Plan 
(GMAP) recognizes the contribution of ATAs to support air travel and trade activity and the negotiation of targeted and high-quality ATAs that can increase Canada's international 
connectivity.   
Since the launch of the Blue Sky policy in November 2006, Canada has concluded new or 
expanded ATAs covering over 80 countries. Canada has concluded open agreements with 44 countries that cover approximately 70% of Canada's international passenger traffic. Canada has 
also concluded or offered an open agreement to countries collectively representing about 94% of 
Canada's overall international two-way merchandise trade. Based on the results to date, we believe that Canada's ATA negotiating approach has served and continues to serve Canada's 
priorities well.  
2.4.2 investment Canada Act 
Page 42, table 2.4 
 
[Singapore Question 2]: Could Canada share the intent behind the change in threshold basis for 
private sector WTO Member investors to enterprise value while maintaining the asset value based threshold for foreign state-owned enterprise (SOE) investors? 
Canada's Response: Foreign investment is crucial to our economy, and Canada has one of the 
most inviting investment climates in the world. 
The net benefit review threshold for investments under the Investment Canada Act in Canadian 
businesses involving WTO; private-sector investors will increase to $1 billion in enterprise value 
over a four-year period (i.e., $600 million enterprise value in 2015, $800 million in 2017 and $ 1 billion in 2019). By raising the review threshold, we will focus net benefit reviews on the most 
significant transactions and ensure Canada continues to benefit from inward flows of capital that 
help to drive Canadian growth, jobs and prosperity. 
The concept of enterprise value better reflects the market value of a business as a going concern 
as it captures the increasing importance of the service and knowledge-based industries of our 
economy.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 103 - 
 
  In 2012, in clarifying how it assess investments by SOEs under the Investment Canada Act , the 
Government announced that it would maintain the asset value net benefit review threshold for SOEs. This meant that the Government retained its existing authorities to assess the net benefit of 
foreign SOE transactions in the future. 
2.4.3 Other Investment Restrictions 
Page 44, table 2.6  
[Singapore Question 3]: We note that Canada limits foreign ownership of airlines to 25% and, 
while this cap is strictly enforced for voting interests, there has been more flexibility accorded to equity investment. Given that the foreign ownershi p cap is adopted as "best practice" by Canadian 
carriers, we would appreciate if Canada could clarify the rationale for maintaining the foreign 
ownership cap in relation to the Canada Transportation Act or other relevant legislation. 
Canada's Response:  As do many countries, Canada places limits on the foreign ownership of 
voting shares in Canadian air carriers, and requires that control in fact remain with Canadians. 
While Canadian air carriers may avail themselves of variable voting shares, this in fact does not 
change the fundamental requirements regarding ownership and control. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements 
Page 46, paragraph 3.2  [Singapore Question 4]: Could Canada share what pre-arrival information is submitted by air, 
marine, highway and rail carriers, and what are th e "advance secondary data" submitted by freight 
forwarders and importers? 
Canada's Response:  the CBSA requires pre-arrival information for the following Cargo data 
elements in air, marine, highway and rail: 
Carriers  are required to submit the following Data elements (colour coded) 
 
Cargo Data Elements:   
 Shipper 
 Consignee 
 Notify Party (if available) 
 Place of Acceptance (if different than shipper address) 
 Foreign Place of Loading 
 Port of Report 
 Port of Destination/Exit 
 Delivery Address (if different  from consignee address) 
 Customs Self-Assessment (CSA) Indicator 
 CSA Importer Business Number 
 Estimated Date of Arrival 
 Estimated Time of Arrival 
 Seal 
 Cargo Control Number (CCN) 
 Consolidated Freight Indicator 
 Description 
 Quantity 
 Cargo Weight 
 Dangerous Goods Number (if applicable) 
 Special Instructions (if available) 
 Amendment Code (if applicable) 
 Marks and Numbers (if available) 
 Equipment Identifier 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 104 - 
 
  Conveyance Data Elements:  
 Port of Report 
 Conveyance Reference Number 
 Estimated Date of Arrival  
 Estimated Time of Arrival  
 Empty/Loaded Status Code 
 Seal  
 Amendment Code 
 Mode of Transportation  
 Equipment Identifier  
 Tractor Plate Information (Highway Only)  
 Trailer Plate information (Highway Only)  
 Container Information  
 Cargo Exception Code  
 Related CCN  
 Freight Forwarders or importing parties acting on th eir behalf are required to submit the following  
 
Supplementary Report Data Elements  
 Supplementary Reference Number  
 Primary Cargo Control Number  
 Carrier Code of Primary Carrier  
 Movement Type  
 Mode of Transport  
 Consignee  
 Shipper  
 Notify Party 
 Description of Goods  
 Quantity  
 Weight  
 Port or Terminal of Delivery 
 Equipment Number  
 Empty/Loaded Status Code  
 Dangerous Goods Code  
 
House Bill Data Elements  
 Freight Forwarder Carrier Code  
  Mode Type  
  Movement Type 
  Cargo Control Number  
  Port of Destination  
  Port of Destination Sub-location  
  Shipper  
  Consignee  
  Notify Party 
  Delivery Address  
  Quantity 
  Quantity Unit of Measure  
  Cargo Description  
  Cargo Weight  
  Cargo Weight Unit of Measure  
  Special Instructions  
  Dangerous Goods Code  
  HS Code  
  Equipment Type  
  Equipment Identifier  
  Primary Cargo Control Number 
  Consolidator  
  Place of Consolidation  
  Consolidated Freight Indicator / House bill WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 105 - 
 
    Dangerous Goods Special Instructions  
 House Bill Close  
 Previous Cargo Control Number  
 Freight Forwarder Carrier Code  
 Related Cargo Control Numbers  
 Amendment Reason Code  
 
Black – Mandatory Red – Conditional Blue – Optional 
 
Page 46, paragraph 3.3 
[Singapore Question 5]: Could Canada share the difference in roles between the National 
Targeting Center (NTC) and the regional targeting units? 
Canada's Response:  This information was not accurately reflected in the Secretariat report. All of 
the CBSA's targeting operations have been centralized into the National Targeting Center, and 
there are no longer regional targeting units operating within the CBSA. 
Page 47, paragraph 3.6 [Singapore Question 6]: We note that the [Can ada] Border Service Agency (CBSA) administers 
several border programmes. Could CBSA share the learning points and challenges faced in 
administering these programmes, e.g. any diffic ulties faced in getting industry buy-in to 
participate in the programmes or feedback from industry? 
Canada's Response:  The CBSA has had several challenges during the development and 
modernization of the Agency's Trusted Trader programs. These challenges include: 
Application Process – Despite several revisions of the Trusted Trader applications, the Agency 
continues to pursue innovative ways of reducing the length of time to process and approve 
applications. These improvements have proven to reduce costs in the form of salary dollars spent 
to process applications.  
National Standardization – It is difficult to maintain National standards for Trusted Trader 
programs in a country that is regionally diverse, and a program that is open to all sectors of the 
supply chain (marine, air, custom brokers, rail, importers, highway carriers).  
Modernization  – In the global changing market,  the CBSA's challenge is remaining relevant to 
industry's needs and emerging technologies wh ile balancing the CBSA's mandate towards health, 
safety and security. The Agency is constantly striving to improve current program delivery and will 
be focusing on shortening the length of time it  takes to complete an application, as well as 
streamlining the application process with one submission, one site validation, and one CBSA point 
of contact for members in both Trusted Trader programs. 
Benefits  – Providing tangible benefits to make it appealing for industry to join. The CBSA has 
challenges in quantifying the benefits the Trusted Trader Programs provides to industry in 
monetary terms. The savings received to each member may vary greatly depending upon which 
program(s) of which they are a member, the company' s size as well as the types of benefits they 
receive. Many of the proposed enhanced benefits  would require extensive regulatory and systems 
changes which can be both a lengthy process and costly undertaking.   
The CBSA has had several learning points during the development and modernization of the 
Agency's Trusted Trader programs. These learning points include: 
Application Process – Both PIP and CSA programs initially had a paper-based application process 
when the programs were introduced. This was time consuming for the trade community to fill out 
and submit as well as for the CBSA to maintain an d process. The CBSA is taking the process from WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 106 - 
 
  a manual one to an automated one which will allow us to better process, update and monitor the 
applications and reduced the burden on both trade and the CBSA.  
Evolution – We have found that holding an international presence and participation on 
international bodies, such as SAFE and the AEO Regional Strategy Steering Committee, has given 
Trusted Trader programs the opportunity to further develop these programs. Canada's AEO 
program is constantly evolving and improving, and concepts for promoting the program are always being developed.  
Benefits – The Agency has learned that to keep the programs relevant and attract new participants 
it is necessary to continually explore new ways of enhancing and adapting the programs to reflect 
new and emerging threats and trends, and levering new and emerging technologies.  
Consultation – The CBSA has made it a priority to consult with industry. When introducing new 
programs or making changes to existing programs and policies, the CBSA actively consults and 
involves trade. Through the engagement of the private sector through formal consultative bodies such as the Trusted Trader Sub-committee of the Border Commercial Consultative Committee 
(BCCC), we are able to solicit stakeholder feedba ck on program development and modernization.  
3.1.5.2 Excise taxes and duties 
Pages 59-60, paragraph 3.36 
 
[Singapore Question 7]: In the situation where reduced rates (or exemptions) apply to beer made by domestic brewers and wine wholly composed of Canadian-grown agricultural products –  
(a) Could Canada share on the details of this reduction/exemption and the intent? 
(b) As the reduced rates or exemption of excise du ties appear to be an import tariff for non-
domestic entities in this case, could Canada share further on how the application of such a measure differs from import tariffs? 
 
Canada's Response:  In 2006, excise duty relief measures were implemented for Canadian 
vintners and Canadian brewers. This relief included  the introduction of an excise duty exemption 
for wine produced from 100% Canadian-grown agri cultural product, and reduced rates of excise 
duty on the first 75,000 hectoliters of beer pr oduced per year by Canadian brewers. Further 
information regarding the application of these relief measures can be found on the following Canada Revenue Agency webpages: 
For wine: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edn15/edn15-e.html 
For beer: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edbn8/edbn8-e.html 
b) These measures do not represent an import tari ff because they do not impose an additional tax 
burden on imports vis-à-vis domestic products. The amount of targeted excise duty relief under 
these specific measures is relatively small and was largely modeled after similar programs in other countries. Furthermore, these measures do not have any significant impact on the demand for 
beer and wine imports in Canada. Indeed, imports of beer and wine into Canada have increased 
32% and 30%, respectively, since 2006.  
3.1.8 Standards and other technical requirements 
Pages 69-70, paragraph 3.70 
 
[Singapore Question 8]: For learning purposes, could Canada share the basis or criteria for which it assesses and determines whether technical regulations would affect or potentially affect trade? 
Canada's Response:  The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management  (CDRM) establishes the 
responsibility of government departments and agen cies to seek advice and comply with Canada's 
international trade obligations. 
The development of domestic technical regulations is evaluated with a view to assessing any 
implications for trade, namely: WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 107 - 
 
  1) Does the regulation deal with a good that may be traded? 
2) Does it deal with characteristics of the product, labelling or testing requirements? 
 Following which, regulations would be assessed to determine what the trade impact may be: 
Canadian, Provincial and Territorial regulators  have expertise in the development and 
administration of regulations within specific sectors. Their input and assistance in helping Canada identify any potential trade impact of proposed measures in a given area is extremely valuable. In 
addition, their assessment as to whether or not those proposed regulations differ significantly from 
Canadian or international practices in a way that could be disruptive to trade is very helpful.  
Industry and national trade associations play an important role in representing consumer interests 
or companies engaged in international trade and can provide insight as to the potential trade 
implications of newly proposed regulations. Many federal government departments publish 
information about legislative and regulatory processes and associated consultations on their websites and/or on the Consulting with Canadians  website 
(http://www1.canada.ca/consultingcanadians/). Depart ments often list these initiatives in their 
forward regulatory plans. Canada also invites external stakeholders to contact Canada through formal consultation mechanisms such as the Canada Gazette  process or via WTO notifications.  
The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and De velopment may also review proposed domestic 
technical regulations to determine their potential trade impact in consultation with regulators. 
3.2.3 Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
Page 75, paragraph 3.100 
 
[Singapore Question 9]: Having noted, in relation to export permits for the items on the Export 
Control List (ECL), that Canada allows for "some ex ceptions for exports to the United States" and it 
was further mentioned in footnote 73 that "exp ort permits are not required for most controlled 
goods or technology destined to a final consignee in the United States," could Canada share  –  
(a) Whether Canada would consider the grant of similar exceptions to other countries? 
(b) If yes to (a), what are the criteria for obtaining such exceptions? 
 Canada's Response:  As a point of clarification, the comments made in footnote 73 refer to 
"controlled goods and technology" which are items of a strategic and sensitive nature controlled 
for security reasons pursuant to multilateral agreement in the various export non-proliferation and 
export control regimes (Wassenaar Arrangement,  Missile Technology Control Regime, Nuclear 
Supplier's Group, Australia Group). The items in  question would be similar to those items 
controlled by Singapore's Strategic Goods Control List.  
However, due to the nature of the close and long-standing military cooperation and shared border 
with the United States, including the integrated nature of North America's defence industry, permit 
exceptions apply to most Group 2 exports destined for final use in the United-States. At the same 
time the United States also provides licence-free access to Canada for certain items under the "Canadian Exemption". Given the unique relationship Canada shares with the United States, there is no basis upon which Canada would consider similar exceptions with other countries.  
That said, it should be noted that separately, Canada has administratively streamlined processes in 
place for the export of certain items on Canada's Export Control List in the form of General Export Permits for a number of countries in certain circumstances. These types of processes are 
commonly used by several WTO member countries and are granted to a country on a case-by-case 
basis, based upon their national discretion. These processes can be implemented for any number of reasons, including in recognition of their long standing mutual defence relationship, adherence 
to the relevant export control regimes, and the strength of a country's export controls.  
3.3.6.6 Copyright 
Page 104, paragraph 3.183  
[Singapore Question 10]: For learning purposes, could Canada share: WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 108 - 
 
  a) Whether international exhaustion (which is applicable to materials in tangible form) is also 
applicable to the release of copyright material online, and what is the rationale for such a policy? 
b) Specifically does the special regime for the parallel importation of books also extend to that for 
books in digital form? 
c) What are the scenarios by which there could be  parallel import of books in digital form? 
 
Canada's Response:   
a) Canada provides the copyright owner with a distribution right in works, performer's 
performances, and sound recordings in the form of a tangible object, as long as the ownership in 
that object has never previously been transferred in or outside Canada with the authorization of 
the copyright owner (see section 3(1)(j), 15(1.1)(e) and 18(1.1)(b) Copyright Act ). This condition 
is described as "international exhaustion". However, under the Canadian Copyright Act , the 
distribution right applies only to tangible objects, which would not include digital files. As far as 
intangible objects, such as digital files, are concerned, there is no distribution right to be 
exhausted. 
b) The special regime for the parallel importation of books applies to "copies of books". Books is 
defined in section 2 of the Copyright Act  as follows (emphasis added): "book" means a volume or a 
part or division of a volume, in printed form, but does not include: 
 (a) a pamphlet, 
 (b) a newspaper, review, magazine or other periodical, 
 (c) a map, chart, plan or sheet music wher e the map, chart, plan or sheet music is 
separately published, and 
 (d) an instruction or repair manual that accompanies a product or that is supplied as an 
accessory to a service. 
E-books would not qualify as "printed form". Accordingly, the special regime for the importation of 
books does not apply to books in digital from. 
c) Making books in digital form available online to the public may involve other rights, such as the 
reproduction or communication right, which are not subject to exhaustion. 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3.4.2 Industry Structure 
Page 153, paragraph 4.162 
 [Singapore Question 11]: Given that there is a need for movement of hazardous waste and 
hazardous recyclable materials in and out of Canada, could Canada share some of their measures 
or initiatives (unilateral or bilateral) where such waste movements are tracked and controlled but implementation of this tracking and control will not be onerous (in terms of documentation, 
customs efficiency, cost and time) to genuine traders of these materials? 
Canada's Response:  Through its administration of prior informed consent procedures for 
hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material, Canada has initiated various measures to reduce administrative burden related permit application and movement tracking. The following are 
examples of measures which have been implemented or initiated to date: 
Pre-approval: A pre-approved facility is one that  has been approved in advance by the competent 
government authority to receive shipments of ce rtain types of waste destined for recycling. 
(Competent government authority can mean the relevant provincial or territorial authority in the 
case of imports, or the foreign jurisdiction for exports.) The facility may be granted approval to 
receive a certain quantity of a specific recyclable  material over a given period of time. With the 
pre-approval mechanism, 30-day tacit consent under OECD Decision (2001)107/Final is reduced 
f r o m  3 0  d a y s  t o  s e v e n  d a y s .  I t  m u s t  b e  n o t e d ,  h o w e v e r ,  t h a t  n o  e x p o r t  o r  i m p o r t  t o  a  p r e -WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 109 - 
 
  approved facility may begin until a permit has been issued by the federal Minister of the 
Environment.  Permit of Equivalent Level of Environmental Safety (PELES): A Permit of Equivalent Level of 
Environmental Safety (PELES) is a permit issued  by the federal Minister of the Environment 
authorizing variance to provisions outlined in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999  
(CEPA 1999) and associated regulations respecting the movement of hazardous waste and 
hazardous recyclable material. In order to issue a PELES, the Minister must be satisfied that the 
proposed activities provide a level of environmental safety at least equivalent to that provided by 
compliance with CEPA 1999. A PELES must be consistent with international environmental agreements that are binding on Canada and is subject to conditions fixed by the Minister.  
 
Electronic Notice Submission: Environment Canada is in the process of developing an on-line system that would allow regulates to submit their notifications respecting movements of hazardous 
waste and hazardous recyclable material to Envi ronment Canada electronically. This electronic 
submission of data would reduce the burden asso ciated with the current paper-based system. It 
would also allow regulates to clone previous submi ssions (reducing the amount of time required to 
submit notifications) and will facilitate the submission of multiple notices at one time (for facilities 
that have already developed internal systems).  Electronic Data Exchange between Competent Authorities: Before 2012, North American 
governments (Canada, United States and Mexi co) were exchanging information related to 
proposed shipments of hazardous waste and haza rdous recyclable material using a paper-based 
system. In order to make information-sharing fa ster and enforcement response time quicker the 
governments worked together to create the Notice and Consent Electronic Data Exchange that 
became fully operational in 2012. The program is a pioneering node-to-node electronic system that connects the three North American agencies  in charge of authorizing the transboundary 
movements of hazardous wastes and materials. 
 S i n g l e  W i n d o w  I n i t i a t i v e  l e d  b y  C a n a d a  B o r d e r  S e r v i c e s  A g e n c y :  I n  a n  e f f o r t  t o  s t r e a m l i n e  a n d  simplify the import process and significantly re duce the paper burden on the business community, 
the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is leading a Government of Canada Single Window 
Initiative (SWI).  Through SWI, traders will be able to provide all required import information electronically to the CBSA. In turn, the CBSA will transmit the information to the appropriate 
department or agency responsible for regulating the goods. These departments and agencies will 
assess the information and provide any border-related decisions required. The SWI reflects a commitment made by Canada and the United States  (U.S.) under the Beyond the Border Action 
Plan to reduce the administrative burden on industry. The data requirements for the SWI in 
Canada will be aligned to the greatest extent possible with those of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the World Customs Organization Data Model.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 110 - 
 
  SWITZERLAND 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONEMENT 1.5.1.1 Composition of Trade 
Page 22, paragraph 1.28 
 [Switzerland Question 1]: Oil and gas extraction are of major importance to the Canadian 
economy, contributing 6.1% to GDP in 2014. As stated in paragraph 1.28 of the Secretariat's 
report, the share of minerals in total Canadian exports amounts to 29%. Canada's main export market, the United States, has significantly increa sed its domestic energy production in recent 
years. What is Canada planning to do to lower its exposure to oil exports to the United States? 
Canada's Response:  Canada is the United States' largest oil supplier. Late last year, Canadian oil 
exports to the U.S. surpassed 3 million barrels per day for the first time ever, more than Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined. 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) es timates that the U.S. will still need to import 8 
million barrels of oil per day by 2040 – up from 7.3 million barrels in 2014. While it is projected that Canada will supply over half of these US impo rts, Canada's oil production is projected to grow 
nearly 2 million b/d beyond what the US will absorb in the future. 
Canada must broaden its customer base in order to realize its full potential as a global supplier of 
oil. Canada will continue to be a key supplier to the U.S. but shifting global demand and supply conditions make it imperative for Canada to access new, growing markets, such as Europe, China 
and India. 
To capitalize on these new opportunities, several pipeline projects are proposed to bring Canada's 
crude oil to new markets, including: Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain Expansion, Line 9 flow 
reversal, and Energy East. These projects are at di fferent points of development, regulatory review 
or construction.  
Canada has a market based energy framework whereby the private sector makes investment 
decisions based on Canada's attractiveness as a place to do business. It is the role of government 
to put in place an investment and regulatory cl imate that facilitates market and infrastructure 
investments. To that end, through the plan fo r Responsible Resource Development (RRD), the 
Government of Canada is taking  key steps to diversify Canada's energy exports markets while 
strengthening environmental protection, improving the efficiency of the regulatory process and 
enhancing engagement with Aboriginal peoples in all aspects of resource development.  
Canada's government has lowered taxes and reduced red tape. Canada has one of the world's 
most attractive investment climates. Bloomberg ranks Canada as the 2nd best country in the world 
to do business.  
Responsible Resource Development was particularly important for the oil and gas sector. It 
modernized Canada's regulatory system to be more predictable and to provide more timely review 
processes for major projects. Canada's commitment to the energy sector is also evident in its work on building world class safety systems for rail, ta nkers and pipelines, bringing greater confidence 
to Canadians and clearer accountability to companie s. Canada's work to build world class pipeline 
and marine safety systems is built around three pillars: i) incident prevention; ii) preparedness 
and response; and, iii) liability and compensati on. They are underpinned by the "polluter pays" 
principle, which will be enshrined in law.  
The Government is also strengthening its engagement and participation by First Nations and local 
communities in all aspects of resource development. 
Canada has established the Major Projects Management Office West which is now operational in 
Vancouver to identify opportunities for First Nations to more directly participate in the employment 
and business opportunities arising from development of energy projects. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 111 - 
 
  Canada is working with the BC government and BC First Nations to establish a Tripartite Forum to 
promote better communication and make decisions on specific projects and resource development in general. 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 General framework 
Page 32, paragraph 2.2  
[Switzerland Question 2]: It is mentioned in pa ragraph 2.2 that the Agreement on Internal Trade 
focuses on reducing trade barriers in eleven specific sectors. Could you specify in which sectors? 
Canada's Response: The Agreement on Internal Trade focuse s on the following eleven sectors: 
procurement, investment, labour mobility, consumer products, agricultural and food goods, 
alcoholic beverages, natural resources processing, energy, communications, transportation, 
environmental protection. 
Page 32, paragraph 2.4 
[Switzerland Question 3]: According to paragraph 2.4, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade 
and Development maintains a number of consultative bodies, which include private sector actors. Do the private sector actors have any power to impede the elaboration of government policies? 
Canada's Response:  The role of members of consultative bodies is to advise the government on 
their perspectives on and insights into key issues of interest to the Department. This advice is used to inform the development of policies and programs by the government. In their roles as 
participants of consultative bodies, members do not hold any power to impede government policy 
development, as the Minister of International Trade is not bound by their advice. 
Page 33, paragraph 2.6 [Switzerland Question 4]: It is mentioned in paragraph 2.6 that in the context of Canada's FTA 
negotiations, the Government of Canada is committed to engaging in broad-based consultations 
with the private sector, civil society groups, and individual Canadians to help inform Canada's 
negotiating objectives and priorities. Can these individuals and groups block or have a decisive 
impact on international negotiations and the trade agenda on a subject that the government 
deems to be necessary? 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada is committed to encouraging the participation of 
all Canadians in the development of its policies and negotiating positions related to international 
trade. With regard to potential or actual negotiations, the Government of Canada engages in 
broad-based consultations with the private sector, civil society groups, provinces and territories, and individual Canadians to help inform Canada's specific negotiating objectives and priorities. 
The Government of Canada works closely with stakeholders to develop its trade negotiating 
priorities and positions. The views expressed during  the consultation process help inform Canada's 
trade negotiating objectives and priorities. Stak eholder views are taken into the fullest extent 
possible; however, the results of consultations do not solely determine the eventual positions 
adopted by Canada in its trade negotiations. This remains the prerogative of the Government.  
2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.2.2 Unilateral preferential regimes 
Page 40, paragraph 2.30 
[Switzerland Question 5]: We note in paragraph 2.30 that Canada has revised its preference 
scheme for developing countries – its General Preferential Tariff – with a view to restrict it to the 
poorest countries, by graduating 72 higher-income, trade-competitive countries as of 1 January 
2015. This much resembles the "Focus on Needs" in itiative applied by the EU, which as of January 
1
st 2014, excluded all countries within the (World Bank's) Upper Middle Income Economies 
category from its General System of Preferences.  Could Canada explain the reasoning behind this 
decision and the expected results in terms of trade patterns? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 112 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  Canada undertook a comprehensive review of its General Preferential Tariff 
in order to ensure that it was appropriately aligned with the current global landscape and other major tariff-preference granting countries and to  focus benefits on countries most in need. 
Sources of imports are expected to shift over time (e.g. as importers shift to alternate GPT-eligible 
or other duty-free sources of supply).  
More information can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement of the General 
Preferential Tariff Withdrawal Order (2013 GPT Review) (SOR/2013-161), published in Part II of 
the Canada Gazette on October 9, 2013 and available at the following link: 
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2013/2013-10-09/html/sor-dors161-eng.php. 
2.4 Investment Regime 
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act 
Page 41, paragraph 2.37 
 [Switzerland Question 6]: In paragraph 2.37 it is stated that Canada's 1985 Investment Canada 
Act (ICA) provides the main legal framework for reviewing foreign investment and allows the 
Canadian government to examine foreign investments which surpass a certain level. The current 2014 threshold (table 2.4 below) which a company is not obliged to give notice on large-scale 
investments is 354 million Canadian dollars for WTO Members. In the context of the EU-Canada 
Comprehensive Economic and Trade agreement (CETA) negotiations, the EU negotiated a substantial increase in the threshold for review under the Investment Canada Act to 1.5 billion 
Canadian dollars for EU investors. Will this threshold also be extended to other WTO Members 
under its MFN commitments? 
Canada's Response:  Investment plays an important role in the Canadian economy and is crucial 
in linking Canada to global value chains. Greater investment by foreign sources in Canada and by 
Canadian businesses abroad stimulates economic growth and job creation, provides new 
technologies and increases competition in the marketplace. 
The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement's (CETA) investment 
chapter will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, stability, transparency and 
protection for their investments while preserving full rights for governments to legislate and regulate in the public interest. 
CETA raises the net benefit review threshold to $1. 5 billion for EU investors. Canada's other free 
trade agreement (FTA) partners will benefit as a result of Most Favoured Nation commitments in 
Canada's other FTAs.  
However, this higher threshold will not be exte nded to all WTO Members, since WTO rules provide 
flexibility for WTO Members to conclude FTAs that provide bilateral, regional, and plurilateral 
trading partners with preferential treatment as long as these agreements meet certain standards for comprehensiveness and ambitiousness.  
CETA is Canada's most comprehensive and ambitious trade agreement, broader in scope and 
deeper in ambition than the historic North Amer ican Free Trade Agreement. CETA will eliminate 
virtually all tariffs between Canada and the EU, provide Canada and the EU's service suppliers the most favourable access either has ever given to a trading partner, and cover the full range of 
elements that shape modern international trade, including goods, services, investment, intellectual 
property, government procurement, non-tariff measures, and regulatory cooperation.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures directly affecting imports 
3.1.4 Tariffs 3.1.4.2 WTO bindings 
Page 55, paragraph 3.22 
 [Switzerland Question 7]: According to paragraph 3.22 of the Secretariat's report, it appears that 
the MFN ad valorem applied rate exceeds the specific bound rate for one tariff line (HS 
1602.3991). What is the legal basis for such an increase? Which measures will Canada undertake WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 113 - 
 
  so that the MFN applied rate is not higher than the bound rate? Which procedures are in place to 
ensure the compliance of the MFN applied rates with the bound rates? 
Canada's Response:  The item has been revoked and reintroduced over the years with different 
descriptions and rates. It has also been affected  by HS transpositions and simplification of 
Canada's Tariff schedule. As such, it appears that either the bound rate and/or applied rate may 
be incorrect for this item as a result of these changes. Canada will undertake the necessary adjustments. 
3.1 measures directly affecting imports 
3.1.5.2 Excise taxes and duties Page 59, paragraph 3.36  
[Switzerland Question 8]: Paragraph 3.36 states that reduced excise tax rates or exemptions 
thereof may apply to beer made by domestic brewer and wine wholly composed of Canadian-grown agricultural products. Furthermore, in paragraph 3.38  the Secretariat's report notes that 
some provinces levy additional taxes on products such as tobacco, fuel and alcoholic beverages 
while certain domestic products in selected provinces profit from reduced rates. In addition various commercial operators benefit from exemptions or rebates with respect to additional fuel taxes 
levied. Could Canada provide more information on the applied preferential tax rates for domestic 
producers or certain sectors and explain their consistency with GATT provisions? 
Canada's Response:  In 2006, excise duty relief measures were implemented for Canadian 
vintners and Canadian brewers. This relief included  the introduction of an excise duty exemption 
for wine produced from 100% Canadian-grown agri cultural product, and reduced rates of excise 
duty on the first 75,000 hectoliters of beer pr oduced per year by Canadian brewers. Further 
information regarding the application of these relief measures can be found on the following 
Canada Revenue Agency webpages: 
For wine: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edn15/edn15-e.html 
For beer: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edbn8/edbn8-e.html 
These measures do not impose an additional tax burden on imports vis-à-vis domestic products. 
The amount of targeted excise duty relief under these specific measures is relatively small and was largely modeled after similar programs in other countries. Furthermore, these measures do not have any significant impact on the demand for beer and wine imports in Canada. Indeed, imports 
of beer and wine into Canada have increased 32% and 30%, respectively, since 2006.  
3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailin g, and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing duties 
Page 64, paragraph 3.48 
 [Switzerland Question 9]: In para. 3.48, the Secretariat's report notes that there has been a steep 
increase in the number of anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14. Also, in paragraph 3.55, the 
Secretariat's report indicates that all expiry reviews in 2014 resulted in continuing most of the reviewed AD measures and CVD's duties. Could Canada indicate reasons for the increase in investigations and why reviews conducted recently resulted in the continuation of remedies? 
Canada's Response:  Canada notes that the number of anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14 
was not typical of Canada's general declining trend in the number of anti-dumping investigations. For example, there were only 10 anti-dumping investigations initiated in the preceding three 
years, from 2009 to 2011.  
The increase in anti-dumping investigations in Canada in 2012-2014 is limited to a narrow range of 
products that may be affected by underlying issues of global concern (e.g. global steel production 
overcapacity). Trade remedies investigations are legitimate tools to address situations where 
unfair trading practices of foreign firms and governments are causing or threatening to cause injury to domestic industry. Canada notes that its experience in anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14 is consistent with global trends over this time period. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 114 - 
 
  Expiry reviews are only initiated if the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) determines 
that such a review is warranted, based on evidence  submitted by interested parties. In an expiry 
review, the CBSA will first determine whether the expiry of a measure is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping and/or  subsidizing of subject goods. If the CBSA 
determines that that the expiry of  a measure is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of 
dumping and/or subsidizing, the CITT will then conduct an inquiry to determine if the continued and/or subsidizing of subject goods is likely to result in injury.  
Measures subject to an expiry review will be co ntinued if the CBSA determines that the expiry of 
the measure is likely to result in continued or resumed dumping and/or subsidizing of subject goods and the CITT determine that the continued or resumed dumping and/or subsidizing of subject goods is likely to result in continued injury to the domestic industry.  
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
Page 71  
[Switzerland Question 10]: The Secretariat's report notes that the Canadian Food Inspection 
Agency (CFIA) will be working with small and me dium enterprises to explore approaches tailored 
to their operational needs and to assist them in achieving compliance. Will the CFIA work with 
foreign small and medium enterprises as well? How can such enterprises comment on the 
proposed regulations? 
Canada's Response:  A s  t h e  G o v e r n m e n t  o f  C a n a d a  u p d a t e s  i t s  f o o d  s a f e t y  r e g u l a t i o n s ,  i t  i s  
engaging micro and small businesses in a round of targeted consultations in spring 2015 
(G/SPS/CAN/938, G/TBT/CAN/448). These consultations enable the Government of Canada to 
discuss general food safety approaches in order to assess options that would reduce regulatory burden on micro and small business while maintaining the integrity of Canada's food safety 
system. Feedback received from these targeted cons ultations will assist in the development of the 
proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations . To provide an overview:  
 Feedback is sought from interested stakeholders and participation is encouraged. Participants 
should read the discussion paper and complete the questionnaire which can be found on the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency's website. 
 The purpose of this consultation is to discuss a pr oposed approach to strengthen food safety in 
Canada and to seek input on what this would mean for micro and small businesses.  
 Options to be discussed for reducing burden include: 
- Full or partial exemptions from certain requirements 
- Cost accommodation - Providing more time to comply with requirements 
 
Canada would also like to hear more from companies on the type of tools and support that micro and small businesses might find helpful in their efforts to produce safe food and comply with new 
food regulations (e.g. tailor-made information, co aching, and/or training). There is a range of 
guidance/tools provided for industry (both domestic and international) to support compliance to current Canadian requirements. Canada will notify when regulations have been proposed and seek 
comments from WTO Members and will take any comments provided into consideration in the final 
regulations.  
3.3 Measures affecting production and trade 
3.3.3 Competition policy and price controls 
3.3.3.1 Main regulatory and institutional framework 
Page 82, paragraph 3.120  
[Switzerland Question 11]: Swiss and EU competition law "stricto sensu" are based on three 
pillars: abusive use of market dominance, merger s and cartel agreements. According to paragraph 
3.120 the Canadian Competition Act makes a distinction between mergers, criminal matters and 
reviewable trade practices. We thus understand that a distinction is made not with regard to the 
conducts themselves, but more on the way these conducts are seized and assessed. Could you please confirm this understanding? 
Canada's Response:  As noted in the Report, Canadian competition law differentiates between 
mergers, criminal matters and reviewable trade practices as general categories of competition law. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 115 - 
 
  The specific provisions of Canada's Competition Act (Act) cover similar conduct as those under the 
pillars of Swiss and EU competition law (abusive use of market dominance, mergers and cartel agreements). In Canada, "criminal matters" includes  cartel agreements, as well as certain false or 
misleading representations. "Reviewable trade practices" includes for example, abuse of 
dominance, exclusive dealing and certain competitor agreements.  
The Canadian approach can be clarified using the example of competitor collaborations from the 
2009 Competitor Collaboration Guidelines.  These Guidelines provide an overview of the analytical 
framework applied by the Competition Bureau (Bureau) in assessing existing and proposed 
collaborations between competitors. This includes how the Bureau will determine whether the collaboration should be assessed under the conspiracy provision in section 45 of the Act (a criminal matter), the civil agreements provision in section 90.1 of the Act (a reviewable trade practice), or 
whether the collaboration should be assessed under other provisions in the Act (e.g. section 92 of 
the Act – merger provision).  
As noted in the Guidelines, the criminal proh ibition is reserved for agreements between 
competitors to fix prices, allocate markets or restrict output that constitute "naked restraints" on 
competition (restraints that are not implemented in furtherance of a legitimate collaboration, strategic alliance or joint venture). Other forms of competitor collaborations, such as joint 
ventures and strategic alliances, may be subject to review under the civil agreements provision in 
section 90.1 that prohibits agreements only where they are likely to substantially lessen or prevent competition. A proposed or completed acquisition of control over, or significant interest in, the whole or part of a business through the purchase or lease of shares or assets, by amalgamation or 
combination, will be assessed under the merger  provisions in section 92, and not the civil 
agreements provision in section 90.1 or the co nspiracy provision in section 45 of the Act. 
3.3.3.3 Price controls 
Page 85-86, paragraph 3.129 
 [Switzerland Question 12]: As stated in paragrap h 3.129 of the Secretariat's report the prices of 
patented medicines are controlled by an independent Board. How often are the prices of patented 
medicines reviewed and on which basis (comparison with a panel of countries, exchange rate)? Is the problem of excessive pricing only in this sector dealt with or is it also possible to intervene more generally on basis of the Competition Act? 
Canada's Response:  The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) is an independent, 
quasi-judicial body which was established by Parliament in 1987 under the Patent Act ( Act). The 
PMPRB  is mandated to protect the interests of Canadi an consumers by ensuring that the prices of 
patented medicines sold in Canada are not excessive. It does this by reviewing the prices that 
patentees charge for each individual patented medicine sold in the Canadian market. If a price is found to be excessive, the PMPRB can hold public hearings and order price reductions and/or the 
offset of excess revenues. The PMPRB is also responsible for reporting to Parliament on trends in 
pharmaceutical sales and pricing and on resear ch and development expenditures by patentees. 
Prior to 1996, the PMPRB reviewed the prices of pa tented medicines twice a year, in keeping with 
the semi-annual price setting practices of the pharmaceutical industry. In recent years, the 
industry has largely kept prices static within the same calendar year and therefore the PMPRB now 
reviews prices of existing patented medicines on an annual basis.  
Subsection 85(1) of the Act stipulates those factors that the PMPRB, during the course of a 
hearing, must take into consideration when determining whether a patented medicine is being sold 
or has been sold at an excessive price in any market in Canada by a patentee or former patentee. These factors are:  
  The prices at which the medicine has been sold in the relevant market; 
  The prices at which other medicines in the same therapeutic class have been sold in the 
relevant market; 
  The prices at which the medicine and other medicines in the same therapeutic class have 
been sold in countries other than Canada; 
  Changes in the Consumer Price Index; and WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 116 - 
 
    Such other factors as may be specified in an y regulations made for the purposes of this 
subsection.  
 Patentees must provide the PMPRB with the following information within 30 days of first sale of a 
new patented medicine and, thereafter, on a semi-annual basis for as long as there is a valid 
patent that pertains to the medicine and it is sold in Canada: 
  the identity of the patentee; 
  the generic and brand name of the patented medicine;  
  the date on which the patented medicine is first sold in Canada;  
  the drug identification number assigned under the Food and Drug Regulations to the 
patented medicine; 
  the quantity of the patented medicine sold in final dosage form; 
  either the average price per package or net revenues from the sale of each dosage form, 
strength and package size in which the medicine was sold by the patentee or former 
patentee to each customer class in each province and territory in Canada;  
  the publicly available ex-factory prices of the patented medicine sold to each class of 
customer in each province and territory in Canada; and 
  the publicly available ex-factory price for th e patented medicine sold to each class of 
customer in each of the countries set out in the schedule to the Regulations (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States) if the patented 
medicine is being sold in one or more of the countries set out in the aforementioned 
schedule.   
 When a new patented medicine first enters the Canadian market, the PMPRB will set its 
introductory ceiling price based on a scientific review of the level of therapeutic improvement it 
provides over existing drug products. Once its in troductory price has been set, a "new" patented 
medicine is considered by the PMPRB to be an "existing" patented medicine and its price will be 
reviewed on an annual basis for as long as it is patented and sold in Canada. The price of an 
existing patented medicine will be presumed to be excessive if its national average transaction 
price (N-ATP) in any given year exceeds its national non-excessive average price (N-NEAP). The N-NEAP is calculated using a formula that allows for price increases year over year based on 
changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). It is important to note that at no time can either a 
new medicine or an existing one exceed the highest publicly available list price for that medicine in 
the seven comparator countries provided for in the Regulations (i.e., France, Germany, Italy, 
Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States).  
The PMPRB conducts international price comparison for all new and existing patented drug 
products at the ex-factory price level for the same strength and dosage form of patented drug 
product. To calculate the international price comparison the exchange rates used are the simple 
average of the thirty-six monthly average noon sp ot exchange rates for each country (taken to 
eight decimal places) as published by the Bank of  Canada for the thirty-six months ending four 
months before the date of the first sale of the drug product. 
The Canadian Competition Act  is a law of general application and, as such, applies to most 
business conduct in Canada. As there are no specific laws relating to competition in the pharmaceutical sector in Canada, the general provisions of the Competition Act  apply to potentially 
anti-competitive conduct as it arises in these markets.  
3.3.4.2 Federal Crown Corporations 
Page 87, paragraph 3.133 
 
[Switzerland Question 13]: Crown corporation operations in Canada account for a significant part of GDP, are wholly owned by federal or provin cial governments and are governed by public 
authorities. To which extent are these crown corporations subject to the Canadian public 
procurement legislation on federal or provincial level? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 117 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  The federal procurement process is governed by the Financial 
Administration Act5, the Government Contracts Regulations6, the Treasury Board Contracting 
Policy7, as well as obligations set out in applicable trade agreements.  
The relevant legislation governing Crown corporation procurement is the Financial Administration 
Act. As Crown corporations are not defined as "departments" under the Financial Administration 
Act, they are not subject to the federal Contracting Policy or Government Contracts Regulations 
made pursuant to that Act. Crown corporations establish their own policies and guidelines 
regarding procurement. However, while Crown corp orations are not bound by federal government 
contracting policies, they often apply the same rules as a good practice. Where Crown corporations are covered by trade agreements, like other covered entities, they are subject to all the relevant government procurement obligations in those agreements.
8  
With regard to the provinces, practices vary ac ross the country. The paragraphs below include an 
overview as to how provincial Crown corporations are subject to provincial procurement legislation or regulations. 
Although there is no legislation in British Columbia  specific to procurement by Provincial Crown 
Corporations, related conduct and operations for Crown corporations are set out in the Province's Core Policies and Procedures Manual
9, and the chapter on Procurement. The Core Policy and 
Procedures Manual  is published under the authority of the British Columbia Financial 
Administration Act.10 The Province also has authority to pr ocure goods, services and construction 
on behalf of Crown corporations pursuant to the Procurement Services Act.11 Some Crown 
corporations are also subject to specific legislation that applies to their activities, including 
procurement. Most Crown corporations also establish their own policies and procedures relating to 
their procurements, consistent with applicable legislation. Procurements by British Columbia's Crown corporations are not subject to any international trade agreement currently in force, 
although their practice is generally to procure in an open and transparent fashion. 
Manitoba  Crown corporations are not subject to the statutes governing procurement by 
government departments, although some Crown corporations are subject to The Sustainable 
Development Act.
12 Crown corporations may voluntarily adopt practices which conform to the 
purchasing rules found in The Government Purchases Act13 and related regulations. 
Where Crown corporations are covered by free trade agreements, like other covered entities, they 
are subject to all the relevant government procurement obligations in those agreements. 
Crown corporations are required to comply with Manitoba's policies as set out in the General 
Manual of Administration , which generally includes the use of fair, competitive procurement 
processes.  
Ontario's  procurement process is governed by the Ontario Public Service (OPS) Procurement 
Directive14, Legislation and OPS Corporate policies. All Ontario ministries, agencies and crown 
corporations are required to comply with the OPS Procurement Directive in their procurement 
processes. 
                                               
5 Financial Administration Act : http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11/index.html  
6 Government Contracts Regulations http://laws-lo is.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-87-402/. 
7 Treasury Board Contracting Policy  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=14494. 
8 Some Crown corporations are covered by the Nort h American Free Trade Agreement, the Agreement 
on Internal Trade, the WTO Go vernment Procurement Agreement,  the Canada – European Union 
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and bilateral agreements with Chile, Colombia, Peru, Panama, Korea, and Honduras. 
9 BC Core Policies and Procedures Manual  http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/fmb/manuals/CPM/CPMtoc.htm. 
10 BC Financial Administration Act  http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96138_01. 
11 BC Procurement Services Act  http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_03022_01. 
12 Manitoba Sustainable Development Act  https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/s270e.php. 
13 Manitoba Government Purchases Act  https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/g090e.php. 
14 Ontario Public Servic e Procurement Directive  
http://www.centralwestlhin.on.ca/~/media/sites/cw/Documents/Board%20and%20Governance/Board%20Reference%20Library/OPS-ProcurementDirectiveDec2014.pdf?la=en. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 118 - 
 
  The OPS Procurement Directive provides direction on the acquisition of goods and services. It also 
specifies and promotes the principles and policies that guide Ontario's procurements, including transparency, fairness, geographic neutrality and reciprocal non-discrimination. 
Ontario's legislation supporting procurement practices are Accessibility for Ontarians with 
Disabilities Act, 2005
15; Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation 191/1116 and Ontario 
Human Rights Code17; Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act18; Occupational 
Health and Safety Act19; Environmental Protection Act20; Public Service of Ontario Act, 200621 and 
French Language Services Act22. 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 4.1.2 Border measures 
Page 110, paragraph 4.6 
 [Switzerland Question 14]: While the Secretariat's report states in paragraph 4.6 that tariff rate 
quotas are generally filled, Switzerland notes that  certain quotas for dairy products such as the 
one for "other products of milk constituents" an d "milk protein substances" remain underfilled. 
Furthermore, in the case of milk protein sub-stan ces, fill rates seem to follow a decreasing trend 
over recent years. Could the rather complex quota administration for milk protein substances be a 
part of the explanation of this negative trend? Are there any plans for changes in this administration scheme? More generally, could Cana da indicate which measures are envisaged to 
ensure full utilization of its import quotas? 
Canada's Response:  It is Canada's assessment that observed fill rates for the "other products of 
milk constituents" and "milk protein substances" (MPS) TRQs reflect overall market conditions. While imports under the MPS TRQ have decreased, total milk protein imports (under tariff items 
0404.90, 3504.00.11, and 3504.00.12) increased by 3.7 % from 2012 to 2013, largely due to 
uncontrolled imports of MPS from the United States, which increased from 7,995,945 kg in 2012 to 10,064,898 kg in 2013. 
The MPS TRQ is fully allocated at the beginning of each TRQ year. Allocation holders are free to 
use their allocation to import any product covered by the TRQ at any time during the year. In recent years, many have chosen to return portions  of their allocation that they did not think they 
would use during the year. Returned quantities have been made available to interested importers 
on a first-come first-served basis, but due to market conditions, there has been little uptake. 
There are no plans to change the allocation policy, which include a number of mechanisms designed to maximize TRQ fill, including the return  and reallocation policy and the under-utilization 
penalty, as well as the practice of opening up the TRQ to first-come-first-served where TRQ fill 
remains low.  
4.1.6.1 Wheat and barley 
Page118, paragraph 4.31 
 [Switzerland Question 15]: As stated in the Secretariat's report in paragraph 4.31, Canada is a major player in the international trade of wheat as well as barley. At the same time, Producer 
Single Commodity Transfers (SCT) represented 1.5%  and 2.5% of gross farm receipts for wheat 
and barley respectively during the crop year 2013-14. Could Canada indicate in which ways export quantities of wheat and barley are affected by the SCT? Are there any mechanisms in place to 
ensure that the amount of SCT does not affect the exported quantity? 
Canada's Response:  In general, the SCT for wheat and barley in Canada is quite low especially in 
comparison to a number of other developed countries (e.g. Switzerland which is 17.5% and 15.6 
                                               
15 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005 http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11. 
16 Ontario Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation  http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191. 
17 Ontario Human Rights Code  http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19. 
18 Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 
http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31.  
19 Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o01.  
20 Ontario Environmental Protection Act  http://www.ontario.ca /laws/statute/90e19. 
21 Public Service of Ontario Act  http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06p35. 
22 Ontario French Language Services Act  http://www.ontario.ca /laws/statute/90f32. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 119 - 
 
  % respectively). It does not affect the exported quantity of wheat and barley since this support 
comes mainly from the AgriInsurance program which covers production losses caused by natural hazards. 
Page 119, paragraph 4.33 
[Switzerland Question 16]: Paragraph 4.33 of the Se cretariat's report indicates that the monopoly 
in the marketing of wheat and barley through the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) was abolished as of August 2012. However, the CWB retains federal guarantees on borrowing and initial payments. 
With a view to the stated goal of arriving at a fully open market for wheat and barley, could 
Canada indicate whether these guarantees are purely transitory? If yes, what is the expected timeline for the phasing out of such guarantees? 
Canada's Response:  The Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act (MFGFA) sets out a path for 
CWB commercialization or dissolution by July 31, 2017. At the point of CWB commercialization or 
dissolution, the Canadian Wheat Board (Interim Operations) Act – which provides the authority for the CWB borrowing and initial payment guarantees - will be repealed.  
On April 15, 2015, the CWB announced an investment deal reached with the G3 Global Grain 
Group. Pursuant to the process outlined in the MFGFA, once the CWB is commercialized, the Canadian Wheat Board (Interim Operations) Act will be repealed. The CWB and G3 expect that the 
transaction will close and the CWB will be commercialized in mid-2015. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 120 - 
 
  CHINESE TAIPEI 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1.5 Developments in Trade  
1.5.2 Trade in Services 
Page 28, paragraph 1.35   
[Chinese Taipei Question 1]: The Government of Canada has been actively promoting trade in 
services in the WTO and through a number of tr ade policy tools such as free trade agreements, 
including the negotiation of a Trade in Services Agreement, foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, double taxation agreements, and air transport agreements. Furthermore in 
Canada's Global Markets Action Plan, services sectors are an important component, for which 
comprehensive strategies are being developed to strengthen Canada's trade and investment in priority markets. These include the launch of an international education strategy to attract 
international students to Canada and the development of an extractive sector strategy.  
Could Canada please provide us with an update on  the effectiveness so far of the Global Market 
Action Plan (GMAP) on the services sectors included in the Plan? 
Canada's Response:  The GMAP is an overall trade and investment strategy aimed at increasing 
international success for more Canadian companies, the results of which may not be immediately apparent. The strategy involves providing support  to businesses through policy (negotiations of 
trade and trade-related agreements), programs (e.g. a new export market development program 
of $50 million over five years in assistance to entr epreneurs for activities such as market research 
and participation in trade fairs and missions), services (Trade Commissioner Service in Canada and around the world) and by raising awareness of the availability of this support (e.g. over 
2,000 participants in Go Global workshops across Canada). This support is provided for the benefit 
of all Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including those in the services sectors. 
Additionally, the GMAP identifies 22 priority sectors that map to Canada's export profile. Services 
are an inherent part of many of these sectors, such as Aerospace, Infrastructure, Information and communications technologies, Mining, Oil and gas and Defence and security. There are also specific service sectors such as Education, Financial services, Professional services and Tourism 
included among the priority sectors. 
Another element of the GMAP is the three sector strategies that have been launched since the 
GMAP was announced: International Education Strategy (January 15, 2014); Defence Procurement 
Strategy (February 5, 2014); and Strategy for the Extractive Sector (November 18, 2014). 
Services comprise a significant element in each of  these sectors. For example, Canadian extractive 
sector companies, many of whom are SMEs, have  built a world-renowned reputation based on 
Canadian know-how in exploration, engineering,  extraction, development and financial services. 
Canada's Extractive Sector Strategy coordinates efforts, including through support provided by the government of Canada's "economic diplomacy," to help generate business success and fuel prosperity for Canadians as well as host governments and local communities abroad. 
Issues of data lag and availability for services make it premature to assess the impacts of the 
various initiatives under the GMAP; these are further compounded by external factors such as exchange rates. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 2]: How does Canada plan to enhance usage of the GMAP? 
Canada's Response:  The GMAP outlines a trade policy and trade promotion strategy to support 
the pursuit of commercial success by Canadian companies and investors in priority markets. It is 
an organic strategy that is continually kept att uned to the current realities of Canadian industry 
and the changing global commercial environment to ensure relevance and effectiveness in the support provided to Canada's businesses in pursuing their international interests. 
One key component to the GMAP is raising awareness by Canadian businesses of global 
commercial opportunities and the support available to them from the government, as well as WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 121 - 
 
  awareness by foreign partners of Canada's capabilities and expertise. This is achieved in part 
through an extensive program of domestic and international outreach, including SME-focused workshops across Canada and targeted, Minister-led trade missions abroad. As well, three-year market access plans are being developed under the GMAP for each priority market (plans for India 
and the Philippines have been released), another tool in raising awareness by providing Canadian 
businesses with information that will assist them in their export market development efforts. 
1.7 Outlook 
Pages 30 and 31, paragraph 1.41 
 [Chinese Taipei Question 3]: In its 2014 Article IV assessment of Canada's economy, the IMF 
noted that solid growth is envisaged to cont inue while becoming more balanced, yet some 
imbalances remain. In particular, the rebalancing of growth remains incomplete with weak 
business non-residential investment slowing in rece nt years after a strong rebound post crisis and 
the rebalancing towards exports and investment remains incomplete. Growth is expected to be 
supported by stronger exports and business investment, spurred by the U.S. recovery. Rising long-
term interest rates and weaker terms-of-trade most ly due to lower energy prices are expected to 
moderate private consumption and residential investment. The main risks to grow would stem 
from a faster-than-expected tightening of global financial conditions, household balance sheet 
vulnerabilities and a further decline in global energy prices, while it is expected that continued U.S. growth and a depreciating Canadian dollar would help dampen the adverse impact of these shocks. According to the IMF, real GDP growth is expected  to accelerate to 2.3% in 2015 and then slow to 
2.1% in 2016 while inflation is expected to remain at around the Bank of Canada's target rate of 
2%. 
The extraction of rich natural resource deposits in the western provinces has arguably been 
Canada's primary engine of growth since the financial crisis. Thus, does Canada agree with the 
IMF's assessment that the adverse impact of a further decline in global energy prices can be dampened by continued U.S. growth and a depreciating Canadian dollar? If so, why? 
Canada's Response:  While the energy sector has been an important contributor to Canadian 
growth over the recovery, other sectors such as the construction, manufacturing and in particular the services sector also contributed significantly to  growth during this period. For example, the oil 
and gas extraction and support services sector only makes up about six per cent of the total 
Canadian economy in nominal terms. 
That being said, as a net exporter of oil, the sharp decline in crude oil prices is obviously having an 
impact on Canada's economy, with the biggest negative impacts seen in the oil sector itself 
through lower profits, reduced investment and falling employment. 
Canada agrees with the IMF's assessment that the negative impact from a further decline in global 
crude oil prices can be dampened by continued growth in the U.S. and a depreciating dollar. 
On balance, the global economy will benefit from lower crude oil prices, in particular the U.S. 
economy as it remains a significant net importer of crude oil. A stronger U.S. economy will benefit Canada as it is the destination for nearly 75% of Canadian exports. In addition, the lower value of the dollar has both cushioned the decline in cr ude oil prices received by Canadian energy 
producers and boosted the international competitive position of Canadian manufacturers and 
exporters. This too will provide support to real GDP growth by making non-energy exports, which 
account for about 80% of Canada's to tal goods exports, more attractive. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 4]: How does the Canadian government plan to reduce the downside 
risks associated with continued falling energy prices? Will the Canadian government take this opportunity to rebalance its economy by relying less on the energy sector? 
Canada's Response:  Canada is an open, market-based economy, in which the private sector is 
the engine of economic growth and job creation . Since 2006 the government has taken significant 
actions to support jobs and economic growth acro ss the country, including in both the energy and 
non-energy sectors. These include: 
 Significant reductions in taxes for both families and businesses; WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 122 - 
 
   Increasing the capital cost allowance rate for manufacturing and processing investment; 
 Eliminating more than 1,800 tariffs on imported machinery and equipment and 
manufacturing inputs; and 
 Launching a 10-year, over $53 billion New Building Canada Plan, which translates into 
$5.35 billion per year on average for provin cial, territorial and municipal projects. 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 General Framework 
Page 32, paragraph 2.2 
 [Chinese Taipei Question 5]: The Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) is an intergovernmental trade 
agreement for domestic trade to reduce or eliminate barriers to the free movement of persons, 
goods, services, and investment within Canada. It  has six general rules such as non-discrimination 
and transparency, and it focuses on reducing trade barriers in eleven specific sectors. During the 
review period, the AIT was amended two times. The changes included revisions to procurement, 
labour mobility, and dispute resolution sections.  
On the two occasions during the review period when Canada amended the AIT, please describe 
what changes were made to furt her facilitate internal trade. 
Canada's Response:  The AIT was amended in 2012 to ensure that financial services occupations 
were covered by the agreement's chapter on labour  mobility, which sets out provisions for mutual 
recognition of certification requirements and reconciliation of occupational standards, and prohibits all residency requirements. While the chapter had previously applied to most regulated 
occupations, financial services occupations were exempt up to this point.  
In 2013, the AIT was amended again to intr oduce changes to the Procurement Chapter. 
Specifically, this amendment required all parties to designate a single electronic tendering system 
within their jurisdiction to which all tender notices would be posted and eliminated the option of 
posting in newspapers or trade journals as a sole method of posting. 
2.3.2 Regional and preferential agreements 
Page 38, paragraphs 2.25-2.26 
 [Chinese Taipei Question 6]: (Para 2.25) In order to improve its market access opportunities, 
Canada has pursued bilateral and regional Free Ag reements (FTAs) as an important part of its 
trade policy and has gradually increased the number of FTAs in recent years… 
(Para 2.26) …Canada continues to pursue bilateral FTAs as part of its trade policy and has one 
other agreement concluded with the EU, but not yet entered into force, and ten others that are 
under negotiation. 
According the Secretariat Report, Canada has recognized the positive effects of signing FTAs with 
other countries and has either signed FTAs, or is currently in FTA negotiations with over 20 of its 
trading partners. What are the main factors that Canada takes into account in identifying potential 
partners for FTAs. 
Canada's Response:  In 2013, the Government of Canada released the Global Markets Action 
Plan. Under the Global Markets Action Plan, the Government of Canada is concentrating on the 
markets that hold the greatest promise for Canadian business through vigorous trade promotion 
and ambitious trade policy.  
The Global Markets Action  Plan is publicly available http:// www.international.gc.ca/global-markets-
marches-mondiaux/ind ex.aspx?lang=eng. 
The Government of Canada takes into account a number of considerations when taking a decision 
regarding whether to launch FTA negotiations with a potential partner. These include: the potential 
to generate significant economic and commercial benefits for Canada; the level of Canadian 
business interest and domestic support; the willingness and capacity of prospective partners to WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 123 - 
 
  negotiate with Canada, including as determined through detailed, pre-negotiation exploratory 
talks. 
2.3.3 Other agreements and arrangements 
Page 41, paragraph 2.33 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 7]: Canada is a signatory to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 
(ACTA) that is a plurilateral agreement negotiated among eleven trading partners. The ACTA aims 
to combat infringement of intellectual property ri ghts, in particular piracy and counterfeiting. It 
provides for enhanced international cooperation, promotion of enforcement practices, and a legal 
framework for IPR enforcement. Although the Agreement was finalised in 2011, it has not yet entered into force.  
Please could Canada provide details of any concrete adjustment measures it has implemented 
domestically since signing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  
Canada's Response:  In recent years Canada has implemented: 
(1) the Copyright Modernization Act , which contains provisions on technological protection 
measures, the protection of rights management information and Internet service providers, and the new Notice and Notice regime pertaining to In ternet intermediaries, such as Internet service 
providers. The Notice and Notice regime is de signed to notify users of alleged copyright 
infringement taking place at their Internet address; and 
(2) the Combatting Counterfeit Products Act , which contains provisions for an enhanced customs 
border regime that provides the Canada Border Se rvices Agency (CBSA) with the authority to take 
action against the commercial movement of counterfeit goods at the border, establishes new civil 
causes of action and criminal offences for commercial trademark counterfeiting and allows Canadian businesses to file a Request for Assist a n c e  w i t h  t h e  C B S A ,  i n  t u r n  e n a b l i n g  b o r d e r  
officers to share information with them regarding suspect shipments. 
2.4.1 Investment Framework and Agreements 
Page 41, paragraph 2.36 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 8]: The Settlement of International Disputes Act (SIDA) was passed in 
2008 and came into force on 1 November 2013, thus Canada became a party to the United Nations Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Canadian investors, and 
foreign investors in Canada, now have benefits un der the Convention as well as access to dispute 
settlement.  
In the interests of fully protecting foreign investment, could Canada please elaborate further on 
how the domestic judicial system will recogniz e and enforce arbitral awards between foreign 
investors and host countries made by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). 
Canada's Response:  If Canada is a party to the ICSID arbitration, or if the arbitration does not 
involve one of Canada's designated constituent subdivisions, then pursuant to Section 8(1) of Canada's Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act  (S.C. 2008, c. 8), the superior 
courts of Canada are responsible for the recognition and enforcement of ICSID arbitral awards. 
Pursuant to Section 8(2), the superior courts shal l, on application, recognize and enforce an ICSID 
arbitral award as if it were a final judgment of the superior courts. 
Canada has currently designated three provinces as constituent subdivisions pursuant to the ICSID 
Convention: Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.  
If Alberta is the party to the ICSID arbitration, then pursuant to Section 1(1)(c) and Section 6(1) 
of Alberta's Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act (S.A. 2013, c S 7-8), the Court of 
Queen's Bench is responsible for the recognitio n and enforcement of ICSID arbitral awards. 
Pursuant to Section 6(1), once a certified copy of the arbitral award has been filed with the clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench, it has the same force and effect and may be enforced as if it were a judgment of that court. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 124 - 
 
  If British Columbia is the party to the ICSID arbitration, then pursuant to Section 5(1) of British 
Columbia's Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act [SBC 2006] Chapter 16, the 
Supreme Court of British Columbia is responsible for the recognition and enforcement of ICSID arbitral awards. Pursuant to Section 5(2), once a ce rtified copy of the arbitr al award has been filed 
with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, is has the same effect and is enforceable as a 
judgment of that court. 
If Ontario is the party to the ICSID arbitration, then pursuant to Section 6 of the Ontario 
Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, 2009 (S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. D), the 
Ontario Superior Court of Justice is responsible for the recognition and enforcement of ICSID arbitral awards. On production of a certified copy of an ICSID arbitral award to the Superior Court of Justice, the award will be registered in that court, and once registered, has the same effect, and 
in all proceedings may be taken to enforce it as if it were a final judgment obtained in that court.  
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act 
Page 41, paragraph 2.37 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 9]: Canada's 1985 Investment Canada Act (ICA) provides the main legal 
framework for reviewing foreign investment in Ca nada. The review of foreign investment has two 
main purposes: to assess if they are likely to bene fit Canada and to see if they are likely to injure 
national security. All foreign investment to establish a new Canadian business and to acquire control of a Canadian business, must be notified unless the investment is reviewable (see below), in accordance with the ICA (Art. 11). The ICA pr ovides for a review of foreign investments to 
acquire a Canadian business if the asset value of the Canadian business is above a certain 
threshold (see Table 2.4); in this case an application for review must be filed. For investments below this threshold a notification must be presented. Indirect acquisitions by WTO member 
investors are not reviewable, but are nonetheless su bject to notification. Lower review thresholds 
apply for acquisitions of cultural businesses. The thresholds for review for cultural transactions are Can$5 million and Can$50 million for direct and indirect acquisitions respectively and are based on 
total assets. A number of legal amendments and other changes to the ICA were introduced during 
the review period (Table 2.4 ).  
Please elaborate further on exactly how Canada re views the acquisition of Canadian businesses by 
foreign investors based on security and interest concerns. For example, what decision would the 
Canadian competent authority make in cases where the results of beneficial assessments are 
uncertain? And, if the decision is negative, would the authority provide investors with advice on the remedies? 
Canada's Response:  We take this question to be regarding Canada national security review 
process under the Investment Canada Act (ICA or the Act), and so frame our response 
accordingly. We do not take this question to pertain to the net benefit review process under the 
Act. 
The national security review process is established in Part IV.1, Investments Injurious to National 
Security, of the Act, and the National Security Review of Investments Regulations . Under these 
authorities, the Government of Canada is able to review a foreign investment that could be injurious to national security. Under this part, an investment is reviewable if the Governor in Council (GiC) orders a review. For the GiC to order a review, the Minister of Industry must have 
reasonable grounds to believe, after consulting wi th the Minister of Public Safety, that a foreign 
investment could be injurious to national security. The Minister of Industry must make a recommendation to the GiC for a review. If, after co ncluding a review, the GiC determines that an 
investment would be injurious to national security, the GiC has the authority to take any measure 
with respect to an investment that it considers advisable to protect national security, including the following: 
 directing the investor not to implement the investment; 
 authorizing the investment on condition that the investor (i) give written undertakings that 
the GiC considers necessary in the circumstances, or (ii) implement the investment on the terms and conditions ordered by the GiC; or WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 125 - 
 
   requiring the investor to divest control of the Canadian business or of its investment in an 
entity. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 10]: Please clarify why the threshold for reviewing cultural businesses 
acquisitions is lower than that for general businesses acquisitions, and the policy concerns behind 
this distinction. 
Canada's Response:  The Investment Canada Act  (the "Act") is co-administered by the Minister of 
Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry. In  June 1999, responsibility for administration of 
the Act in the cultural sector was transferred from  the Minister of Indust ry to the Minister of 
Canadian Heritage. The Minister of Industry is responsible for assessing investments in all other sectors of the economy. 
Section 14 of the Act sets out the thresholds for reviews in the cultural sector (i.e., direct 
acquisitions of a Canadian cultural business with Canadian assets valued at $5 million or more and indirect acquisitions of Canadian cultural businesses where the value of the Canadian assets is $50 million or more) and section 15 provides for a discr etionary review process where the Governor in 
Council considers it in the public interest on the recommendation of the Minister, to issue an order 
for the review of the investment. 
When a review of an investment is undertaken, the Act (section 20) sets out specific provisions to 
guide the Minister in the decision as to whether a given investment is likely to be of net benefit to 
Canada. Investments in the cultural sector are assessed, among other factors, against compatibility with cultural policies and cultural policy objectives. 
Cultural businesses play a unique role in the lives of Canadians and in the economy. The 
Competition Policy Review Panel, established and mandated to examine the Act and the Competition Act , affirmed in its June 2008 report the importance of Canadian culture and the need 
to preserve a distinct approach for investments in the cultural sector. 
Page 42, paragraph 2.38 
[Chinese Taipei Question 11]: New provisions in the ICA were introduced in 2009, through 
amendment, to provide for the review of investme nts on national security grounds. Accompanying 
regulations, known as the National Security Revi ew of Investments Regulations, prescribe periods 
of time and investigative bodies for the reviews. The Governor in Council (GIC) can order a national security review of new businesses, in vestments below the net benefit threshold, and 
minority investments. The Minister of Industry makes a recommendation following consultation 
with the Minister of Public Safety, who in turn consults the domestic security & intelligence (S&I) 
community. The decision to permit, block, or allow with conditions, rests with the GIC. Investments are considered on a case-by-case ba sis. In 2013, the first rejection of a foreign 
investment on national security grounds was taken.  
What are the review criteria in the "National Security Review of Investment Regulations"? Canada's Response:  There are no national security review criteria enumerated in the Investment 
Canada Act  or the National Security Review of Investment Regulations . 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailin g, and safeguard measures 
Page 68, paragraph 3.61 
 [Chinese Taipei Question 12]: In a global safeguard inquiry, if the CITT determines that increased 
imports are causing or are threatening to cause se rious injury, it must also determine if imports 
from a FTA partner are substantial and contributing to the serious injury. A global safeguard 
measure will apply to goods imported from a FTA only if the Government is satisfied that the 
quantity of those goods represents a substantial sh are of total imports of goods of the same kind, 
and the quantity of these goods contributes impo rtantly to serious injury (Customs Tariff Act, 
Section 59). In exceptional circumstances, imports from NAFTA countries may be considered jointly for the purpose of determining whether they contribute to serious injury.   WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 126 - 
 
  Could Canada please clarify whether imports from FTA partners other than NAFTA countries are 
considered jointly with those from NAFTA countries for the purpose of determining whether they contribute to serious injury? Please also provide details of the factors that are taken into consideration. 
Canada's Response:  Where the CITT determines that imports of a good from all sources are a 
principal cause of serious injury, the CITT determines whether imports of the good from certain FTA partners each contribute to the serious injury. The CITT is required to take fully into account 
the provisions of the relevant trade agreements  that establish criteria to determine whether 
imports from a party, considered individually, contribute to serious injury.  
FTAs with these provisions specify that in determining whether imports from a party contribute 
importantly to serious injury, investigating authorities must consider such factors as the change in 
the import share of each party, the level of imports, and the change in the level of imports of each 
party. In this regard, imports from a party are normally not deemed to contribute importantly to serious injury if the growth rate of imports from a party during the period in which the injurious 
surge in imports occurred is appreciably lower than the growth rate of total imports from all 
sources over the same period. 
3.2.4 Export support and promotion 
Page 77, paragraph 3.104 
 [Chinese Taipei Question 13]: Building on the success of the 2007 Global Commerce Strategy, the 
Federal Government announced, in 2013, a new trade plan: the Global Markets Action Plan 
(GMAP). Under the GMAP, the federal government ai ms at concentrating its efforts on sectors and 
markets that are deemed to hold the greatest potential for Canadians businesses. Foreign markets are classified depending on their potential for Canada's commercial interests. The Plan identified 
50 priority markets further classified into three groups: 20 classified as emerging markets with the 
potential for broad commercial interests; 24 markets classified as emerging markets with specific opportunities; and 6 classified as established markets (counting the EU and EFTA as single 
markets). Specific targets include raising Canada's SME export presence in emerging markets from 
29% to 50% by 2018, and their number, from 11,000 to 21,000 companies. 
What criteria were applied by the Canadian government in determining which would be the "50 
priority markets" as identified in the 2013 Plan? Is  a different approach adopted in each category 
with a view to enhancing the export presence of SMEs? 
Canada's Response:  Priority markets in the GMAP were identified through a two-step process of 
economic analysis and stakeholder validation. The economic analysis took into account key 
economic variables that allowed us to identify th e markets with the greatest current or potential 
importance (overall, or for specific sectors), while also taking into account existing commercial linkages with Canada and complementarities between economies. Consultations with various 
advisory bodies (e.g. the Minister of International Trade's SME Advisory Board and the Global 
Commerce Strategy Advisory Panel) and some 400 businesses, universities, industry associations and other stakeholders across Canada validated that selected markets fit one of the definitions of either an emerging or established priority market . Priority markets demonstrate high potential for 
economic growth; are markets where Canadian capa bilities have good potential for success and 
where government programs and services, such as those provided by the Trade Commissioner 
Service, can have great impact; and are part of regi onal trading platforms that Canada is trying to 
tap into. 
Ultimately, the Government chose the priority markets on the basis of analysis and consultation, 
and expects to modify the list periodically to reflect the dynamic nature of Canada's international 
trade interests. However, the list of priority markets does not represent the totality of markets 
where Canadian business has significant interests. 
The Government offers a suite of programs, tools and services to assist SMEs in pursuing 
opportunities across the globe. The approach involv es a specific emphasis on providing assistance 
to SMEs, with Canada's global network of Trade Commissioners providing the market-specific 
intelligence to advise companies on how best to approach the market, and helping them navigate 
markets that are difficult for SMEs. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 127 - 
 
  As government services tend to be tailored to the specific situations and requirements of Canadian 
businesses, there is no inherent difference in approach to different categories of priority markets. The differences arise, instead, from the characterist ics of the sector and market of interest to the 
Canadian business client. 
3.2.5 Export finance, insurance, guarantees 
Page 77, paragraph 3.107  
[Chinese Taipei Question 14]: Export Development Canada (EDC) is a Crown corporation with the 
mandate to support and develop export trade and help businesses respond to international business opportunities. It provides insurance products, financing and bonding solutions to companies engaged in export-related activities, as well as to their foreign customers (Table 3.13). 
EDC is financially self-sustained. Its revenue is generated primary from fees charged on its 
services, and interest collected on its loans. The corporation may borrow money on capital markets or, if ever required, request loans from the Ministry of Finance.  
Please elaborate further on the contents of insurance products, financing, and bonding solutions 
offered by Export Development Canada (EDC). In particular, has EDC provided more favourable services content, such as lower than normal mark e t  i n t e r e s t  r a t e s  a s  w e l l  a s  m o r e  f a v o u r a b l e  
insurance fees to companies engaged in export-related activities? 
Canada's Response:  Financing products ensure companies have financing readily available to 
fulfil orders, open a foreign branch, or even provide financing for their customers. Insurance products help companies protect their international business assets and help companies access the 
working capital they need. EDC's bonding and guar antee solutions can also help companies free up 
the working capital they need. 
All of EDC's products and services are provided in relation to companies engaged in export-related 
activities based on EDC's mandate set forth in its enabling statute and the regulations defining 
how EDC can deploy its export mandate in support of transactions in Canada. EDC underwrites transactions on a market basis and also provides official export credit support in accordance with 
the OECD Arrangement. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 15]: It is stated in the Report that foreign customers are also eligible to 
apply for such financial support from EDC. Do an y limitations exist when foreign customers apply, 
and if so, what are they? 
Canada's Response:  When EDC makes loans to foreign companies, such loans are made in 
accordance with EDC's export mandate (such as foreign companies purchasing goods or services 
from a Canadian company). EDC has a risk management framework in place to determine if a 
transaction is commercially viable before it agrees to support a transaction. All transactions, 
whether to a foreign customer or otherwise, are processed through EDC's standard due diligence tests that can include but are not limited to: cred it reviews, political risk assessment, economic 
assessment, corporate social responsibility assessment (reputational, environmental, 
anti-corruption, bribery, transparency, etc.). 
3.3.1 Business framework and incentives 
Page 80, paragraph 3.113 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 16]: In 2012, the Government launched its initiative to reduce the 
burden of regulations after consultations with bu sinesses. Its "Red Tape Reduction Action Plan" 
objectives are to reduce the burden on businesses, make it easier to do business with regulators, 
and improve service and predictability. The regula tory reform initiative is one of the most 
ambitious and will streamline regulatory approval processes, reduce reporting requirements, and 
improve compliance and enforcement.  
Please elaborate further on how the Government identifies unnecessary red tape? Is there a set of 
criteria for making decisions on specific red ta pe regulations? How does the Government balance 
the ease of doing business with other societal priorities such as consumer protection, market 
stability, food safety, etc? What kind of tools does the Government use for evaluating the potential 
impact of proposed red tape eliminations? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 128 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  The term regulatory "red tape" is associated with the time and resources 
spent by business to demonstrate compliance with Government regulatory requirements. Administrative burden refers to anything that is necessary to demonstrate compliance with a regulation, including the collecting, processing, reporting and retaining of information and the 
completing of forms. Government regulation must and will continue to protect the health, safety, 
and environment of all Canadians but the Government  of Canada is committed to finding ways that 
free business from unnecessary regulatory red ta pe. An effective and predictable regulatory 
system contributes to a competitive and resilie nt economy, whereas unnecessary regulatory red 
tape, negative service experience, and an unpredict able regulatory environment can be a source of 
business frustration and unnecessary costs as entrepreneurs endeavour to compete, create jobs and grow their businesses. In 2012, the Government of Canada released the Red Tape Reduction 
Action Plan, a suite of system-wide reforms aimed directly at measuring, controlling and reducing 
the burden felt by businesses through requ irements imposed by regulation. The new Cabinet 
Directive on Regulatory Management  incorporates the regulatory reforms outlined in the Red Tape 
Reduction Action Plan. The Action Plan aims to: 
 Reduce burden on business through a one-for- one rule and by applying a small business 
lens when developing regulations; and, 
 Improve service performance and overall pred ictability of the regulatory environment 
through new service standards and forward regulatory plans. 
Through the One-for-One Rule, the government is re ducing the administrative burden in two ways: 
1. When a new or amended regulation increase s the administrative burden on business, 
regulators are required to offset – from thei r existing regulations – an equal amount of 
administrative burden cost on business. 
2. It requires regulators to remove a regulation each time they introduce a new regulation 
that imposes new administrative burden on business.  
The Standard Cost Model (SCM) is used to calculate administrative burden under the One-for-One 
Rule. The SCM is an internationally accepted way to estimate the administrative burden costs to business resulting from information and reporting obligations included in a regulation. 
The 2013-2014 Scorecard reported 19 fewer regulations, $21M less administrative burden and 
263,000 fewer hours (annually, ongoing) in regulatory red tape after two years of implementation. 
The small business lens targets regulatory proposals that impact small businesses and that 
introduce $1 million or more in annual compliance and/or administrative costs. It requires 
regulators to understand the unique small busi ness impacts of a proposed regulation and to 
account for regulators' efforts to minimize the burden on small business in the publicly available Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS). 
o The value of the administrative burden cost savings or cost increases to business 
are made public in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement when the regulatory change is published in the Canada Gazette . 
o A small business is defined as any business, including its affiliates, that has fewer 
than 100 employees or between $30,000 and $5 million in annual gross revenues. 
Under the Action Plan, regulators are responsible for developing and publishing service standards 
that identify how long a business should expect to wait for a decision on a regulatory authorization 
(e.g., a licence, permit, certification process) that involves 100 or more transactions with 
businesses each year. Regulators must set targets for achieving the standard and report publicly on performance against those standards. 
By introducing forward regulatory plans, the go vernment increased regulatory transparency and 
predictability for business and Canadians. Regulators post these plans each spring, with updates posted in the fall.  Forward regulatory plans provide early no tice of potential regulatory changes WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 129 - 
 
  within a 24-month period to stakeholders so they  can inform regulatory design and prepare for 
implementation. 
3.3.2 Incentives and subsidies 
Page 80, paragraph 3.115 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 17]: According to Canada Business Network, a government information 
service for business, there are some 755 support programmes providing assistance to businesses 
in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax refund s and credits, and wage subsidies. Many are at 
the provincial level and thus, restricted to recipien ts established in the province. Others are sector 
specific, such as agriculture and cultural in dustries. An overview of the programmes listed 
indicates that most are specifically targeted to a particular sector or location and that many 
programmes offered were with respect to grants or  contributions. It was not possible to determine 
the total amount of aid provided under each programme or category (Table 3.15).  
Could Canada please explain which sectors (or products) can receive benefits from these 
programmes? Among the 755 support programmes, which ones are sector specific? In addition to 
the agriculture and the cultural industries, what other main industries benefit from the sector 
specific support programme?  
Canada's Response:  Canada's subsidy notification to the WTO is prepared in accordance with the 
obligations outlined in Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures . In 
particular, Canada notifies subsides which it determines fall within the definition of Article 1 of the ASCM and are specific within the meaning of Articl e 2 of the ASCM. Details on specific programs 
can be found in Canada's most recent subsidy notification (G/SCM/N/253/CAN). 
Canada is in the process of preparing the 2015 subsidies notification, which covers the period of 
April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, at which time any new programs introduced during that period 
will be considered for inclusion. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 18]: Table 3.17, page 82 of the Report shows that Fisheries expenditures 
increased significantly from 2010 to 2012. Could Canada please explain the reasons for this 
increase? 
Canada's Response:  The change in fisheries-related expenditures between fiscal years 2010/11 
and 2011/12 can be attributed to an increase in  transfers associated with the Atlantic Lobster 
Sustainability Measures (ASLM) program. The obje ctive of this one-time, targeted program was to 
assist Canada's lobster fishery in achieving long-term sustainability. ASLM supported industry 
efforts to maintain healthy lobster stocks in all lobster fishing areas and improve lobster abundance in areas where stocks had declined. Initiated in 2009, the program ended in March 
2014. For more information, see Canada's 2013 full notification to the WTO Committee on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/N/253/CAN). 
[Chinese Taipei Question 19]: We note that as of December 2014, there were some sub-federal 
programmes still not notified to the Committee. Could Canada please explain the reasons and 
advise whether these programmes are scheduled to be notified? 
Canada's Response:  Canada supports the subsidy notification process as being an important 
transparency exercise and agrees that sub-federal subsidy programs that are determined to meet 
Canada's obligation under Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
(ASCM) should be notified.  
Canada is in the process of preparing its 2015 subsidies notification, which covers the period of 
April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, at which time any new programs introduced during that period 
will be included, as required under Article 25 of the ASCM. As part of this process, the federal government has actively engaged with the provincial and territorial governments to fulfil Canada's 
subsidy notification requirements.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 130 - 
 
  Pages 81-82, paragraph 3.119 
[Chinese Taipei Question 20]: During the review period, Canada made two notifications to the 
WTO, in 2011 and 2013 respectively, pursuant to Article XVI:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 25 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. According to these notifications, the 
number of subsidy programmes increased from 87 to 112 from the 2011 compared to the 2013 
notification, but their value decreased. The programmes are almost equally distributed between the federal and the provincial level, with 58 be ing reported at the federal level and 54 at the 
provincial level in 2013. At the federal level, mo st concern industry, both in terms of number and 
value. The next largest sector is the "other" category where the book and publishing industry was the main recipient (Table 3.17).   
Since the "Canada Small Business Financing Program (CSBFP)" was introduced some 50 years ago, 
could the Canadian government please provide mo re detailed information to demonstrate how the 
programme is helping to create jobs and employment opportunities? 
Canada's Response:  The Canada Small Business Financing Program (CSBFP) was created in 
1999 as the successor to the Small Business Loan s Program, which was launched in January 1961 
by the Government of Canada as part of a job creation strategy. It has contributed to the development of small and medium-sized enterpri ses (SMEs) by promoting business start-up and 
expansion. Under the program, the government makes it easier for SMEs, and in particular 
higher-risk SMEs, to get loans from financial institutions by sharing the risk of default with lenders. 
The CSBFP strives to increase the availability of financing for small businesses by extending 
financing that would not otherwise be available to them (full incrementality), or would only be 
available under less favourable terms such as additional collateral requirements, lower amounts, 
more borrower equity, higher interest rates and sh orter loan terms (partial incrementality). A 2015 
study of the Program's incrementality found that 67 percent of loans were estimated to be fully 
incremental
 and 75 percent of CSBFP loans were estimated to be incremental in some way 
(partially and fully incremental).  
The CSBFP continues to have a positive impact on program borrowers. In fact, a 2014 study of the 
economic impact of the program found that borrowers under the program recorded increased 
revenues (12 percent), salaries (6 percent), profit (14 percent) and value-added (15 percent) 
when compared with those businesses financed by other sources or those who did not receive 
financing.  
The positive impact of the CSBFP on the grow th and performance of small businesses that 
obtained loans through the program was also confirmed in a 2013 survey of CSBFP borrowers. The 
survey reported that the vast majority of CSBF P borrowers indicated that the CSBFP loan they 
received had a positive impact on their ability to grow (81 percent), their ability to stay in business 
(71 percent), their profits/sales (69 percent), th eir employment levels (69 percent) and their 
productivity/efficiency (67 percent).  
The Program also helped borrowers create jobs. It is  estimated that for each year of lending during 
the 2009-14 period, CSBFP borrowers hired an average of 9,700 employees as a result of 
obtaining a CSBFP loan. In addition to the direct benefits for CSBFP borrowers, job creation and other economic benefits were felt throughout the economy due to the spillover effects of the 
additional demand created by CSBFP borrowers. As such, an estimated 6,600 jobs per year were 
indirectly created in the economy due to CSBFP borrower demand during this period. 
The CSBFP helps to create jobs for Canadians and stimulate economic growth both for small 
business borrowers and throughout the Canadian economy. The most recent review of the CSBFP 
Program is detailed in the Comprehensive Review Report 2009-2014.  
[Chinese Taipei Question 21]: Which emerging industries have been the recipients of subsidies to increase employment and encourage "business innovations" in order to enhance global 
competitiveness are software services and digi tal content industries included, for example? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 131 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  Canada's most recent subsidy notification in 2013 does not include 
programs specific to emerging industries such as software services and digital content industries. Details on specific programs can be found in Canada's most recent subsidy notification (G/SCM/N/253/CAN). 
[Chinese Taipei Question 22]: Could the Canadian government please provide details of any other 
tax incentives and subsidies provided to such emerging industries as software services, digital games, digital learning, computer anim ation, animated films, etc. in 2014? 
Canada's Response:  Canada is in the process of preparing the 2015 subsidies notification, which 
covers the period of April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, at which time any new programs introduced during that period will be included, as required under Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures . 
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 
Page 96, paragraph 3.158  
[Chinese Taipei Question 23]: Canada has a well-developed IP system that corresponds to its 
status as an OECD-economy with vibrant technology-intensive industries, such as aerospace and pharmaceuticals. During the review period, consider ations on intellectual property (IP) have played 
an important role both in Canada's domestic legislative activity as well as in its international trade 
policy, and were driven by the motivation to further improve Canada's performance in the area of science, technology and innovation. Since 2011, Canada has ratified two, and initiated accession to five important international IP treaties, and ha s adopted or introduced a number of significant 
legislative changes to its IP regime. There were a number of court cases during the review period 
in relation to IP matters, including the release of a number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions on copyright. Moreover, a series of important judicial decisions in the area of patentability and 
disclosure of pharmaceutical inventions reflects the dynamism of a market place that contains both 
"brand-name" and generic pharmaceutical industry.   
It would be appreciated if Canada could please specify the above-mentioned (in para.3.158) 
significant legislative changes to its IP regimes that it has adopted or introduced since 2011. 
Canada's Response:  Since 2011, Canada has adopted or introduced the following legislative 
changes to its IP regime: 
 in 2012, the Government passed the Copyright Modernization Act ;  
 in 2014, the Government passed the Combating Counterfeit Products Act  to strengthen IP 
enforcement; 
 in 2014 the Government passed the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No.1  and No. 2 , which 
included amendments to the Trade-marks Act, the Patent Act  and the Industrial Design Act  to 
align the administration of Canada's intellectual property regime with key World Intellectual Property Organization treaties (the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Agreement, the Nice 
Agreement, the Patent Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement); and 
 In its 2015 Economic Action Plan, the Government announced its intention to introduce 
amendments to the Copyright Act  that will enable Canada to implement and accede to the 
WIPO Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to published works for visually impaired persons 
and extend the term of protection for sound recordings and performances and proposed the 
creation of a statutory privilege for IP agents to help innovators better protect their IP. An extension of term for sound recordings and performances and the creation of statutory 
privilege for IP agents have been tabled as part of Bill C-59, the Economic Action Plan 2015 
Act, No. 1 .  
Page 104, paragraph 3.179 
[Chinese Taipei Question 24]: A dynamic patent litigation landscape, in particular between generic 
and "brand name" pharmaceutical companies, has continued to generate jurisprudence on certain 
aspects of patent practise. In particular, in a number of cases over the review period, courts have WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 132 - 
 
  continued to develop the Canadian legal doctrine that the "promise of the patent", i.e. its claimed 
utility, has to be demonstrated or soundly predicted on the basis of information disclosed in the patent application at the filing date. The requirement that an invention's utility must be established at the time the patent application is filed aims to ensure the granting of high-quality patents by 
seeking to prevent applicants from obtaining patents based on speculation.   
What has been the impact of continuing to develo p the Canadian legal doctrine that the 'promise 
of the patent' has to be demonstrated or soundly predicted, in particular on patent holders who 
obtained their patents before the emphasis on the aforementioned doctrine? 
Canada's Response:  Canadian patent law has for decades judged the utility of an invention 
against what an applicant itself asserts or 'promises' in the patent. Simply put, an invention must do what its inventor says it will do. And the 'inv ention' must be established as of the filing date, 
not at some later date. Canada's approach is particularly relevant and necessary where the 
essence of the invention is a particular asserted utility, notably in the case of new use or selection patents. The application of such rules to patent applicants is both unsurprising and fully consistent 
with longstanding patent policy and rules. If an ything, Canadian judicial interpretation of the 
'utility' requirement has evolved in a permissive direction, allowing the utility of an invention to be established as at filing on the sole basis of a prediction, rather than on the basis of demonstrated 
utility. 
Page 105 paragraph 3.186  
[Chinese Taipei Question 25]: The Copyright Modernization Act also established "safe-harbour" 
provisions for Internet Service Providers and se arch engines, and a new civil liability provision 
targeting those who enable copyright infringeme nt online. The Act also formalized Canada's 
"Notice and Notice Regime", which entered into force on 2 January 2015. In contrast to "notice and takedown" procedures for ISPs in other jurisdictions, this Canadian system does not require 
ISPs to take down allegedly infringing content, bu t to forward notices, sent by copyright owners, to 
users whose Internet address has been identified as being the source of possible infringement. Notices may be sent to providers of Internet co nnectivity services (e.g. providing Internet access 
and email services to subscribers) and hosting servic es (e.g. allowing subscribers to upload files on 
the Internet). The ISP must inform the copyright owner once the notice has been sent and keep 
records for six months, or longer (i.e. up to one year) in instances where the copyright owner decides to pursue legal action. The ISP may be liable for statutory damages of Can$5,000 to 
Can$10,000 if it fails to comply with these prov isions. A separate procedure exists for sending 
notices to search engine services. 
Does "Notice and Notice Regime" apply to peer-to-peer? If so, please explain further how it works. 
If not, could Canada please provide further details on how it deals with copyright infringement 
arising from P2P? Who bears the main burden of the cost derived from "Notice and Notice 
Regime"? 
Canada's Response:  Notice and Notice is a tool established in the Canadian Copyright Act  to help 
copyright holders address online copyright infringeme nt (e.g. illegal P2P file sharing) so that they 
can protect their copyright material while respecting the interests and freedom of users. It formalized a voluntary industry-based practice that has been in place for several years.  
When a copyright holder considers that an Internet  user might be infringing their copyright, they 
can send a notice of alleged infringement to the us er's Internet service provider (ISP). Notice and 
Notice requires that the ISP forward (e.g. via email)  the notice of alleged infringement to the user 
and then inform the copyright holder once this has been done.  
For example, a copyright holder observes an Internet user with a Canadian Internet protocol (IP) 
address sharing a movie from P2P. Not knowing who the person is, the copyright holder can send 
a notice of alleged infringement to the ISP that owns the relevant IP address. The ISP must then 
forward the notice to its subscriber who was using that IP address at the time of the alleged infringement. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 133 - 
 
  A copyright holder may decide to launch legal proceedings. Such proceedings may be launched 
regardless of whether the copyright holder has sent a notice under the regime. A court would then determine whether copyright infringement has in fact occurred. 
Under the Notice and Notice regime, ISPs must re tain records of the identity of the subscribers 
who have been forwarded notices for a period of six months, or longer (up to one year) in cases 
where a copyright holder decides to take legal action . If ordered to do so by a court, the ISP would 
release the subscriber information to the copyright holder as part of a copyright infringement 
lawsuit. 
The ISP bears the cost associated with the delivery of notices and retention of information related 
to the Notice and Notice regime. 
In addition to the Notice and Notice regime, le gislative changes in 2012 introduced a new civil 
remedy for copyright holders against those who knowingly enable infringement of copyright, such 
as illegal P2P file sharing sites. This new remedy supplements existing criminal powers to deal with pirate sites with new stronger tools for copyright holders that make liability for enabling of 
infringement clear. 
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2 Mining and Energy 
Page 125, paragraph 4.61 
 [Chinese Taipei Question 26]: The mining and energy sectors are important to the Canadian 
economy, contributing significantly to employment, exports, tax revenue, and GDP (Tables 4.7 and 
4.8). With over 10% of the world's proven oil reserves and significant mineral wealth, the sectors 
are poised to continue to contribute to the Canadian economy in the short and long-term. During the review period, there were significant impa cts on trade and the economy mainly due to 
fluctuations in energy prices. While world energy prices remained relatively low and fluctuating 
after the financial crisis, U.S. prices have genera lly remained even lower, particularly impacting 
Canada and accounting for lower export earnings. This trend has had an important effect as the 
sectors collectively account for approximately one-half of total Canadian merchandise exports.  
In light of the significant effects of fluctuating energy prices on trade and the economy, has the 
government implemented any new policies designed to assist relevant industries in mitigating such impacts? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has a market based energy framework whereby the private sector 
makes investment decisions based on Canada's attractiveness as a place to do business. It is the role of government to put in place an investment and regulatory climate that facilitates market and 
infrastructure investments. Though the government has not implemented any new policies to 
assist relevant industries in mitigating the impa cts of fluctuating energy prices, the government 
continues to monitor developments in oil markets, and their impacts on the Canadian economy. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 27]: What have been the effects of low oil prices on the development of 
non-conventional energy? 
Canada's Response:  Canadian crude oil production is expected to continue to grow in 2015 and 
beyond as projects already under construction continue to move forward. Canada's National 
Energy Board estimates that Canadian production will average 3.9 million barrels per day in 2015, 
up from 3.8 million barrels per day in 2014.
23 
Typically, oil sands projects have long life spans of 30-40 years. Thus, projects that are already 
operational are not generally impacted by short-term price swings. However, the Canadian 
Association of Petroleum Producers estimates that low oil prices will reduce estimated 2015 capital investment in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin by one third, or $23 billion, in 2015.
24  
                                               
23 Statistics Canada CANSIM 126-0001, NEB Estimated Production May 2015, https://www.neb-
one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/stt/stmtdprdctn-eng.html. 
24 CAPP, 2015 Interim Forecast http://www.capp.ca/~/media/capp/customer-
portal/documents/258247.pdf?la=en. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 134 - 
 
  [b] How have the relatively low and fluctuating energy prices impacted investment and the retail 
prices of renewable energy? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has not seen significant impacts to electricity prices as a result of oil 
price fluctuations. There is very little petroleum-fired generation in Canada. Canada relies on a 
diverse electricity resource mix in order to meet demand. This tends to mitigate the impact of fuel 
price fluctuations. More than 60 percent of Canada's electricity generation comes from hydroelectricity. Further, retail electricity prices are regulated in almost all provinces. Impacts on 
electricity prices and investment decisions in the electricity sector as a result of short-term 
fluctuations in oil prices are not expected. 
In Canada, biofuels are an additive to gasoline and diesel, and therefore, the prices of biofuels are 
linked to those of conventional fossil fuels. Cons equently as the price of oil declines, the market 
prices of biofuels tend to follow. This tend ency has been demonstrated in 2015, where from 
January to March 2015 the price of biofuels were lower than the industry average over the same 
period in 2014. This downward trend corresponded with the decline in North American oil prices 
since October 2014. What is important to note is the price differential between oil and biofuels; 
biofuels are most economically attractive when th ey are priced at a discount to fossil fuels. When 
the market price of biofuels are at a premium to fossil fuels, discretionary blending is not attractive 
and tends to remain at the minimum level required by regulations. Additional impacts on 
investment decisions in the biofuel sector as a result of short-term fluctuations in oil prices are not expected.  
4.2.1 Policy developments 
Page 126, paragraph 4.65 
 [Chinese Taipei Question 28]: In late 2014, the Government enacted the Extractive Sector 
Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA), which established mandatory reporting standards designed 
to deter corruption through reporting and transpar ency measures. The ESTMA requires that certain 
extractive entities (i.e., engaged in the commercial development of minerals, oil and natural gas), 
subject to Canadian law, to report annually on specific payments of Can$100,000 or more made to 
any government in Canada or abroad. The Canadian legislation is broadly aligned with emerging international reporting requirements in the United States and the European Union. It is anticipated 
that the ESTMA will come into force by mid-2015.  
Will the reporting procedures create barriers for other countries since the ESTMA is based on 
Canadian law? 
Canada's Response:  The Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA) delivers on 
Canada's commitment made at the 2013 G8 Leaders Summit to establish mandatory reporting requirements for businesses engaged in commercial development of oil, gas, or minerals. The 
ESTMA requires reporting of specific payments of $100,000 or more made to all levels of 
government. The purpose of the ESTMA is to contribute to global efforts to deter corruption in the extractive sector through increased transparency measures. As such, the ESTMA broadly aligns 
with similar measures in both the United States and the European Union, and is not anticipated to 
create barriers for other countries. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 29]: Will ESTMA affect the industrial structure of oil or natural gas, 
thereby indirectly influencing prices and adversely affecting other countries? 
Canada's Response:  In developing the ESTMA, the Government of Canada engaged a range of 
stakeholders in Canada, including industry. The ES TMA is not anticipated to indirectly influence 
prices of oil or natural gas. These measures will contribute to deterring corruption through 
transparency in the extractive sector global ly, and help to promote responsible resource 
development around the world. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 135 - 
 
  4.2.2 Energy 
4.2.2.2 Natural Gas Page 129, paragraph 4.74  
[Chinese Taipei Question 30]: Natural gas is another important sector for Canada, as it is the 
world's 5th largest producer and 4th largest exporter, accounting for 8% of world exports in 2013; it ranks 19th in terms of world proven reserves (Table 4.8). In 2013, Canada produced 13.7 billion 
cubic feet of natural gas. During the review period , natural gas production and exports fell slightly, 
with export values dipping in particular in 2012 as North American prices fell to record lows and recovering in 2013-14 (Chart 4.4). All exported natural gas is destined to one market, the United States. With a view to diversify export markets, industry proponents are pursuing a variety of LNG 
export proposals that are moving through the established regulatory review process. While Canada 
is not yet exporting LNG, current proposals have an expected export capacity of 302 million tonnes per year, which is equivalent to 40.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year and almost 3 times 
current natural gas production. Thus, according to the authorities, it is not expected that all these 
proposals will be approved or developed. The exportation of natural gas and LNG requires authorization from the National Energy Board through either a short term export order or a long 
term export licence of up to 25 years. When considering long-term natural gas export licences, the 
National Energy Board assesses whether Canada's supply of natural gas is large enough to easily accommodate domestic needs as well as the proposed LNG exports, while having regard to the trends in the discovery of gas in Canada. Following National Energy Board approval, long-term 
export licences require Governor in Council approval before they can be issued . 
What are the main benefits in terms of goods an d services expected to be derived from the LNG 
Canada project? 
Canada's Response:  According to information filed by the proponent in its Environmental 
Assessment Certificate Application, LNG Canada is proposing to spend between $25 billion and $40 
billion on construction, and between $7 billion an d $17 billion per year, mainly for purchases of 
natural gas feedstocks, during 25 years of operat ion. Further, decommissioning costs are expected 
to range between $2.1 billion and $3.3 billion (figures in nominal Canadian dollars [$]). 
Expenditures on goods and services within BC du ring the project construction phase are estimated 
to be in the range of $4.9 billion to $7.9 billion.  
Annual spending on goods and services (excluding natural gas purchases) is estimated to range 
between $485 million and $1.1 billion. Of this, an  estimated $400 million to $945 million will be 
spent in BC each year (83% of the total). LNG Canada indicated in the application that it expects 
to purchase all of its utilities, repair, and maintenance services from within BC, but some spending on corporate overhead costs and other services will occur elsewhere in Canada and abroad.  
Details on the economic conditions and benefits of the projects can be found in LNG Canada's 
project application at the following link: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p398/d38157/1418077227448_d0jJJGvLl9cH2WF
2lhlnXh5yrMMt5tsLzxjylqQ8zp3GNx Kx73L1!-231679769!1418076683640.pdf. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 31]: Does Canada plan to submit items derived from this project to the 
negotiations on the WTO Environmental Goods Agreement? 
Canada's Response:  Canada's product nominations submitted to the negotiations of the WTO 
Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) drew on an extensive domestic consultation process that 
ran from May 2014 to February 2015. A wide range of Canadian stakeholders participated in this consultation process, which resulted in the identification of a number of environmentally beneficial 
products that Canada nominated as environmental goods. These domestic consultations and the 
product nomination phase of the EGA are now comple te. All EGA participants have agreed that the 
EGA will build on the APEC list of environmen tal goods (all 54 HS subheadings), which includes 
natural gas turbines. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 136 - 
 
  4.3.1 Financial services 
Page 138, paragraph 4.107  [Chinese Taipei Question 32]: Foreign financial services providers must establish a commercial 
presence to carry on business in Canada. Besides acquiring a domestic bank, the range of 
available options for commercial presence includes establishing subsidiaries, full-service or lending branches, and representative offices. Lending branches may lend in Canada, but are not permitted 
to take any deposit; full-service branches may accept deposits of Can$150,000 or more, but such 
deposits are not eligible for the CDIC's insurance scheme. Banks and other federally chartered deposit-taking institutions are forbidden from offering financial services such as auto-lease financing, securities brokerage or insurance services (except for certain securities activities and 
the authorised credit insurance products to the banks' own clients that are permitted under the 
Bank Act). While banks cannot offer these services  directly, they can however establish their own 
insurance subsidiaries.  
In Canada, full-service branches of foreign banks may accept deposits of Can$150,000 or more, 
but these are not eligible for Canada's federal deposit insurance scheme. Could Canada please explain the underlying rationale for this restriction in the form of a minimum deposit threshold 
applied to full-service branches of foreign banks? Has Canada given any consideration given to 
removing the restriction or lowering the minimum deposit threshold? 
Canada's Response:  A foreign bank may establish in Canada as a lending branch, a full-service 
branch, or may incorporate a Canadian subsidiary . Once established, Canadian subsidiaries of 
foreign banks are extended equivalent or better re gulatory treatment to that received by domestic 
banks. In the same manner as domestic banks, Canadian subsidiaries of foreign banks can accept retail deposits of less than $150, 000 and have access to deposit insurance through the Canada 
Deposit Insurance Corporation. 
Branches are more lightly regulated than subsidiaries and have much lighter capital adequacy 
requirements. As such they are restricted from engaging in certain activities, such as retail 
deposit-taking (i.e. deposits less than $150,000). Given this restriction, foreign bank branches are 
not required to be members of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, or to pay the deposit-insurance premiums.  
The policy rationale is that given the lighter regulatory supervision and capital requirements, 
Canada has sought to limit branches to sophisticate d customers, and, therefore, restricted the size 
of deposits they could take. A further reason for restricting retail deposit-taking by foreign bank branches is that it would entail significant prudential risks to Canadian retail depositors who are 
not be covered by deposit insurance in Canada (because there is no legal entity in Canada), and 
may not have any legal recourse to deposit insurance in a foreign jurisdiction. 
Minimum deposit thresholds thus ensure that the best interests of the Canadian financial system 
are protected. At this time the government has no intention to amend this provision. 
4.3.2 Postal and courier services 
Page 144, paragraph 4.135  
[Chinese Taipei Question 33]: The Canada Post Corporation Act is the main postal law in Canada. 
It established the Canada Post Corporation (Canada Post) as a Crown corporation with the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, transmitting, and delivering letters weighing up to 500 grams 
to addresses within Canada. Exceptions to this postal monopoly include legal documents, cargo 
letters, letters of the carrier, urgent letters, and outbound international mail. Also excluded from 
this privilege is the transmission of newspapers, magazines, books, catalogues and goods. Canada 
Post is allowed to compete with other providers ou tside its exclusive area but is not permitted to 
cross-subsidize its competitive services from its monopoly revenues.   
What subsidiary measures have been adopted for designated operators who provide universal 
postal services? 
Canada's Response:  I n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  t h e  Canada Post Corporation Act , Canada Post is 
mandated to provide postal operations on a fina ncially self-sustaining basis. The Canada Post WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 137 - 
 
  Corporation Act and Regulations under the Act can be found online at 
http://www.laws.justice.g c.ca/eng/acts/C-10/.  
[Chinese Taipei Question 34]: How does Canada Post prove to other providers that there is no 
cross-subsidization between monopoly and non-monopoly services? 
Canada's Response:  Each year in Canada Post's Annual Report, which is made public on Canada 
Post's website and through its public tabling in both Houses of Canada's Parliament, external auditors (KPMG in 2014) audit the Annual Cost Study Contribution Analysis of the Canada Post 
Corporation 
(https://www.canadapost.ca/assets/pdf/aboutus/f inancialreports/2014_ar_complete_en.pdf). The 
Cost Study provides costing data that serve as the basis for ensuring that Canada Post is not competing unfairly by cross-subsidizing its competitive services with revenues from exclusive 
privilege services. In the 2014 and previous Annual Reports, external auditors were of the opinion 
that Canada Post did not cross-subsidize its co mpetitive services with revenues from exclusive 
privilege services. As a competitive service, Purolator is covered under the Annual Cost Study 
Contribution Analysis. For international business, Canada Post's business model contemplates 
contracts with foreign and domestic private courie rs undertaken on a commercial, for-profit basis. 
Page 144, paragraph 4.137 
[Chinese Taipei Question 35]: The legislation does not impose specifically a universal postal 
service obligation on Canada Post, but a mandate for "maintaining basic customary postal service". In 2009, the Government released the Canadian Postal Service Charter, outlining its expectations with regards to the services provided by the Co rporation. The Charter covers issues such as 
universal service obligations, postage rates, delivery expectations, and complaint-resolution 
procedures. The Corporation also delivers certain public-policy programmes on behalf of the Government. These include: the Food Mail Program, under which the Federal Government 
subsidizes the cost of food transportation to isolated communities; the free mailing for some 
government mail and materials for the blind; and a reduced rate for library materials.  
The Canadian Postal Service Charter covers such issues as universal service obligations, postage 
rates, etc. What is the scope of these obligations? 
Canada's Response:  The Canadian Postal Service Charter  sets out the Government of Canada's 
expectations regarding Canada Post's service stan dards and related activities in providing postal 
services that meet the needs of consumers of postal services in Canada. These expectations 
reiterate Canada Post's legal obligations in accordance with the Canada Post Corporation Act , as 
well as articulate the frequency of mail delivery, access of Canadians to postal services and the need to undertake community outreach and consultation when changes to postal services are 
anticipated. Both the Canada Post Corporation Act  and the Canadian Postal Service Charter  are 
public documents which may be found online at http://www.laws.justice .gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10/ 
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/i nfosheets-canadapost-1770.htm. 
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 2.1.3 Plurilateral Negotiations an d/or Agreements under the WTO 
Page 11, paragraph 2.18 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 36]: On July 8, 2014, Canada joined 13 other WTO members in 
launching negotiations on a new WTO Environmen tal Goods Agreement (EGA), building upon the 
APEC initiative. Canada supports an ambitious agreement that will facilitate the achievement of the 
green growth and sustainable development objectives of WTO members. Canada also encourages other WTO members to consider participation in these negotiations, as this initiative will lend 
momentum to the WTO and support the liberalization of trade. Canada believes that the 
liberalization of trade in environmental goods can contribute positively to finding solutions to many global environmental challenges. This plurilateral initiative complements Canada's other bilateral, 
regional and multilateral efforts to ensure mutual supportiveness of trade and environment, 
including negotiations in the context of APEC , bilateral and regional trade agreements, and 
discussions within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment. These efforts also complement the Canadian clean WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 138 - 
 
  technology industry which is an important, emergi ng sector that is providing solutions to protect 
the environment while driving new global economic, environmental and resource efficiencies.  
Could Canada provide us with information about the benefits toward the development of its clean 
technology industry, in terms of output value or trade volume, that it expects as a result of 
engaging in the EGA negotiations? 
Canada's Response:  Canada's objectives for a successful and ambitious WTO Environmental 
Goods Agreement (EGA) include the elimination of tariffs on a broad range of environmental goods 
among participating WTO members. Such a resu lt is expected to assist in addressing 
environmental challenges, while also facilitating growth in the clean technology industry in Canada and globally. More open trade would tend to stimulate competition in the sector, create new markets for manufacturers and provide incentives for clean technology businesses to develop new 
products to protect the environment. 
According to the Canadian Clean Technology Industry Report 2015, the Canadian clean technology 
sector has developed into an $11.7 billion industry and is expected to grow significantly. In 2013, 
Canada's clean technologies industry employed  49,900 people (up from 41,100 in 2012) in over 
800 companies (primarily small and medium-sized enterprises) in all regions of the country. Clean technology exports account for about half of the industry's revenues and it is forecast that by 
2015, 73% of industry revenues will come from ex ports, with approximately 35% of these exports 
going to non-US markets. These forecasts are independent of any outcome of the EGA negotiations. 
[Chinese Taipei Question 37]: What changes to th e structure of energy consumption and trade are 
expected after the tariffs on Canada's EGA proposed items are reduced? 
Canada's Response: The WTO Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) seeks to liberalize the 
trade in environmental goods, thus contributing to the international environmental protection 
agenda including combatting climate change and th e transition to a low emission, green economy. 
The conclusion of an ambitious EGA would facilitate trade in and enhance access for a broad range of environmental goods, such as products related to the production of renewable and clean energy 
and those that help to increase energy efficiency of our economies. Such a result is expected to 
limit or reduce the consumption of energy and en courage a shift in a country's energy production 
mix so as to favour less emitting sources. 
2.3.1 New Regional and Bilateral Free Trade Agreements 
Page 14, paragraph 2.40 
 [Chinese Taipei Question 38]: The Canada-Korea FTA (CKFTA) entered into force on 
January 1, 2015. South Korea is Canada's seventh-largest overall merchandise trading partner and 
third-largest in Asia, after China and Japan. Tw o-way trade between the two countries amounted 
to more than $11.4 billion in 2014, with Canadian exports to South Korea reaching $4.2 billion. 
Among the agreement's most tangible outcomes is the ambitious obligation undertaken by Canada 
and South Korea to widely eliminate tariffs in all sectors, including industrial goods, agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, and forestry and valu e-added wood products. Nearly 90% of Canada's 
current exports became duty-free on the day the ag reement entered into force, and all but a small 
fraction of the rest will become duty-free over time. The CKFTA will also cover virtually all other 
aspects of Canada-South Korean trade, includ ing services, investment, intellectual property, 
government procurement, labour and environment. The agreement is projected to boost Canada's 
GDP by $1.7 billion and increase Canada's exports to South Korea by over 30%.  
It is generally understood that nearly 90% of Ca nada's current exports became duty-free on the 
day the agreement entered into force. What are the items and the tariff reductions scheduled for 
the remaining 10%? 
Canada's Response:  Under the Canada-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (CKFTA), the tariff 
outcome for all products in HS Chapters 1-97 can be found at: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements -accords-commerciaux/ag r-acc/korea-coree/toc-
tdm.aspx?lang=eng. Please see Chapter 2: Nati onal Treatment and Market Access for Goods, 
Annex 2-D for phase-out categories and descriptions. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 139 - 
 
  UNITED-STATES 
Report by Canada (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15)  2.1 Multilateral Trade Policy 
2.1.1 Doha Development Agenda 
Page 8, paragraph 2.3 
[United-States Question 1]: The Government's report describes several trade facilitation efforts 
undertaken by Canada and describes Canada's strong support for the implementation of the WTO 
Trade Facilitation Agreement in developing and least developed countries, which we applaud. Could Canada provide an update on when it expect s to formally accept the WTO Trade Facilitation 
Agreement? 
Canada's Response: Canada's Economic Action Plan 2015 reaffirmed Canada's commitment to 
undertake the steps necessary to ratify and impl ement the TFA. Canada's ratification process 
includes tabling the TFA in Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days, legislative amendments, 
which could be initiated following completion of the tabling period, and once legislative 
amendments are complete, seeking the necessary authority for Canada to submit its instrument of acceptance to the WTO.  
Canada is currently working to ratify the agreement as soon as possible. Canada's Minister of 
International Trade tabled the TFA in Parliament on May 13. Canada will deposit its instrument of acceptance to the WTO following completion of the tabling period, introduction and passing of legislative amendments, and issuance of necessary authorizations. 
2.8 Other Key Initiatives 
2.8.2 Canada's Intellectual Property Regime Page 22, paragraph 2.87 
[United-States Question 2]: Please explain the "Request for Assistance" provision in the Combating 
Counterfeit Products Act ? How will Canada Border Services Agency share information with rights 
holders who apply and enroll in the Intellectual Property Rights Program to protect against the 
prohibited importation of counterfeit, trademark, and pirated copyright goods into Canada? 
Canada's Response:  A rights holder may file a Request for Assistance (RFA) application with the 
Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) by e-mail, mail or courier. The RFA must include the copyright or trade-marks owner's name and address in Canada. The validity of the RFA is for a 
period of two years, and this period may be extended. When a customs officer suspects on 
reasonable grounds that imported goods, or exported goods, are pirated or counterfeit, he or she may provide a right holder that has a valid Request for Assistance on file with information that 
would assist the right holder to pursue a remedy. The information may include a sample of the 
goods, a brief description of the goods, the name and address of their owner, importer, exporter and consignee as well as of the person who made them, etc. Communication is generally 
undertaken by email or by phone.  
2.8.7 Government Procurement Initiatives 
Page 24, paragraph 2.106 
[United-States Question 3]: Please explain in detail how "integrity clauses" amended in the 
Government Contracts Regulations impact suppliers and service providers that have government 
procurement contracts in Canada? 
Canada's Response:  The regulatory impact analysis can be found online in the Canada Gazette 
at the following URL: http://www.canadagaze tte.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2011/2011-10-12/html/sor-
dors197-eng.html.  
Page 24, paragraph 2.108 
[United-States Question 4]: The Government of Ca nada reports that it is preparing to implement 
the government procurement commitments undertaken in the CETA and that it is exploring how WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 140 - 
 
  "to better harmonize procurement standards by the different entities". Could the Government of 
Canada please explain what is meant by harm onizing procurement standards among different 
entities? Will these harmonization efforts result in any effect on GPA members' access to Canada's government procurement market? 
Canada's Response:  During Canada's 2011 Trade Policy Review, Members encouraged Canada to 
develop uniform standards for the MASH (Municipal, Academic, School, Hospital) sector and Crown Corporations procurement. Canada is reflecting on these comments and is in the very early stages 
of examining how harmonized procurement rules co uld increase the efficiency/effectiveness of the 
procurement process by promoting consistency of rules for a wide range of procuring entities. Any outcome would not impact negatively on GPA members' access to Canada's government procurement market. On the contrary, greater consistency and simplicity is expected to benefit 
domestic and foreign suppliers alike.  
Page 25, paragraph 2.110  
[United-States Question 5]: The Report states that in 2012 "Canada procured approximately $15.5 
billion in goods and services and construction services" but the citation listed shows a lower value 
($15.1 billion). Have there been updates to these publicly available figures? The same paragraph 
also references 2013 numbers but those do not appear to be listed on the website cited. Does 
Canada know when these statistics will be made available? 
Canada's Response: $15.5 billion is incorrect; the value for 2012 is $15.1 billion. The 2013 data 
should be available on the website (http://www.tb s-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgp ubs/con_data/siglist-
eng.asp) in June 2015. 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.2 Trade Policy Objectives 
Page 34, paragraph 2.13 
 [United-States Question 6]: The Secretariat Report lists wine, beer, and spirits as Global Markets 
Action Plan priorities. How is Canada ensuring that its development strategies respect national 
treatment obligations of the WTO? 
Canada's Response:  The development strategies of the Global Markets Action Plan  are focussed 
on international market development. For the wine, beer and spirits sectors, this consists of 
outward-looking activities such as business missions focused on giving Canadian businesses more 
exposure abroad, introducing them to high-oppo rtunity distribution channels and commercial 
opportunities, and also negotiating improvements and otherwise ensuring commercially meaningful 
access to foreign markets.  
2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreements 
Page 38, paragraph 2.26 
[United-States Question 7]: What is Canada doing to ensure that changes stemming from British 
Columbia's Liquor Policy Review and proposed changes in Ontario are consistent with Canada's international trade obligations? 
Canada's Response:  The federal government has worked closely with British Columbia and 
Ontario to ensure consistency of any changes with Canada's international trade obligations. The policies of Provincial liquor agencies have been accepted through various trade agreements to 
which Canada is a Party. 
Page 38, paragraph 2.28  
[United-States Question 8]: The Secretariat Report states that "final ratifi cation of the Agreement 
is expected to take place in approximately two years." Does Canada have a timeframe for 
implementation following ratification? Does the on going legal review take into consideration EU 
and Canadian commitments in other preferential trade agreements? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 141 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  Canada and the EU are presently undertaking a thorough legal review 
("scrub") of the text of the Agreement, to ensu re accuracy, consistency, and correspondence with 
negotiators' intent.  
The legal review will be followed by translation of the text into the other EU treaty languages. After 
the legal texts of all 23 official treaty languages have been reviewed, the agreement will be signed 
and both parties will undertake the necessary polic y, regulatory and legislative changes necessary 
for implementation of CETA and completion of their domestic approval processes. The overall 
process, from the conclusion of the negotiations, through the legal review, translation and 
approval could take approximately two years, bearing in mind it is difficult to place this somewhat fluid process within an exact timeframe. 
The provisions governing when the agreement will be brought into force are contained in CETA's 
chapter on Final Provisions, and the text is avai lable on the website: www.international.gc.ca/ceta. 
Canada and the EU are committed to bringing this agreement into force as quickly as possible in order that businesses and workers on both sides of the Atlantic can benefit from increased trade, 
opportunities and job creation. 
2.3.3 Other agreements and arrangements 
2.3.3.1 Trade with Australia and New Zealand  
Page 41, paragraph 2.32  
[United-States Question 9]: Can Canada provide information on the annual volume and value of 
imports from Australia and New Zealand which bene fited from preferential  tariff or non-tariff 
measures for 2012, 2103 and 2014? 
Canada's Response:   
Annual value of imports from Australia and New Zealand under their respective 
preferences (millions CAN $) 
 2012 2013 2014 
Australia (AUT imports) 49.2 42.3 44.0 
New Zealand (NZT Imports) 38.3 29.3 37.9 
 
Both preferential treatments cover a range of different goods. Imports of those goods are not 
accounted for in the same volume unit and, as such, consolidated annual volume figures cannot be provided. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.4 Tariffs 3.1.4.4 Tariff remission  
Page 57, paragraph 3.29 
[United-States Question 10]: Can Canada provides information on the rules and guidelines for 
imports of agricultural products under the Duty Deferral program? Can Canada provide a data source for tracking the amount and type of products that use the duty deferral program? 
Canada's Response:  The Duty Deferral Program provides relief from the payment of most duties 
on all imported goods (including agriculture products) that are ultimately exported, whether or not the goods are further manufactured in Canada.  
This program groups three sub-programs that defe r, relieve or refund the payment of duties on 
imported goods that are subsequently exported. These sub-programs are the following: 
(1) The Duties Relief Program: provides upfront tari ff relief on imported goods, provided the 
goods are subsequently exported from Canada within four years. 
(2) The Drawback Program: reimburses customs duties paid on goods that have been 
exported from Canada within four years. 
(3) The Customs Bonded Warehouse Program: allo ws for the deferral of customs duties and 
taxes (including GST/HST) on imported goods until the goods enter the Canadian economy WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 142 - 
 
  or are exported from Canada within four ye ars, provided the goods are not substantially 
altered.  
 Allowable functions that can be performed in a Customs Bonded Warehouse include disassembling 
or reassembling the goods, if they have been assembled or disassembled for packing, handling or 
transport; displaying, inspecting, labelling, packing,  storing or testing the goods; removing a small 
sample of the goods to solicit orders for goods or services; and cleaning, diluting, maintaining, 
servicing, reserving, separating defective goods, sorting or grading, trimming, filing, slitting, 
cutting, and complying with any applicable law of Canada ora province, as long as the characteristics of the goods are not materially altered. 
Article 303 of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) places limits on the amount of 
customs duties refundable by way of drawback or  deferrable under the Duty Deferral programs for 
goods exported from one NAFTA country to another. When imported materials are non-NAFTA originating, relief of customs duties is only allowed in an amount equal to the lesser of (a) the 
amount of customs duties owed on the goods when they are imported into Canada or (b) the 
amount of customs duties owed on the end prod ucts when exported into the US or Mexico. 
As the sub-programs are unique and collect different information in different fashions, data 
sources may or may not be available for tracking the amount and type of products that use the 
duty deferral program, all of which are subject to disclosure legislation. The Canada Border 
Services Agency (CBSA) has two main pieces of legislation which authorize the disclosure of CBSA 
information: section 107 of the Customs Act  and section 8 of the Privacy Act .  
More information regarding the Duty Deferral pr ograms can be found on the CBSA's webpage, 
available at the following link: http://cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/import/ddr-red/menu-eng.html, which includes links to the D7 series and D8 series memoranda. 
3.1.8 Standards and other technical requirements 
Page 69, paragraph 3.70 
[United States Question 11]: The report indicates that the federal authorities must carry out 
consultations with interested parties as early as possible. How does the Government of Canada 
identify stakeholders, including third country stakeholders? 
Canada's Response:  Canada identifies stakeholders, including third-country stakeholders, either 
through formal consultation mechanisms such as the Canada Gazette  or WTO notification 
processes, or via the communities of stakeholders  that our regulatory departments or agencies 
may develop through the course of their relate d work. Many Government departments publish 
information about legislative and regulatory processes and associated consultations on their 
websites and/or on the http://www1.canada.ca/con sultingcanadians/ website. Also, departments 
often list these initiatives in their forward regulatory plans. Forward regulatory plans provide information on planned and potential regulatory initiatives that regulators plan to introduce over a 
24-month period. Forward regulatory plans are inte nded to give consumers, business, and other 
stakeholders, including trading partners, greate r opportunity to inform the development of 
regulations and to plan ahead. 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements  
Page 72, paragraph 3.84 
[United-States Question 12]: On April 22, 2015 Canada repealed container requirements for dairy, 
fish and maple products. Will Canada repeal container sizes for all products? Can Canada provide 
details on their timeline for withdrawing addition al container size requirements from remaining 
affected commodities? 
Canada's Response:  Based on feedback received from stakeholder engagement, the CFIA is 
proceeding with repeals to standard container size regulations using a phased approach. The first 
phase was applied to the deregulation of standard weights and container sizes for maple, dairy and fish products and was notified to the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade on May 18, 2015 (G/TBT/N/CAN/446). Phase II amendments will deregulate standard weights and container sizes 
for specific processed fruits and vegetables, fresh fruits and vegetables, and honey products WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 143 - 
 
  .Examples of proposed products for the next phase include frozen concentrated apple juice (under 
the Processed Products Regulations), and prepacka ged beets (under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 
Regulations). The list of products is currently being confirmed and is expected in late 2015 after cost-benefit analyses have been completed. Cana da will continue to notify the Committee on 
Technical Barriers to Trade as required. 
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports  
3.2.5 Export, finance, insurance, guarantees 
Page 78, Table 3.13  
[United-States Question 13]: Which EDC programs listed in this table cover agricultural commodity 
exports? Is it only the Accounts Receivable Insurance and Single Buyer Insurance programs, as described in Canada's 2013 and 2014 submissions to the WTO Committee on Agriculture 
"Questionnaire on Export Competition" (TN/AG/S/27/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/125/Add.2, respectively). 
Or are agricultural commodities/products eligible under other EDC programs listed in Table 3.13? 
Canada's Response:   
Agricultural Products 
CIB25 FIN26 ARI27 
CFI28 Guarantees Single buyer 
FXG29 Loans Trade Protect 
PSG30   
 
[United-States Question 14]: If agricultural commodity exports are supported under any EDC programs other than Accounts Receivable Insurance and Single Buyer Insurance programs, please provide for each program: 
  Total value of exports of agricultural products covered by the program in 2013, as well as 
a break-down of this value by agricultural product or product group 
  Annual average premium rates for agricultural products in 2013 
  Maximum repayment terms for agricultural products in 2013 
  Annual average repayment terms for agricultural products in 2013 
  Destination of agricultural product exports in 2013. 
 
Canada's Response:   
Total value of exports of agricultural prod ucts covered by the program in 2013, as well 
as a break-down of this value by ag ricultural product or product group 
2013 Agricultural 
Product/Group CIB 31 
$CAD FIN 32 
$CAD FII 33 
$CAD PRI 34 
$CAD ARI 35 
$CAD Grand total  
$CAD 
Animal Breeding, 
Genetics & Production  13,143,750    47,600,277 60,744,027  
Animal Health, 
Nutrition & Related 
Services 775,000    53,618,114 54,393,114  
Commodities – Grain 15,625,256 50,375,000    172,144,645 238,144,901  
Commodities – 
Horticulture 750,000 550,000    100,233,854 101,533,854  
Commodities – Meat 40,958,495 45,626,840   308,265  916,031,517 1,002,925,116  
Commodities - 
Organic Horticulture     531,101 531,101  
                                               
25 Contract Insurance Bonding. 
26 Finance. 
27 Accounts Receivable Insurance. 
28 Contract Frustration Insurance. 
29 Foreign Exchange Guarantee. 
30 Performance Secu rity Guarantee. 
31 Contract Insurance Bonding. 
32 Finance. 
33 Foreign Investme nt Insurance. 
34 Political Risk Insurance. 
35 Accounts Receivable Insurance. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 144 - 
 
  2013 Agricultural 
Product/Group CIB 31 
$CAD FIN 32 
$CAD FII 33 
$CAD PRI 34 
$CAD ARI 35 
$CAD Grand total  
$CAD 
Commodities - 
Specialty Crops 12,158,188 9,008,739    170,474,200 191,641,127  
Crop Inputs - Seeds, 
Fertilizers & Related 
Products 10,886,939 1,876,795    32,231,241 44,994,974  
Processor / Elevator – 
Grain 9,714,824 17,506,124    356,741,613 383,962,562  
Processor / Elevator - 
Specialty Crops 19,618,697 25,000,000    660,126,415 704,745,111  
Processed Food 27,177,735 92,735,465  22,521   815,687,953 935,623,674  
Grand Total 96,706,638 210,195,873  22,521  308,265  2,408,858,312 2,715,783,344  
 
• Annual average premium rates for agricultural products in 2013 – For reasons of commercial 
confidentiality, the rates are not for release. 
• Maximum repayment terms for agricultural products in 2013 – For reasons of commercial 
confidentiality, the terms not for release. 
• Annual average repayment terms for agricultural products in 2013 – For reasons of 
commercial confidentiality, the terms are not for release. 
Destination of agricultural product exports in 2013 
 EDC Volume 
$CAD 
United States of America 389,552,700 
Japan 106,285,279 
Philippines 70,486,211 
Australia 41,849,065 
Mexico 37,381,691 
Chinese Taipei 24,628,982 
United Kingdom 19,460,806 
Republic of South Africa 17,595,977 
Republic of Korea 17,174,844 
People's Republic of China 14,177,356 
Top 10 Export Countries Primary Ag (2013) EDC Volume 
$CAD 
 United States of America  481,536,535 
 Mexico  168,183,688 
 Canada  155,276,276 
 United Kingdom  138,463,220 
 People's Republic of China  135,526,710 
 India  116,964,402 
 Philippines  104,599,846 
 Turkey  102,013,444 
 United Arab Emirates  101,770,031 
 Chile  86,764,353 
 Japan  84,203,396 
 
[United-States Question 15]: What were the annual average premium rates charged for agricultural product exports under the Accounts Receivable Insurance and Single Buyer Insurance 
programs in 2013? 
Canada's Response:  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the rates are not for release. 
Page 78, paragraph 3.108  
[United-States Question 16]: What was the percen tage of total Canadian agricultural product 
exports in 2013 and 2014 that were exported with EDC-provided financial support? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 145 - 
 
  Canada's Response:   
 2013 2014 
Canada Agri-Food Exports: $46,012,427,000 $51,532,902,000 
EDC Volume $2,715,783,344 $5,041,307,564 
Percentage of EDC support 5.90% 9.78% 
 
[United-States Question 17]: What was the percentage of total Canadian forestry product exports and fishery products exports in 2013 and 2014 that were exported with EDC-provided financial 
support? What was the total value of each? 
Canada's Response:   
 2013 2014 
Canada Fish & Seafood Exports: $4,388,764,000 $4,918,561,000 
EDC Volume $2,009,267,789  $2,421,045,990 
Percentage of EDC support 45.7% 49.2% 
 
 2013 2014 
Forestry commodities Exports: $28B $29B 
EDC Volume $5,685,146,608  $5,698,998,875 
Percentage of EDC support 20% 20% 
 
3.3.4 State trading, state-owned enterprises, and privatization 
3.3.4.1 Stated trading enterprises 
Page 86, table 3.21  
[United-States Question 18]: In the Aug. 2011-  July 2012 and Aug. 2012 – July 2013 years, what 
were the destinations of the exports supported by the Canadian Wheat Board's Agri-Food Credit 
Facility (ACF)? What were the annual average premium rates charged under the ACF in each of those years? What were the average annual repa yment periods under the ACF in each of those 
years? 
Canada's Response:   
Aug/2012 to Jul/2013 
Countries Margin Repayment Period 
Mexico 1.25% to 2.50% 178 to 265 days 
Peru 0.75% to 0.80% 120 to 181 days 
Indonesia 0.50% 68 days 
 
Aug/2011 to Jul/2012 
Countries Margin Repayment Period 
Mexico 1.25% to 2.50% 53 to 270 days 
Peru 0.65% 35 to 238 days 
 
[United-States Question 19]: What was the percentage of total Canadian wheat exports in 2013 and 2014 that were exported with support from the ACF? 
Canada's Response:  2013 crop year (Aug/2013 to Jul/2014)  – 0.04% 2014 crop year (Aug/2014 
to Jul/2015) - 0% - no ACF activity. 
[United-States Question 20]: What was the percen tage of total Canadian barley exports in 2013 
and 2014 that were exported with support from the ACF? 
Canada's Response:  There were zero Barley ACF sales in either Crop Year. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 146 - 
 
  3.3.5 Government Procurement 
3.3.5.2 Developments  Page 94, Table 3.26  
[United-States Question 21]: Could Canada explain the new exceptional contracting limit for Public 
Works and Government Services Canada as well as for Shared Services Canada that were 
instituted on July 18, 2014? 
Canada's Response: Contracts subject to trade agreements follow procedural obligations set out 
in the applicable trade agreement, even if exceptional contracting limits are approved by the 
Treasury Board.  
The Treasury Board of Canada approved a new exceptional contracting limit to the Minister 
responsible for Public Works and Government Services Canada to enter into call-ups with the 
existing supplier of expendable sonar system s up to $6 million including amendments. Any 
contract under this threshold will not require addi tional approval by the Treasury Board until it 
expires on September 30, 2017.  
The Treasury Board of Canada approved a new exceptional contracting limit to the Minister 
responsible for Shared Services Canada to enter into and amend a non-competitive contract for hardware and software licensing, maintenance and support services for the purpose of maintaining 
current information technology (IT) operations of the Government of Canada where intellectual 
property of the supplier prevents the service from  being competed up to a total cumulative value 
of $22.5 million for a maximum contract period of three years with the following conditions:  
a. Entry level approval limit to a maximum of $15 million including option years;  
b. Amendment approval limit to a maximum of $7.5 million.  
Any contract or amendment under these thresholds  will not require additional approval by the 
Treasury Board until it expires March 2016.  
[United-States Question 22]: Canada set a new exceptional contracting limit for National Defence 
on November 14, 2014. Could Canada explain the new contracting limit and does this measure include procurements by the Canada's Department of National Defence that are covered by 
Canada's international trade obligations? 
Canada's Response:  Canada cannot explain the new exceptional contracting limit for the 
Department of National Defence (DND) as it is in support of sensitive operations. In the event that 
a contract is covered under Canada's trade obligations, DND will comply with the respective trade 
obligations. 
[United-States Question 23]: On October 4, 2011, Canada changed its Government Contracts 
Regulations to "impose an obligation to declare th at bidders have not been convicted of certain 
criminal offenses." Could Canada explain where the obligation falls, with the bidder itself or the 
contracting authority? What steps must be taken to ensure that declaration? 
Canada's Response:  The Government Contracts Regulations  deem 
36certain terms in all goods, 
services and construction services contracts including the one whereby a bidder declares that they 
have not been convicted of certain criminal offences. There are no measures in the Regulations that require a contracting authority to verify a bidder's declaration however, there is another deemed term that would allow a contracting authority to cancel the contract if the contractor made 
a false declaration. 
                                               
36 Deemed terms are expressly set out in every construc tion, goods or service contract that provides for 
the payment of any money by Her Majesty. Part III of the Government Contracts Regulations  stipulate the 
deemed terms. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 147 - 
 
  3.3.5.3 Legal framework and process 
Page 95, paragraph 3.153 
[United-States Question 24]: Canada explains that "under certain conditions, a federal government 
procurement contract is set-aside for aboriginal businesses." Could Canada explain those "certain 
conditions?" Does the federal government create an annual target either by value or number of 
contracts that individual procuring agencies are supposed to meet to comply with the Procurement 
Strategy for Aboriginal Business (PSAB)? How does Canada inform suppliers of whether or not a 
federal contract will be set aside for an aboriginal business? Do Canadian Provinces have similar 
procurement strategies and requirements for aboriginal business? If so, does Canada have data regarding the value and number of contracts set aside under such programs? 
Canada's Response:  A federal government procurement can be set-aside for aboriginal 
businesses under one of two conditions:  
1) On a mandatory basis when the good, service or construction is destined for an 
Aboriginal Community where the population is 80% Aboriginal People and the recipient of 
the good, service or construction is for the Aboriginal People.  
2) It may also be set-aside under the voluntary component if Canada can determine that 
there exists Aboriginal business capacity to perform the work.  
In addition, it should be noted that the PSAB is excluded from Canada's GPA coverage (see 
General Note 3, Annex 7 of Canada's schedule to the WTO GPA: "This Agreement does not apply to any measure adopted or maintained with respec t to Aboriginal peoples. It does not affect 
existing aboriginal or treaty rights of any of th e Aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of 
the Constitution Act, 1982.") 
Under the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business, Departments that contract in excess of 
$1 million annually must set annual performance objectives that address the following areas:  
a. estimated number of contract awards to Aboriginal business;  
b. estimated dollar value of contract awards to Aboriginal business. The Government of Canada informs suppliers by posting the requirement on the Government 
Electronic Tenders System (GETS – buyandsell.gc.ca). Suppliers are responsible for monitoring 
GETS to determine if a requirement has been po sted under the set-aside Program for Aboriginal 
Business either as a mandatory or voluntary set-aside opportunity. 
Canada has data regarding the value and number of contracts set-aside under the Federal 
Government Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Bu siness but does not have details on provincial 
procurement data. 
There are three Canadian sub-federal jurisdictions with similar procurement strategies, Manitoba, 
Ontario and Yukon. 
Manitoba  maintains an Aboriginal Procurement Initiative (API)
37 which operates with the following 
subsets: 
1. Set Aside 
2. Mandatory Aboriginal Business Participation 3. Desired Aboriginal Business Participation  In order for a procurement to qualify under subsets 1 and 2, the following criteria must apply:  
o  the procurement is culturally specific to Aboriginal People; and 
                                               
37 http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/psb/api/ab_proc.html. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 148 - 
 
  o  the procurement is primarily designated for Aboriginal People. 
 With regard to subset 3 (Desirable Aboriginal Business Participation), tender documents will indicate that aboriginal business involvement is desirable in the process and that points will be 
assigned for 'Aboriginal Business Participation'. Importantly, a non-aboriginal vendor would not be 
disqualified from proposal evaluations under subset  3. Rather, a score of "zero" would be assigned 
to 'Aboriginal Participation' in the evaluation matrix. Finally, aboriginal participation can delivered 
by a prime Contractor/Consultant, a subcontractor, or through a joint venture  
Tender documents will indicate whether a procurement is subject to the API and, if so, which 
subset is applicable. While Manitoba does not set targets under the API, and Aboriginal Business engagement is reported by government departments on an annual basis, the API Policy does not 
apply to the following entities: 
o Agencies, Boards, Commissions, Committees, or similar entities that report to the executive 
branch of the Manitoba Government; 
o Crown Corporations (ex: Manitoba Hydro); and 
o "MASH" Sector Entities. 
 
While Ontario  does not have a set-aside program for aboriginal procurement, it does have an 
aboriginal preference program - the Aboriginal Procurement Program (APP). The Ontario government ran an Aboriginal Procurement P ilot between February 2012 and April 2015, which 
transitioned into a permanent Aborig inal Procurement Program in May 2015. 
The Aboriginal procurement practices aims to increase Aboriginal business participation in 
government procurement, foster partnerships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal businesses and support Aboriginal economic development.  
Under the APP, Ministries are encouraged to consider Aboriginal procurement preferences when 
the goods/services being procured for any dollar amount that: 
o Have a significant impact on or benefit for Aboriginal people or communities;  
o Are culturally specific to Aboriginal people; and/or, 
o Are primarily designated for Aboriginal people (i.e., procurements that involve a program or 
policy for Aboriginal people). 
Finally, in Yukon , some government construction procurement is carried out through Yukon Asset 
Construction Agreements (YACAs ). YACAs are negotiated under Section 22 of some Yukon First 
Nation Self-government Agreements and are desi gned to provide opportunities for training, 
employment, new business or investment for the qualifying First Nation. A YACA opportunity is 
triggered when the Yukon government intends to construct an asset within the Traditional Territory 
of the qualifying First Nation. 
YACAs set aside procurement for aboriginal businesses under conditions similar to those used by 
the federal government: the procurement occurs in traditional aboriginal territory (e.g. in an 80% 
aboriginal community) and there is an aboriginal business able to perform the work. 
Page 95, Table 3.27  
[United-States Question 25]: The table shows that  the value of competitive bids has dropped by 
18% between 2010 and 2013, while the value non-competitive bids during this same time period 
increased by 34%. Could Canada explain the reason for this trend? 
Canada's Response:  Fluctuations in the volume of contracting should be taken into consideration 
when analyzing these figures. Between 2010 and 2013, the value of all contracts greater than 
$25K decreased from $15 billion to $13 billion. In 2010, 88% of the value of contracts were 
awarded competitively, and in 2013, 82%; a 6.8% decrease.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 149 - 
 
  3.3.6.5 The Patent System 
Page 104, paragraph 3.179 
[United-States Question 26]: Does Canada have any plans to release regulations to clarify aspects 
of the "Promise Doctrine" mentioned in this paragraph? Is there any relation to the Promise 
Doctrine mentioned in this paragraph and the entry in the table regarding National IP Legislation 
and international agreements entitled "Patented Medicines Regulations" mentioned in Table 3.28 
on page 101? 
Canada's Response:  The attention of Canadian courts to the utility asserted or 'promised' by the 
applicant is consistent with Canadian case law and basic patent law principles going back decades. Among other things, an invention must do what an inventor asserts it will do. Moreover, the invention, including its utility, must be realised as at the time of filing: a patent filing is not a 
'placeholder' against the promise of future inventiveness. What certain stakeholders have labelled 
the 'promise doctrine' is in fact a series of rules designed to protect the Canadian patent system against speculative patent filings. These rules are grounded in longstanding principles at the 
foundation of the Patent Act .  
In interpreting and applying the Patent Act  to uphold basic requirements of patentability, Canadian 
courts are fulfilling their statutory role. The Government of Canada does not intend to intervene in 
the Court's exercise of its role by way of regulation or otherwise.  
There is no specific relation between the Patent ed Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations 
and what critics of Canadian law have labelled 'the promise doctrine'. The PM (NOC) Regulations simply establish a linkage between patents and the granting of marketing approvals. In so doing, 
Canada offers pharmaceutical patent holders unique additional patent protection: the PM (NOC) 
allows pharmaceutical patent holders pre-emptively to block market entrants, rather than relying on infringement actions once a competitor has entered the market.  
Page 104, paragraph 3.181  
[United-States Question 27]: How will Canada's IPR commitments for pharmaceuticals under 
CETA, specifically patent term restoration, be implemented? What is the timeframe for finalization 
and implementation? Will right of appeal for innovative firms be maintained? 
Canada's Response:  The pharmaceutical intellectual property (IP) elements included in CETA 
maintain the balance in the Canadian system of promoting innovation and investment for new medicines while ensuring timely access to affordable drugs. 
The Canadian Government has committed to implementing additional ( sui generis ) protection for 
pharmaceutical products protected by eligible pate nts. Implementation will require amendments to 
the Patent Act .  
The Canadian Government has also committed to ensuring that litigants under its "patent linkage" 
regime (i.e., whereby the granting of a marketing authorization is linked to the existence of patent protection) are afforded equivalent and effective rights of appeal. Implementation will require 
amendments to the Patent Act and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. 
Canada is currently conducting analysis on the best way to implement these obligations, but no 
timeline has yet been set to introduce the enabling legislation for patents.  
3.3.6.6 Copyright 
Page 104, paragraph 3.184 
[United-States Question 28]: The 2012 Copyright Modernization Act included new provisions on 
fair dealing for education, Section 29.4. How is the Canadian government monitoring the fair 
dealing exception for educational institutions? Will the Canadian government review usage of this 
provision through consult with the general public  and stakeholders from business, industry, and 
academic communities? Will the Canadian government make any private sector recommendations 
available to the public? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 150 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  In 2012, Canada modernized its copyright law in a way that balances the 
needs of creators and users. Fair dealing is a long  standing feature of Canadian copyright law that 
permits certain uses of copyrighted material in ways that do not unduly threaten the interests of copyright owners and could have significant societal benefits. Fair dealing, mu ch like the "fair use" 
doctrine in the United States, is a fundamental and well-established part of copyright law. In 
Canada, the Supreme Court has set out clear guidance for determining what is "fair". Schools in Canada have to be mindful of the limits placed on fair dealing in the Copyright Act , as well as the 
extent to which they will need to seek authorization from copyright owners. The Government has 
heard a variety of views from book publishers and educational institutions in Canada on the effect that changes to Canada's copyright regime may be having. The Government will continue to monitor the implementation of all provisions of the modernized law. As well, the Copyright Act  
mandates that a Parliamentary committee undertake a review of the legislation every five years, 
with the first such review set for 2017."  
Pages 104-105, paragraph 3.184  
[United-States Question 29]: Paragraph 3.184 indicates significant changes – a 75% reduction – in 
statutory damages for copyright infringement with non-commercial purposes, Copyright Act Section 38.1. We would appreciate any description, as well as any statistical information resulting 
from any judges, as to how courts are assessing damages in cases under this amended law. 
Canada's Response:  As the Secretariat Report states, in 2012 when the majority of the 
Copyright Modernization Act  came into force, statutory damages for copyright infringements were 
reduced from $500 - $20,000 per work infringed, to $100 - $5,000 with respect to all 
infringements involved in the proceedings for all works (see Section 38.1(1)(b) of the Copyright 
Act), where the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.  
Since that time, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no judicial treatment of the new 
statutory damages for non-commercial purposes provision. More specifically, there has been no 
judicial assessment of damages under this amended section of the Copyright Act . 
Page 105, paragraph 3  
[United-States Question 30]: The Government Repo rt highlights Canada's Copyright Modernization 
Act and its goal of being in line with today's international standards. The Secretariat Report discusses the new exceptions for non-commercial user-generated content in Section 29.21. We would appreciate any information or reports on how the public is utilizing this particular exception 
in the Canadian marketplace since its enactment. 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada has not issued information or reports on the use 
by the public of section 29.21 of the Copyright Act . 
3.3.6.9 IP Enforcement 
Page 107, paragraph 3.200 
[United-States Question 31]: Under Canada's new anti-counterfeiting legislation that came into 
force in December 2014, will rights holders be requ ired to formally file a Request for Assistance for 
CBSA to initiate inspections for counterfeit goods or  will agents be able to inspect based on their 
assessments or informal communications? Will Canada consider as revisions to its anti-counterfeiting legislation that will permit targeting and detention of goods that are in-transit? 
Canada's Response:  The border provisions of the Combating Counterfeit Products Act  came into 
force on January 1, 2015. Under its provisions, border service officers have the authority to seek and detain shipments suspected of containing trademark counterfeit or copyright pirated goods (ex 
officio authority). The Request for Assistance filed by a rights holder will allow the border service 
officer to exchange certain information in order for the rights holder to begin a court action to deal with the offending goods. The Combating Counterfeit Products Act  is exclusively about adding new 
facilitating tools to enforce infringements of trademarks and copyrights, primarily for rights holders 
through its Request for Assistance mechanism. Canada already has in place laws and regulations that provide an enforcement framework for in-transit shipments exhibiting health, safety or security issues. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 151 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 
4.1.2 Border measures  
Page 111, paragraph 4.7  
[United-States Question 32]: How does Canada administer its dairy TRQs? How will Canada 
implement dairy-related provisions in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)? 
Canada's Response:  Canada's dairy TRQs are implemented and administered under the Export 
and Import Permits Act  and according to our international obligations. At the beginning of each 
tariff quota year, the TRQs' access quantities are allocated to eligible applicants according to various allocation methods defined in regulations an d/or policies. On the basis of their allocation, 
importers then request import permits that allow entry into Canada for the goods covered by the 
TRQ at the low, within access rate of duty. (For allocation holders, import permits are essentially issued on demand through Canada's electronic permit system.) Furthermore, Canada applies a 
number of policies and mechanisms designed to maxi mize TRQ fill, such as return and reallocation 
policies and under-utilization penalties. Details of Canada's administration and allocation policies for dairy TRQs can be found on the website of Fo reign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada at: 
www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles. 
The new CETA cheese TRQs that will be established,  upon entry into force of the Agreement, will 
also be administered under the auspices of the Export and Import Permits Act , in accordance with 
the principles for TRQ administration set out in the agreement. The allocation methods will be 
determined following broad-based stakeholder consultations, before CETA enters into force. 
4.1.3.2 Other programmes  
Page 115, paragraph 4.21 
[United-States Question 33]: Concerning the Advance Payments Program, we would appreciate 
Canada's explanation of the discrepancy between th e level of expenditures for this program, as 
presented in Table A 4.1 (p. 178) of the WTO Se cretariat report, and the amount of support 
notified for this program in supporting tables DS:9 (Nonproduct-specific AMS). Table A 4.1 
presents expenditures of Can$1,894.6 milli on for 2011, Can$1,882.2 million for 2012, and 
Can$2,4091.1 million for 2013, based on production years. For comparison, Canada's most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/CAN/104, p. 17) for 2012, includes Can$15.8 million in "other non-
product-specific support." 
We understand that the level of support in the AMS notification is based on an interest rate gap 
methodology. However, in response to the EU's questions about this program at the June 2012 
Committee on Agriculture, Canada explained that the "…support provided under this program is 
measured as the interest payments made by the federal government to financial institutions (such as banks) on behalf of the producer organizations" (cited from Ag-IMS database ID # 66044 for 
COA meeting #66). This response suggests that there may be a budgetary outlay associated with 
the program. If the information in the WTO report is incorrect and there is not a budgetary outlay for this program, please elaborate on how the interest rate gap method is applied to derive the level of support. 
It is not clear why Canada decided to reclassify this program as nonproduct-specific, when it had 
previously been notified as product-specific for the purposes of the AMS calculation. We understand that the program was expanded to include livestock and other crops, but given that 
the support is channeled through producer organizations, one would expect that product-specific 
data exists. In fact, the program is described as a "product-specific loan guarantee programme" on page. 115 of the WTO report. Please provide an explanation for this modification to Canada's 
domestic support notification. 
Canada's Response:  The amount reported in table A4.1 is the total amount provided to farmers 
as a cash advance repayable loan while the amount reported in the DS1 notification is the total interest paid by the federal government on the cash advances for the first $100, 000 cash advance 
which is interest free for producers. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 152 - 
 
  There is a budgetary outlay associated with the program and this is what is reported in the DS 
notification.  
Canada classifies programs according to the provisions in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. 
Under the definition of the "Aggregate Measurement of Support" in Article 1(a), product-specific 
support is defined as support "provided for an agricu ltural product in favour of the producers of the 
basic agricultural product" and non-product specific support is defined as support "provided in favour of agricultural producers in general". When the eligibility for the Advanced Payment 
Program was broadened to include livestock and other crops, the program became available to all 
sectors and to agricultural producers in general, hence why the program was reclassified to non-product-specific support. 
4.1.5 Evolution of support and protection  
Page 116-7, paragraph 4.28 
[United-States Question 34]: In Table 4.3, the Unit ed States notes that Canada's WTO notification 
of market price support for dairy products (butter and skim milk powder) are reported at levels 
that are much lower than the OECD's producer support estimates (PSEs) presented in Table 4.4. In 
2009-11, Canada notified market price support fo r dairy products averaging around C$500 million 
a year. In contrast, the PSE for milk during this period averaged C$4.3 billion a year and increased 
to nearly C$5 billion in 2012. Since 1996, Canada has consistently reduced the amount of eligible 
production it uses for its AMS calculation despite the fact that it sets a support price for a specific (quota) amount. Why doesn't Canada's market price support calculation for dairy reflect the full amount of support provided to quota production, irrespective of which class the milk is eventually 
sold?  
Canada's Response:  Sales of butter and skim milk powder for further processing, total exports of 
butter and skim milk powder and skim milk powder for animal feed are not counted as eligible 
production in the calculation of market price support since sales of these products for these uses 
are not eligible to receive the support price. Market price support is calculated on the basis of the administered prices for products to which such pr ices apply, namely butter and skim milk powder. 
All production of butter and skim milk powder that is eligible to receive the support price is 
counted as eligible production in the calculation of market price support. This is consistent with both Annex 3, paragraph 8, of the Agreement conc erning the calculation of market price support 
as well as the jurisprudence on this issue. 
4.1.6 Selected sub-sectors 
4.1.6.1 Wheat and barley Page 118, paragraph 4.32 
[United-States Question 35]: Grown in Canada is a necessary condition for receiving a Canadian 
Grain Commission grade for wheat in Canada.  What steps is Canada taking to ensure that imports into Canada can be graded to Canadian standards? 
Canada's Response:  Bill C-48, Modernization of Canada's Grain Industry Act, was introduced into 
the House of Commons on December 9, 2014, to align the Canada Grain Act  with the needs of 
today's grain sector. One component of the bill co uld permit Canadian grain grades on imported 
grain if it is of a variety registered in Canada. United States grain producers are free to enter into 
contractual agreements, involving any number of specifications with grain handling companies or 
processors located in Canada. 
 
_______________ WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 153 - 
 
  REPLIES PROVIDED BY CANADA TO ADVANCE WRITTEN QUESTIONS 
RECEIVED AFTER MAY 18th 2015 
ALPHABETICALLY BY MEMBER 
ARGENTINA (ORIGINAL QUESTI ONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
SECOND SET 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 General Framework 
Page 32, paragraph 2.2  [Argentina Question 1 (Second Set)]: This paragraph states that the Agreement on Internal Trade 
is an inter-governmental trade agreement on in ternal trade whose objective is to reduce or 
eliminate barriers to the free movement of peop le, goods, services and investments within 
Canada. The Agreement includes six general standards, including non-discrimination and 
transparency, among others. In addition, the Agre ement focuses on reducing barriers in eleven 
specific sectors. During the period under review, the Agreement was modified on two occasions. The changes include revisions to the sections on  public procurement, labour mobility and the 
settlement of disputes. 
We would like to know more information about the objectives of this Agreement as well as information on the nature of the six standards that are implemented to achieve the stated objectives. 
 
Canada's Response:  The stated objective of the Agreement on Internal Trade is to "reduce and 
eliminate, to the extent possible, barriers to th e free movement of person s, goods, services and 
investments within Canada and to establish an open, efficient and stable domestic market". 
The six general standards referenced above, and set out in the Agreement on Internal Trade's General Rules Chapter, are as follows: reciprocal non-discrimination; right of entry and exit; no 
obstacles; legitimate objectives; reconciliation; and, transparency (Link to the AIT: 
http://www.ait-aci.ca/e n/ait/ait_en.pdf). 
 Page 32, paragraph 2.4 
[Argentina Question 2 (Second Set)]: The report explains that, in terms of the consultation 
processes between the public and private sectors, DFATD has a series of advisory bodies that involve private sector participation. These bodies co ntribute to public policy and, in particular, to 
the operation of the Trade Commissioner Service, the federal government agency that promotes 
international trade.  
 
What are the advisory bodies? What is the procedure for a business to carry out a consultation in 
the public sector?  Canada's Response:  DFATD maintains a number of consultative bodies that engage the private 
sector to contribute to government policy and, more specifically, the operations of the Trade 
Commissioner Service, the international trade promotion arm of the federal government. The Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Advisory Board 
(http://www.international.gc.ca/ media/comm/news-communiques/ 2015/05/07a.aspx?lang=eng) 
is comprised of 18 private sector leaders from small and medium-sized enterprises; it meets biannually. DFATD also maintains a limited number of sector-oriented consultation bodies that 
annually bring together government and industry representatives, as well as the Global Markets 
Action Plan Advisory Council (http:// www.international.gc.ca/media/comm/news-
communiques/2015/03/27a.aspx?lang=eng), announced as part of the Global Markets Action Plan launch in November 2013. Finally, DFATD also chairs Tariff Quota Advisory Committees (TQACs) 
that serve as consultation bodies to specifically discuss Canada's trade controls regime. 
 Canadian businesses freely communicate and consult directly with federal government bodies. 
Departmental websites indicate various means by which they can be contacted (e.g. DFATD's 
contact information can be found here: http://www.international.gc.ca/department-ministere/contact_us-contactez_nous.aspx?lang=en g). In addition, the Government proactively WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 154 - 
 
  solicits input from business and civil society on specific issues (e.g. trade negotiations, 
international education) through calls for input in the Canada Gazette  
(http://www.gazette.gc.ca/gazette/h ome-accueil-eng.php) and, on occasion, the creation of 
ad hoc  advisory panels. 
 
Page 33, paragraph 2.6  
[Argentina Question 3 (Second Set)]: The report explains that, in terms of free trade agreement 
(FTA) negotiations, the Canadian Government has decided to participate in extensive consultations with the private sector, civil society groups and Canadian citizens to help establish the objectives and priorities of these negotiations. One of the consultation mechanisms used to ensure that 
Canadians have an opportunity to participate in establishing the trade program involves the 
publication by the Canadian government of notice s in the Canada Gazette, where Canadian citizens 
are asked to provide comments before Canada begins the negotiations. The Government of 
Canada also holds several specific consultations with relevant stakeholders during the negotiation 
process, for example, through face-to-face meet ings, telephone conferences, information sessions 
(including online seminars) and activities with stakeholders. The information is also published on 
DFATD's Web site. In addition, interested Canadi an citizens are asked to share their opinions 
through the consultation mailboxes created for this purpose.  
Can you explain in detail all the mechanisms that are used to establish the objectives and priorities of these negotiations? 
 
Canada's Response:  In 2013, the Government of Canada released the Global Markets Action 
Plan. Under the Global Markets Action Plan, the Government of Canada is concentrating on the 
markets that hold the greatest promise for Canadian business through vigorous trade promotion 
and ambitious trade policy.  The Global Markets Action  Plan is publicly available http:// www.international.gc.ca/global-markets-
marches-mondiaux/ind ex.aspx?lang=eng. 
The Government of Canada takes into account a number of considerations when taking a decision regarding whether to launch FTA negotiations with a potential partner. These include: the potential to generate significant economic and commercial benefits for Canada; the level of Canadian 
business interest and domestic support and the willin gness and capacity of prospective partners to 
negotiate with Canada, including as determined through detailed, pre-negotiation exploratory talks. 
 
2.2 Trade Policy Objectives Page 36, paragraph 2.18 
 
[Argentina Question 4 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report states that, with a view to 
ensuring that partner developing countries can access the economic benefits that contribute to growth, sustainable development and job creation, Canada has focused its current multilateral and 
bilateral development programs in resolving these issues.  
Can you explain in detail the concrete actions that will be taken in order to resolve these issues and thus help developing countries? 
 
Canada's Response:  DFATD'S Sustainable Economic Grow th Strategy follows three paths: 
 building economic foundations: Support willing governments to build the necessary legislative 
and regulatory business, industrial, and financ ial framework upon which sustainable growth 
can take place; 
 growing businesses: Enhance the financial viability, productivity, and competitiveness of micro, 
small and medium-sized private sector enterp rises, resulting in increasing employment 
opportunities for the poor; and 
 investing in people: Improve the employment potential of individuals to increase access to, 
and benefits from, opportunities in the informal and formal business sectors. 
In pursuing these paths, DFATD's Sustainable Economic Growth Strategy ensures the integration 
of equality between women and men, environmental sustainability, and governance across all 
programming. It complements and builds on DFATD's food security and children and youth strategies. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 155 - 
 
  For example,  
  Through the Canadian-Caribbean Cooperation Fund for instance, Canada provides technical 
assistance to governments to build the necessa ry legislative and regulatory frameworks to 
facilitate private sector-led growth, investment and innovation. 
 Canada also targets small and medium enterprises directly to help them reach new markets. 
In Haiti, Canada provided support to local artisans to improve their production, then facilitated 
their products being placed at Hudson's Bay Company, a major Canadian retailer.  
 In Ethiopia, Canada works with Oxfam to improve the market participation of women small 
holder farmers by increasing their skills and improving collaboration between actors in the value chain. 
 Finally, in the Andean region and the Caribbean, Canada focuses on skill levels in the 
workforce, especially among women and youth, through training programs linked to the labour market and by fostering entrepreneurship.  
 
Page 36, paragraph 2.19 [Argentina Question 5 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report indicates that, on a bilateral 
level, Canada works together with governments in developing countries to help them create an 
internal environment that is conducive to trade and investment.  
Can you expand on and explain how Canada helps developing countries create an internal environment that is conducive to trade and investment? 
 
Canada's Response:  Trade and investment are the key drivers of employment and prosperity. 
When businesses reach new markets, they can grow , provide jobs and incomes, and contribute to 
poverty reduction. 
 Despite the potential benefits international trade can bring to developing countries, many of these 
countries do not effectively participate in trade, often because they lack necessary human, 
institutional and infrastructural capacities to implement the necessary legal, regulatory and structural reforms to facilitate trade in accordance with international norms and standards. Canada recognizes the importance of trade as a ke y enabler of shared and inclusive prosperity and 
responds to individual country partners' trade- related needs. The creation of an amalgamated 
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFTAD) leverages all three resources more effectively, to identify shared interest, and especially to harness trade to an inclusive growth. 
Canada, through our development programming, supports trade-related technical assistance in our 
developing partner countries.   
For example,  
 
 The Canada-Asia Trade and Investment for Growth Program  (TRIGR) is a responsive and 
directive technical assistance program designed with a focus on trade and investment in 
support of sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction through engagement of the 
private sector in Asia. Some programming areas include, for example, local private access to finance, public-private partnerships for infrastructure, trade facilitation, business 
development, regional integration, agribusiness and extractives.  
 
 Facilitating Exports to Canada for Sustainable Economic Growth  delivered by Trade 
Facilitation Office Canada and the Canada-Americas Trade-Related Technical Assistance 
Program (CATRTA) addressing Free Trade Agreement implementation needs in Latin America.  
 Canada's support to the multilateral institution, International Trade Centre (ITC) helps to 
strengthen the 'soft' infrastructure related to international trade in developing countries. This includes training and capacity building for institutions and firms on standards, rules of 
origin, customs administration, trade information and identification of market 
opportunities. The ITC works with three client groups: policy makers, enterprises and trade support institutions. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 156 - 
 
   Currently, Canada has a bilateral project with ITC in Morocco, called Developing Exports to 
Create Jobs in Morocco . The expected intermediate outcomes for this project include: 
increased exports by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly women and 
youth-owned and operated enterprises, in the leather, seafood, and processed food 
sectors; and improved services by trade suppo rt institutions that support SMEs. According 
to the DFATD Morocco development programme, the ITC has been proactive in ensuring 
that the project aligns with the needs of the Moroccan partner as well as to Canadian 
priorities.  
 
 The Canadian Trade and Development Facility (CTDF) is an important trade policy tool 
designed to provide timely assistance to developing countries or groups of developing 
countries with which Canada is or will be negotiating Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and 
Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPA). 
 
2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.1 Participation in the WTO Page 37, paragraph 2.23 
 
[Argentina Question 6 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report indicates that Canada has a 
strong record of WTO notifications, since, during  the period under review, a number of notifications 
have been submitted covering a broad range of WTO and GATT instruments. Nevertheless, there 
are some notifications that are pending. For example, in the area of regional agreements, no 
notifications have been submitted for the FTA between Canada and Honduras as of January 2015.  Can Canada explain why some notifications are st ill pending? (For example, for the FTA between 
Canada and Honduras.) 
 Canada's Response:  The FTA between Canada and Honduras was notified to the WTO on 
February 5, 2015 See: 
http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicShowRTAIDCard.as px?rtaid=911&lang=1&redirect=1. Currently, 
Canada has no outstanding FTA/RTA notifications.  2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreements 
Page 38, paragraph 2.26 
 [Argentina Question 7 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report indicates that Canada is 
continuing to develop bilateral FTAs in the context of its trade policy. It has concluded an 
agreement with the EU (which still has not come into force) and is currently negotiating ten other agreements .   
When is the agreement with the EU expected to come into force? 
 Canada's Response: Canada and the EU are presently und ertaking a thorough legal review 
("scrub") of the text of the Agreement, to ensu re accuracy, consistency, and correspondence with 
negotiators' intent.  
 The legal review will be followed by translation of the text into the other EU treaty languages. After 
the legal texts of all 23 official treaty languages have been reviewed, the agreement will be signed 
and both parties will undertake the necessary poli cy, regulatory and legislative changes required 
for implementation of CETA and completion of their domestic approval processes. The overall 
process, from the conclusion of the negotiations, through the legal review, translation and 
approval could take approximately two years, bearing in mind it is difficult to place this somewhat fluid process within an exact timeframe.   
The provisions governing when the agreement will be brought into force are contained in CETA's 
chapter on Final Provisions, and the text is avai lable on the website: www.international.gc.ca/ceta. 
Canada and the EU are committed to bringing this agreement into force as quickly as possible in 
order that businesses and workers on both sides of the Atlantic can benefit from increased trade, 
opportunities and job creation.  
2.3.2.2 Unilateral preferential regimes 
Page 40, paragraph 2.30  [Argentina Question 8 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report states that, in the context of its 
2013 Economic Action Plan, Canada has committed to modernizing the general preferential tariff WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 157 - 
 
  that it applies to developing countries. After carrying out a comprehensive review and holding 
consultations in 2012-2013, Canada initiated the process to modernize the program by cancelling benefits for 72 higher-income and trade-competitive countries starting on January 1, 2015. In addition, it renewed the program for another 10-year  period. As well, beneficiaries will be reviewed 
every two years based on objective criteria in orde r to determine whether they remain eligible for 
the program.  
Can you explain what are the objective criteria mentioned? 
 
Canada's Response:  As announced in Economic Action Plan 2013 and published in Part II of the 
Canada Gazette on October 13, 2013, Canada graduated countries from its GPT program on January 1, 2015 if they met one of the following criteria: 
(1) countries classified for two consecutive years as high income or upper-middle income 
economies according to the latest World Bank income classifications; or 
(2) countries that have a 1% or greater share of world exports for two consecutive years, 
according to the latest World Trade Organization statistics. 
(See http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2013/2013-10-09/html/sor-dors161-eng.php) 
 
2.4 Investment Regime 
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act Page 41, paragraph 2.37  
[Argentina Question 9 (second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report states that the Investment 
Canada Act, 1985, constitutes the main legal framework for the review of foreign investment in 
Canada. The review of foreign investment has two main objectives: to evaluate the likelihood that 
it would be of benefit to Canada and that to determine whether it may undermine national 
security. In accordance with the Investment Canada Act (section 11), it is mandatory to give notification for all foreign investment whose objective is to create a new Canadian business or 
acquire control of an existing business, unless the investment is subject to a review. The 
Investment Canada Act provides for the review of foreign investments whose objective is to acquire a Canadian business provided that the value of the business is above a certain threshold, in which case it is mandatory to submit a request for review.   
What does this review involve and what are the time frames in which it will be carried out? 
What types of investments could be cons idered to undermine national security? 
 
Canada's Response:  There are two reviews under the Industry Canada Act: 1) the net benefit 
review; and 2) the national security review.   
Net Benefit Review 
  Only direct acquisitions of control above the applicable threshold are reviewable for likely net 
benefit. 
 
 To approve an application under net benefit review, the Minister of Industry must be 
satisfied that the proposed investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. 
 
 In making his decision, the Minister carefully considers the plans, undertakings and other 
information submitted by the investor in light of the six net benefit factors listed in section 
20 of the Act. Undertakings are legally binding commitments. 
 
 The six factors listed in section 20 of the Act are: 
 
o the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, 
including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the effect on employment, on resource processing, on the utilization of parts, components and services produced 
in Canada and on exports from Canada; 
 
o the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or 
new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the 
Canadian business or new Canadian business forms or would form a part;  
o the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 158 - 
 
  development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; 
 
o the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; 
 
o the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural 
policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of  any province likely to be significantly 
affected by the investment; and, 
 
o the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets. 
 
 The Act provides an initial 45 days for the Mi nister to conduct the net benefit review and 
make a determination. The Minister may unilate rally extend this period for a further 30 
days if required. Beyond this 75-day period, the time frame for the review may be 
extended with the agreement of both the Minister and the investor. 
 
National Security Review  
 Under the Investment Canada Act , foreign investment, regardless of its dollar value, may be 
subject to a national security review if a potential security threat is identified. 
 
 Where the Minister of Industry has reasonable grounds to believe that an investment could be 
injurious to national security, he may proceed in one of two ways: 
 
o The Minister may send a notice informing the investor that an order could be made to 
review the investment; or 
o The Minister may refer an investment to the Governor in Council (GIC) recommending 
that an order for review be made without first notifying the investor. 
 
 In both cases, the time period for informing th e investor of a review, or possible review, ends 
45 days after a notification or an application is filed or the investment is implemented, depending on the type of investment. 
 
 If the Minister sends a notice letter that a review could be ordered, the time period in which the 
Government can order a review is 45 days. 
 
 Once a review has been ordered by the GIC, if the Minister of Industry is satisfied that an 
investment would be injurious to national security, or is unable to make a determination, he 
has 45 days to submit his recommendations to the GIC. The Minister may unilaterally 
extend this period for a further 45 days if required. The time frame for the review may be extended with the agreement of both the Minister and the investor.  
 Once the Minister of Industry submits a report  with recommendations to the GIC, the GIC has 
20 days to order any measure it considers advisable to protect national security. 
There are no national security re view criteria enumerated in the Investment Canada Act  or the 
National Security Review of Investment Regulations . 
 Page 42, paragraph 2.38 
[Argentina Question 10 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report indicates that the decision to 
authorize, block or allow an investment under certain conditions is the responsibility of the Governor in Council. Investments are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In 2013, a foreign investment was denied for the first ti me for reasons of national security.  
In what specific circumstances is the decision to authorize, block or allow an investment the 
responsibility of the Governor in Council? Can you provide examples in this respect? 
Canada's Response:  The national security review process is established in Part IV.1, Investments 
Injurious to National Security, of the Act, and the National Security Review of Investments 
Regulations . Under these authorities, the Government of Canada is able to review a foreign 
investment that could be injurious to national security. Under this part, an investment is 
reviewable if the Governor in Council (GiC) orde rs a review. For the GiC to order a review, the 
Minister of Industry must have reasonable grounds to believe, after consulting with the Minister of 
Public Safety, that a foreign investment could be injurious to national security. The Minister of WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 159 - 
 
  Industry must make a recommendation to the GiC for a review. If, after concluding a review, the 
GiC determines that an investment would be injurious to national security, the GiC has the authority to take any measure with respect to an investment that it considers advisable to protect national security, including the following: 
 directing the investor not to implement the investment; 
 authorizing the investment on condition that the investor (i) give written undertakings that 
the GiC considers necessary in the circumstances, or (ii) implement the investment on the terms and conditions ordered by the GiC; or 
 requiring the investor to divest control of the Canadian business or of its investment in an 
entity. 
2.4.3 Other Investment Restrictions 
Page 43, paragraph 2.40 
 [Argentina Question 11 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report indicates that Canada's 
objective is to attract FDI in order to promote economic growth and competition. However, the 
Investment Canada Act  and other acts contain provisions that restrict or prohibit investment in 
certain sectors. Provincial and territorial legislation may also contain provisions that restrict or 
prohibit investment in certain sectors. 
Can you describe in detail the provincial and territorial legislation that could contain provisions that restrict or prohibit investment in certain sectors?  
Does a Web site exist that contains all the information about these laws? 
 Canada's Response:  Information regarding laws and regulations on matters falling into provincial 
or territorial jurisdiction can be obtained directly from provincial or territorial governments. 
 Below is a list of websites where you can find information on provincial and territorial laws:  
 
 Alberta: http://www.qp.albe rta.ca/laws_online.cfm 
 
 British Columbia: www.bclaws.ca 
 
 Manitoba: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/index.php 
 
 New Brunswick: 
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments /attorney_general/act s_regulations.html 
 
 Newfoundland and Labrador: http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/ 
 
 Northwest Territories: https ://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/en/ 
 
 Nova Scotia: http://novascotia.ca/just/acts.asp 
 
 Nunavut: 
http://www.justice.gov.nu.ca/apps/authori ng/dspPage.aspx?page =STATUTES+AND+REGU
LATIONS+PAGE  
 Ontario: http://www.ontario.ca/laws 
 
 Prince Edward Island: http://www.gov. pe.ca/law/regulations/index.php3 
 
 Québec: http://www3.publicationsduquebe c.gouv.qc.ca/loisreglements.fr.html 
 
 Saskatchewan: http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/ and www.farmland.gov.sk.ca 
 
 Yukon: http://www.gov.yk.ca/legislation/ 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 160 - 
 
  2.4.4 Investment promotion 
Page 44, paragraph 2.42  [Argentina Question 12 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report states that the free trade 
zone promotion program is a five-year pilot program with an annual budget of $1 million CAN. The 
program's objective is to provide funding to regions and communities with the purpose of promoting investment in Canada's free trade zone s. No funding has been disbursed as of January 
2015.  
Can you expand in greater detail on what this free trade zone promotion program is about?  
Canada's Response:  Through longstanding tax and tariff export-related programs, Canada has 
been providing benefits to businesses comparable to those found in foreign trade zones in other 
countries while having the advantage of not being site-specific. The Foreign Trade Zones – 
Marketing Program (FTZ-MP) is designed to market Canada's Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) advantage 
and attract foreign direct investment. The program supports Canadian regional organizations and 
non-profit organizations in their promotion of loca l FTZ-type benefits linked to strategic locations 
across Canada. By promoting Canada's FTZ advantage, this program contributes to Canada's 
economic prosperity. 
F T Z - M P  a l i g n s  w i t h  t h e  G l o b a l  M a r k e t s  A c t i o n  P l a n  a n d  i s  u n d e r  t h e  l e a d  o f  t h e  D e p a r tm e n t  o f 
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD).  
 
Page 45, paragraph 2.43 
[Argentina Question 13 (Second Set)]: According to this paragraph, Export Development Canada 
(EDC) provides flexible inbound foreign direct investment financing programs to support greenfield 
and brownfield direct investments in Canada. In addition to providing financing support for an 
investor's initial investment in Canada, EDC also offers highly flexible support to foreign direct 
investors once they are operating and exporting from Canada through loans, guarantees and lines 
of credit.  
 Please describe the foreign direct investment financing programs and the requirements that investors must meet to access them.  
 
Canada's Response:  EDC can provide support in the form of direct loans to inbound FDI if the 
foreign investment will develop exporting capacity for Canada. Once a foreign company has 
established a footprint in Canada which develops exporting capacity, that company has access to 
any/all of EDC's products with the same criteria of meeting our mandate.  
[Argentina Question 14 (Second Set)]: This paragraph explains how the Business Development 
Bank of Canada (BDC) offers financing solutions for foreign direct investors specifically tailored to protect cash flow and promote growth. BDC prov ides financing terms between 4 and 30 years to 
support investments in land and buildings, equipmen t or working capital. BDC is also a leader in 
subordinate financing to help finance fast-growing companies.  
 What is the procedure whereby foreign direct investors can secure the financing benefits offered 
by BDC? 
 Canada's Response:  BDC's purpose is to support Canadian entrepreneurship by providing loans, 
investments and guarantees to enterprises operating in Canada. As per Section 14 (3) of the BDC 
Act, loans, investments and guarantees may be made or given only where, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of BDC or any committee or officer designated by the Board: (a) the person is engaged, or is about to engage, in an enterprise in Canada; 
(b) the amount invested, or to be invested, in the enterprise by persons other than the Bank and 
the character of the investment are such that the Bank may reasonably expect that those persons will have a continuing commitment to the enterprise; and 
(c) the enterprise may reasonably be expected to prove successful. 
To access BDC financing, foreign direct investors sh ould start by visiting BDC's website (bdc.ca), to 
obtain information on the bank's offerings. Foreign direct investors must follow the same 
procedure as any other borrower that seeks business financing from BDC. The criteria that BDC 
considers in extending financing can include creditworthiness of the borrower, if there is sufficient cash flow to repay the debt, strength of the management team, overall profitability of the 
business, and the quality of security being offered to support the loan. Foreign direct investors can 
apply for financing online or visit any of BDC's 101 business offices that are located across Canada. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 161 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements Page 46, paragraph 3.1 
 
[Argentina Question 15 (Second Set)]: Within the framework of its customs system, the report 
indicates that Canada applies a mechanism known as Advance Commercial Information (ACI).   
Please indicate the requirements that must be me t by operators to comply with the ACI, and how 
it is implemented.  Canada's Response:  The ACI program is about providing CBSA officers with electronic pre-arrival 
information so that they are equipped with the ri ght information at the right time to identify 
health, safety and security threats related to comm ercial goods before the goods arrive in Canada. 
The ACI program introduces more effective risk management processes and tools to identify any 
threats prior to the arrival of cargo and conveyances in Canada. 
The ACI program requires specific pre-arrival carg o and conveyance data from carriers and freight 
forwarders in all modes of transport (highway, rail, air and marine).  
Specific pre-arrival timeframes for each mo de of transport have been established.  
Regulations supporting the ACI program came into force on May 6, 2015.  Page 48, paragraph 3.7 
[Argentina Question 16 (Second Set)]: This paragraph of the report mentions that Canada, 
together with the United States, launched a program known as "Beyond the Border", which 
comprises 32 initiatives aimed primarily at ensuring more efficient border clearance for goods. 
According to the report, these initiatives will be implemented in 2016.  
Please provide greater detail on the initiatives an d the changes and benefits they will mean for 
business operators. 
 
Canada's Response:  On February 4, 2011, the Prime Minister  of Canada and the President of the 
United States issued Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness. The Declaration established a ne w long-term partnership built upon a perimeter 
approach to security and economic competitivene ss. Leaders called for the development of a joint 
action plan to realize the goal of working together , not just at the border, but beyond the border to 
enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods and services. The 
resulting Action Plan sets out joint priorities for achieving that vision within the four areas of 
cooperation identified in the Beyond the Border Declaration: addressing threats early; trade facilitation, economic growth and jobs; cross-border law enforcement; and critical infrastructure 
and cyber-security. For more detailed information on the Beyond the Border Action Plan, please 
refer to http://www.actionpl an.gc.ca/en/page/bbg-tpf/b eyond-border-action-plan.  
The 2014 Joint Implementation Report to Leaders provides an update on the progress of various 
Beyond the Border initiatives. Further informat ion can be found at http://www.actionplan.gc.ca.  
 
3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports 3.1.5.1 The GST/HST and provincial sales taxes 
Page 58, paragraph 3.31 
 [Argentina Question 17 (Second Set)]: This paragraph indicates that Canada applies a goods and 
services tax (GST) at the national level. Howeve r, it also indicates that some provinces and 
territories levy a sales tax in addition to the GS T, and that different exemption regimes also apply 
to imported goods, depending on the province.   
Has the Canadian government considered harmonizing the tax regime applicable to sales of goods? 
 Canada's Response:  Five provinces (Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island 
and Newfoundland and Labrador) have harmonized their provincial sales tax with the GST to 
create the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). The HST is imposed under federal legislation and administered by the federal government.  
The province of Québec imposes and administers its own value-added tax, the Québec Sales Tax 
(QST). The federal government and Québec have entered into an agreement whereby the province 
of Québec administers the GST in the province and agrees to harmonize the QST base with the 
GST base.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 162 - 
 
  It is up to the provincial governments to choose whether to harmonize their provincial tax with the 
federal system. The federal government remains committed to working cooperatively with provinces to implement a value-added tax structure harmonized with the GST if they wish to do so.  
 
3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing Page 63, paragraph 3.44 
 
[Argentina Question 18 (Second Set)]: This paragraph of the report in dicates that fees are applied 
for import permits but that these depend on the nature and value of the goods.  
Could you provide a list of the fees paid for import permits, or indicate how that information can 
be obtained? 
 Canada's Response:  The fees paid for import permits issued under the Export and Import 
Permits Act  are described in the Export and Import Permits and Certificates Fees Order  (SOR/95-
245), which is available online: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-95-245/page-1.html. 
 
The current Schedule outlines the current fees for import permits: 
SCHEDULE(Paragraph 3(1)(a)) 
FEES FOR IMPORT PERMITS 
  Column I Column II Column III 
Item Total value of goods Fee (authorized 
person) Fee (Export and Import Controls 
Bureau) 
1 Less than $1,000 $10 $15 
2 $1,000 or more but less than $5,000 14 19 
3 $5,000 or more but less than $10,000 18 23 
4 $10,000 or more but less than $20,000 22 27 
5 $20,000 and over 26 31 
Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-95-245/page-2.html#h-4. 
Fees are based on the total Canadian dollar valu e of the commodity and whether the permits are 
issued by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD) or an authorized person. 
Column II is the rate DFATD charges to Canadian On-line Custom Brokers and Column III is the 
fee charged to clients who apply for their permits through DFATD offices.  3.1.8 Standards and other technical requirements 
Page 70, paragraph 3.74 
 [Argentina Question 19 (Second Set)]: This paragraph indicates that Canada does not have a 
catalogue of technical regulations.   
How can information be obtained on the technical regulations?  
Canada's Response:  The Canada Gazette  publishes an index of statutory instruments 
consolidated from January 1, 1955. The Consolidated Index of Federal Statutory Instruments is 
published four times a year. The index includes (but does not specifically categorize or indicate) technical regulations. It may be found at: http://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/IndexStatutoryInstruments/. 
 Page 71, paragraph 3.75 
[Argentina Question 20 (Second Set)]: This paragraph indicates that Canada relies on a variety of 
technical tools to ensure compliance with technical regulations. According to the report, in some sectors the third-party conformity assessment method is used, and in others, it is the supplier 
declaration.  
Please specifically indicate in what cases each of these mechanisms is used.  Canada's Response:  The use of either third-party conformity assessment or suppliers' 
declaration is based on a number of factors, including the product's potential level of safety risk, 
and the particular characteristics of the sector.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 163 - 
 
  In the case of third-party conformity assessment, the regulatory authority requires that products 
be tested and/or certified by recognized co nformity assessment bodies (CABs) to ensure 
conformity with applicable technical requirements. Third-party CABs are independent of the manufacturer and supplier (first parties) and of users (second parties). Canada relies on third-
party conformity assessment for products such as the safety of electrical products, construction 
materials, organics, and energy efficiency of appliances.  The suppliers' declaration asserts that a particular product conforms with applicable technical 
requirements. The suppliers' declaration is based on an assessment or test performed by the 
manufacturer or by any other facility selected by th e supplier. It is recognized that the regulatory 
authority must operate an effective post-marke t surveillance system to ensure adequate 
compliance rates. An adequate legal regime must also be in place, including coverage of product 
liability. Canada relies on self-assessment for motor vehicles, recreational craft, some 
telecommunications products and electromagnetic compatibility.   
Page 71, paragraph 3.77 
 [Argentina Question 21 (Second Set)]: This paragraph indicates that Canada has regularly notified 
its draft technical regulations, ordinances, and conformity assessment procedures to the TBT 
Committee.  Do the notifications include only federal standards and procedures or also provincial ones? 
 
Canada's Response:  The figures of paragraph 3.77 represent the federal notifications made 
during this period. Canada works closely with sub-federal entities to inform them of their 
obligations, and also works with them to prepare notifications as required. 
  
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
Page 72, paragraph 3.82  [Argentina Question 22 (Second Set)]: This paragraph of the report mentions that provinces and 
territories have jurisdiction within their respec tive borders and have legislation for some food 
safety issues, including for food manufactured and sold within their borders.  
 
If a product complies with federal-level legislation, is it possible that provincial legislation could 
restrict its access?  
Canada's Response:  The import, export, and interprovincial trade of food fall under the 
jurisdiction of the federal government and these activities, along with others, will be subject to the Safe Food for Canadians Act and its Regulations when they come into force. The provinces and territories have jurisdiction over trade that takes place within their borders. 
F o o d  s a f e t y  i s  a n  a r e a  o f  s h a r e d  j u r i s d i c t i o n  b e t w e e n  t h e  f e d e r a l  g o v e r n m e n t  a n d  
provincial/territorial governments. The prohibitions related to health and safety in the Food and 
Drugs Act and its regulations, including the prohibition to sell food that is unfit for human 
consumption, apply generally to all food sold in Canada, whether they are traded internationally, 
interprovincially or intra-provincially. Provincial and territorial governments may have additional food safety requirements for the intra-provincial  production and/or sale of food within their 
jurisdictions that are above those set by federal le gislation. However, the Government of Canada is 
not aware of any SPS measures adopted by sub-federal authorities that have an impact on international trade. 
3.3.2 Incentives and subsidies 
Page 80, paragraph 3.115 
 [Argentina Question 23 (Second Set)]:  This paragraph indicates that Canada has 755 support 
programs providing assistance to businesses in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax refunds 
and credits, and wage subsidies.  
 
Could you indicate where (Web page, etc.) we could look up these programs and how we could 
obtain more information on them?  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 164 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  The Canada Business Network is a collaborative arrangement among federal 
departments and agencies, provincial and territori al governments and not-for-profit entities to 
disseminate information for businesses. Program details can be found on the Canada Business Network's website at http://canadabusiness.ca/eng/page/2868/. 
 
Details on specific programs can be found in Canada's most recent subsidy notification (G/SCM/N/253/CAN).  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 4.1.3 Domestic programmes 
Page 111, paragraph 4.8 
 [Argentina Question 24 (Second Set)]: This paragraph states that the legislative framework also 
includes the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, which regulates a number of marketing 
programs such as the Advance Payments Program and the Price Pooling Program. Could you tell us more about the two programs mentioned above? 
 
Canada's Response:  Advance Payments Program (APP) 
The Advance Payments Program (APP) is a federal marketing program that is designed to provide farmers with increased flexibility in marketing their agricultural products. The APP provides 
producers with a cash advance on the value of their agricultural products during a specified period 
(typically up to 18 months). By improving their cash flow throughout the year, the APP helps crop and livestock producers to meet their financial obligations, allowing them to market their product 
when conditions are most favorable. 
Under the program, producers can receive cash advances for up to 50% of the average market price that the producer is expected to receive when the agricultural product is marketed. The 
maximum cash advance available to each producer is $400,000 annually. 
Advances are provided by producer organizations. The federal government guarantees repayment of loans taken by producer organizations to issue cash advances under the program and pays the interest on the first $100,000 of a cash advance taken. 
 
Price Pooling Program (PPP) The Price Pooling Program (PPP) is designed to assist the cooperative marketing of eligible 
agricultural products to provide producers with  added options to market their products. PPP 
provides a price guarantee that protects market ing agencies and producers against unanticipated 
declines in the market price. Program participants  use the price guarantee as security in obtaining 
credit from lending institutions to provide initial payments to producers when they deliver their 
grain to the cooperative. This improves produc ers' cash flow and provides equal returns to 
producers for products of like grades, varieties and types. The government guarantees up to 65% of the expe cted average wholesale price for an agricultural 
product sold by a participating marketing agency. The price guarantee agreement covers the initial 
payment made to producers plus costs incurred by the agencies to market the product up to a fixed maximum.  
As the program is delivered through marketing agencies on behalf of their members, a producer 
can only receive an initial payment through a marketing agency and not directly from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 
 
Page 112, paragraph 4.12 [Argentina Question 25 (Second Set)]: This paragraph explains that support provided under the 
R&D stream is non-repayable, while support under the Commercialization and Adoption Stream 
takes the form of non-interest bearing contribution funds, to be repaid over a period of up to 10 
years following project completion. In general, Ag riInnovation may contribute up to 50% of the 
eligible cost. However, the contribution can be raised up to 75% for projects led by a non-profit 
organization. There is an annual cap of Can$10 milli on on the maximum contribution provided to a 
single applicant.   
 
Could you explain the aforementioned support in greater detail? 
 Canada's Response:  The following information will provide an overview of the AgriInnovation 
Program, as well as further details by program streams. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 165 - 
 
  Program Overview 
The AgriInnovation Program is a five-year, up to $698 million initiative under the Growing Forward 2 policy framework. Of this, $468 million is availa ble for funding projects based on applications 
from industry. The remaining is allocated towards Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)-led 
research, development and knowledge transfer activi ties, as well as program administration that 
complement industry-directed initiatives.  The program is designed to accelerate the pa ce of innovation by supporting research and 
development activities in agri-innovations and facilitating the demonstration, commercialization 
and/or adoption of innovative products, technologi es, processes, practices and services. The aim is 
to enhance economic growth, productivity, competitiveness, adaptability and sustainability of the Canadian agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector and assist in capturing 
opportunities for the sector in domestic and international markets. 
The Program is a five-year program ending March 31, 2018 and supports the following industry-led streams: 
 Industry-led Research and Development Stream 
o Support under the Industry-Led Research and Development Stream is non-
repayable. 
 Enabling Commercialization and Adoption Stream 
o Support under the Enabling Commercialization and Adoption Stream is fully 
repayable. It is provided in the form of non-interest bearing, unsecured contribution funds. Funding must be repaid over a period of up to ten (10) years following project completion. 
 
Program Maximum Funding Limits The total maximum contribution to an applicant from all streams under the AgriInnovation 
Program cannot exceed $50 million (or $10 million per year). 
 Details by Program Streams:  
 Industry-led Research and Development 
Stream Enabling Commercialization and 
Adoption Stream 
Description The objective of the Industry-led Research and 
Development Stream is to support pre-commercialization research, development and knowledge transfer leading to innovative agriculture, agri-food an d agri-based practices, 
processes and products.   The Stream may provide non-repayable contributions to approved applicants, and/or support in the form of collaborative assistance given by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) research scient ists and experts for 
knowledge transfer. The objective of the Enabling 
Commercialization and Adoption Stream is to facilitate the pre-commercial demonstration, commercialization and adoption of innovative agri-based products, technologies, processes or services.   The funding under this stream is designed to support, and reduce  the financial risk 
associated with, these late-stage activities on the innovation continuum which is 
defined as the movement of innovation 
from research and development, through bench-scale testing, piloting, pre-commercial demonstration, to full commercialization.  
Duration 
 5 years (April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2018) 5 years (April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2018) 
Eligible Applicants Eligible Applicants must be legal entities capable 
of entering into legally binding agreements.  Eligible applicants for an Agri-science cluster 
include:  Not-for-profit organizations 
 For-profit organizations seeking funding 
and/or collaborative support for an Agri- science cluster on cross-cutting issues (issues of interest to more than one commodity) 
 Eligible applicants for an Agri-science project include for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.  Eligible Applicants must be legal entities 
capable of entering into legally binding agreements.  To be eligible for funding under this stream, applicants must be for-profit corporations and for-profit cooperatives. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 166 - 
 
   Industry-led Research and Development 
Stream Enabling Commercialization and 
Adoption Stream 
Project 
Types  Agri-science cluster: Su pport aims to mobilize 
and coordinate a critical mass of scientific 
expertise in industry, ac ademia and government. 
The agri-science cluster would be national in 
scope, industry-led, and address components of 
the sector's applied scie nce plan under a single 
application. Hence, it  would address several 
themes that are prioriti es to the industry and 
would request support toward several research 
activities across the country. 
 
Agri-Science Project: A single agri-science project 
or a smaller set of agri-science projects that 
would be less comprehensive than an agri-science 
cluster. The scope may be national, regional or 
local. 
 Pre-commercial demonstration: Projects 
involving the demonstration of an agri-
innovation for which all necessary testing 
and piloting has been completed and the 
innovation is within 24 months of market 
or commercial operation.  
 
 
Commercialization: Projects in which agri-
innovations will be introduced to the 
market at the successful completion of the 
projects. 
 
Adoption: Projects involving the adoption 
of innovative agricultural, agri-food or 
agri-based products, technologies, 
processes or services where recent 
innovations are adopted and adapted into 
recipients operations. 
Stream 
Maximum Funding Limits AAFC may contribute up to a maximum of $20 
million for an agri-science cluster and up to $5 million for an agri-science project.  Where the successful Applicant is a non-profit organization that is a legal entity, AAFC may normally contribute up to 75% of the total eligible costs (AAFC may reserve the right to contribute only up to 50%). Where the successful Applicant is a for-profit organization that is a legal entity, AAFC may normally contribute up to 50% of the total eligible costs. Under the Enabling Commercialization and 
Adoption stream, interest-free, repayable contributions may be provided as follows:  Up to 50% of eligible project costs to a maximum of $10 million per project for commercialization and adoption projects.  For pre-commercialization demonstration projects, up to 50% of eligible costs, normally to a maximum of $2 million per project. 
 
4.1.3.2 Other programmes Page 115, paragraph 4.22 
 
[Argentina Question 26 (Second Set)]: In this paragraph, the report indicates that Canada 
maintains several guarantee programs, including the Advance Payments Program and the Price Pooling Program (PPP). The objective of the Price Pooling Program is to provide a price guarantee 
mechanism that protects marketing agencies and producers against unanticipated declines in the 
market price of their products.  
In regard to price support programs, does Canada consider these programs to be trade-distorting? 
 Canada's Response:  Price Pooling Program (PPP) 
The Price Pooling Program is notified for inclusion under WTO's Amber Box only when there is a 
payment made by the federal government. However, the last time a payment was made was in 1996 for the "Ontario Wheat Deficit". The Price Pooling Program provides a price guaran tee not exceeding 65% of the expected average 
wholesale price of the agricultural product. In conducting the initial assessment, the government 
and the relevant marketing agency undertake a comprehensive analysis to minimize the likelihood of a government payment. Once all of the agri cultural product is sold, the actual average 
wholesale price received by the marketing agency is determined. If the calculated value is less 
than the guaranteed value, then there is a govern ment payment for the shortfall; if the calculated 
value is greater, then the surplus is retained for future use or is distributed to the producers. 
Currently, only 3 marketing agencies participate in the program, they represent a very small 
relative share of agricultural production. Given the scope of the program, Canada considers it to have an insignificant impact on production, if any, and therefore, likely no impact on trade.  
Page 115, paragraph 4.25 
 [Argentina Question 27 (Second Set)]: This paragraph indicates that Canada applies a regional 
support initiative, the Farm Income Stabilization Insurance (ASRA) program, guarantees a 
stabilized income to producers who raise and sell their livestock or grow and sell crops.  
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 167 - 
 
  Could you indicate which products are eligible for this program? 
Canada's Response:  The following products are eligible for this program: Wheat, Oats, Barley, 
Corn, Canola, Soybeans, Potatoes, Apples, Beef Cattle and Calf, Hogs, Sheep and Lambs.  
 
THIRD SET 
 Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 4.1.1 Overview Page 110, paragraph 4.4 
 
[Argentina Question 1 (Third Set)]: Point 4.4 of the document WT/TPR/S/314 mentions that "Canada is a major player in international food assistance, providing it mainly through grants ". 
Could you specify what internal mechanisms are in place to ensure that such assistance adheres to 
the rules of Article 10.4.b of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, specifically in regard to compliance with the "FAO Principles of Surplus Disposal and Consultative Obligations"? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada does not provide in-kind food assistance as part of its international 
food assistance programming, but rather funds key food assistance partners, who in turn procure and provide food to beneficiaries. As per Articl e 10.4.c in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, 
Canada also provides all of its food assistance in fully grant form, which is also in line with the new 
Food Assistance Convention that came into force in 2013. As background, in 2008, Canada fully untied its food assistance budget, opening 100 percent of its 
food assistance budget to international procur ement. As there is no requirement for food 
commodities (surplus or otherwise) to be purchased from Canadian producers, nor is our food assistance monetized, the "FAO Principles of Surplus Disposal and Consultative Obligations" are 
not applicable to Canada's food assistance program. 
Canada's food assistance partners now have the flexibility to purchase commodities locally and regionally. By lifting restrictions on where food is bought, Canada promotes the development of local and regional markets and, more import antly, increases the speed, efficiency and 
effectiveness of Canadian food assistance. 
 [Argentina Question 2 (Third Set)]: Since the low level presence (LLP) of unauthorized genetically 
modified events could mean significant disruptions to international trade in agricultural products,  
What type of contribution do you think could come from the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission?  
In particular, do you not consider that the matter could be analyzed by the WTO Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures Committee?  Canada's Response:  Canada recognizes the importance of developing practical domestic 
approaches to manage LLP situations in transparent and predictable ways, and to minimize 
disruptions to trade while protecting the health and safety of people, animals and the environment.  
To address the challenges posed by LLP, Canada is promoting constructive dialogue on science-
based regulation and the use of innovative agricultural technologies. Canada welcomes continued dialogue on LLP at international forums and would support further collaborative work in 
international standard-setting bodies such as Co dex Alimentarius towards developing solutions for 
the management of LLP, such as the Codex Alimentarius Annex 3: Food Safety Assessment in Situations of Low-Level Presence of Recombinant-DNA Plant Material in Food.   
[Argentina Question 3 (Third Set)]: In keeping wi th the document JOB/AG/32, in the event that 
the most recent negotiated version of the Agricultural Modalities (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4) is adopted, Canada does not appear amongst the countries that would have to implement effective cuts to 
their applied levels of domestic support. Could you confirm whether this situation could open up a 
"window of opportunity" to move forward in the nego tiations under this pillar in accordance with 
the Doha Mandate of 2001? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada notes that it is not referenced in JOB/AG/32 but considers the 
document to be a useful contribution to the discussions on domestic support. Canada expects to make a contribution to reducing the levels of pr oduction and trade-distorting domestic support in 
the Doha round in concert with contributions from other WTO Members in this regard.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 168 - 
 
  [Argentina Question 4 (Third Set)]: According to analyses conducted at the last meeting of the 
Agriculture Committee on trends in domestic support measures applied by members of the WTO, the level of Current Total AMS notified by Canada  dropped from USD 1.9 billion (8.3% of the value 
of agricultural production) in 2001 to USD 513 mill ion in 2011 (1.0% of the value of agricultural 
production), while green-box support more than do ubled in absolute terms, growing from USD 1.1 
billion to USD 2.7 billion. Could you state whethe r programs that previously fell under AMS were 
transformed into green-box support? If so, what ty pe of reforms did you introduce to adapt them 
to the requirements of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture? 
 Canada's Response:  The level of Current Total AMS was high in 2001 due to increased 
expenditures under crop insurance, notified as non-product specific support, to address a drought 
in Western Canada. As a result of this increase, non-product specific support was above the 5% de 
minimis  threshold of total value of production and therefore was included in Canada's Current Total 
AMS for 2001. During the 2001 to 2011 period, Cana da did not change the classification of any 
programs from AMS to green-box support. Canada has notified any new or modified programs to 
the Committee on Agriculture.  
[Argentina Question 5 (Third Set)]: According to th e last notification submitted by Canada to the 
Agriculture Committee (G/AG/N/CAN/99), in 2012, Quebec gave USD 2.3 million to its agricultural producers under the green-box program "Pilot Programme to Support Multifunctionality of 
Agriculture". Could you define the concept of "Multifunctionality" in the context of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and provide details on the type of assistance granted under the above-mentioned 
program?  
Canada's Response:  The term "multifunctionality" refers to the many functions of agriculture 
other than supplying food and fibre that contribute to the overall economy and well-being of society. Although there may be indirect benefits or multiple functions of agriculture that are 
directly linked to the primary productive purpose of agriculture (e.g., the maintenance of the rural 
landscape, the viability of rural communities, and th e protection of biodiversity), support provided 
to the agriculture sector, regardless of whether it is for multifunctionality purposes, must be reported in Members' annual notifications of domestic support and classified according to the rules 
in the WTO Agreement of Agriculture. Support that  meets the green criteria in Annex 2 of the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture would be eligible as green support and exempt from Members' WTO commitment levels. Support that does not meet the green criteria would be subject to the 
disciplines on domestic support. 
 4.1.2 Border Measures 
Page 110, paragraph 4.6 
 [Argentina Question 6 (Third Set)]: Paragrap h 4.6 of Section 4.1.2 (Border measures) of 
document WT/TPR/S/314 makes reference to the fact that quota utilization rates in the cases of 
wheat and barley, as well as margarine, were low in 2012 (and below those of 2008). Could the 
Canadian government explain why the tariff quota utilization rates for wheat, barley and margarine continue to be low? Why were the utilization rates for the three aforementioned 
products lower in 2012 than in 2008? 
 Canada's Response:  The wheat, barley, and margarine TRQs can be accessed on a first-come, 
first-serve basis until they are fully utilized. As such, it is Canada's assessment that observed fill 
rates for these products reflect overall market conditions, notably competitive domestic prices, yearly growing conditions, and market surpluses.  
[Argentina Question 7 (Third Set)]: Paragraph 4.6 referred to in the preceding point also mentions 
that in-quota imports generally exceed quota levels for products such as chicken, eggs, wheat products and barley products. Why do some tariff quotas exceed the utilization rate by more than 
100% for these products? 
 Canada's Response:  There are essentially three reasons that explain utilization rates for 
Canada's TRQ that are above 100%. 
First, Canada has negotiated different access commitments under the WTO and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for the chicken, turkey, and eggs TRQs. The access quantity that applies in any given year is the highest of the WTO or NAFTA commitment. When the WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 169 - 
 
  NAFTA commitment applies, which has been the case for the chicken TRQ for many years, the 
result is a utilization rate for the smaller WTO commitment that is above 100%. Second, Canada sometimes authorizes imports at the within-access rate of duty that are in addition to TRQ imports. These supplemental imports are authorized for a number of reasons, 
notably for products that are not readily available in Canada. The policies under which 
supplemental import authorizations are issued are set out in applicable supplemental Notices to Importers, which are available online: http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-
controles/index.aspx?view=d&lang=eng. 
Third, the wheat products and barley products TRQs are administered on a first-come, first-serve basis. Due to the difficulty in measuring TRQ fill in  real time and in order to provide importers with 
some degree of predictability as to when the TRQs will be closed (i.e., fully filled), Canada 
announces a closure date of the TRQs approximately a month in advance. The closure date is 
determined based on the rhythm of imports under the TRQ so far in the year. It is set late enough to ensure that this practice does not prevent full TRQ utilization, which results in slight overfill. 
 
[Argentina Question 8 (Third Set)]: Argentina would like to express its concern over the new 
methodology imposed by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) for the marketing of wines in 
fiscal year 2014/2015. We are specifically conc erned over the imposition of minimum sales 
amounts by product/country (sales targets) that must be reached in order for the Ontario monopoly to keep purchasing these products from [other] countries. These amounts are not only higher for imported wines than for domestic ones (thereby violating the WTO principle of national 
treatment), but there are also differences between imported wines (thereby violating the WTO 
most favoured nation principle).   
 
Within a monopoly framework in which a single government-administered company is responsible 
for marketing imported wines, does the Canadian government not consider that this type of measure has the potential to operate as a restriction on imports from certain origins, which is a 
discriminatory practice that violates multilateral standards?  
 Canada's Response:  In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in 
alcoholic beverages is governed by the federal Im portation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA). The 
IILA provides the provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over 
the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the im portation of such liquor into the provinces and 
territories. Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores operated by the provincial/territorial 
liquor control authority or through authorized private retailers or a combination of both. Provincial 
and territorial liquor control authorities purchase  or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages 
based on market needs and other commercial considerations, such as price, quality and 
availability. 
The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Boards (PTLBs) in Canada were established before the GATT was created, and their existence and activity is cons istent with the provisions of GATT Article XVII 
["State Trading Enterprises"]. In accordance with that Article, they are notified to the WTO as 
STEs. 
In 2014/15, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) made certain enhancements to the way it calculates sales targets, by moving to a tiered system, such that targets are now segmented not 
only by category subset, but also by standard , premium and deluxe products. LCBO's updated 
sales targets level the playing field for premium and deluxe wines that were previously disproportionately affected by higher sales targets, which were driven by lower-priced wines. LCBO 
uses a formula to determine a product's sales targets. Importantly, this formula did not change as 
part of the changes mentioned above. LCBO period ically reviews these sales targets from a typical 
business perspective, and makes adjustments accordingly. Sales targets are fluid and can change as the business evolves, and are reviewed at leas t annually. While sales targets for some Ontario 
wines have been decreased, it is also the case that the sales targets for many imported wines 
have decreased as well. Furthermore, while sales targets in some imported wine subsets have increased, a larger percentage of such targets have been adjusted downwards; and the downward 
adjustments were by a far larger ma rgin than the upward adjustments. 
Provincial and territorial liquor boards in Canada operate as businesses whose purchases and sales decisions are based on commercial considerations. 
 
[Argentina Question 9 (Third Set)]: In its last notification with respect to State Trading Enterprises (G/STR/N/15/CAN), Canada has indicated that " Provincial and territorial liquor control authorities 
purchase or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages in line with market needs as related to 
such commercial considerations as price, quality,  availability, marketability, transportation and WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 170 - 
 
  other conditions of purchase or sale ". Could Canada specify whether these provisions call for 
different requirements for wines of other origin th at exceed market conditions? If so, could Canada 
explain the legal compatibility of those provisions with WTO standards?  
Canada's Response:  I t  i s  u n c l e a r  t o  C a n a d a  w h a t  i s  m e a n t  b y  " e x c e e d  m a r k e t  c o n d i t i o n s " .  
However, for reference, provincial and territorial liquor boards in Canada operate as businesses whose purchase and sales decisions are based on commercial considerations. 
 
[Argentina Question 10 (Third Set)]: We understand that as a result of the negotiations for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CET A) between Canada and the European Union, 
Canada plans to introduce amendments to the bound tariff quota for cheese under the WTO. Could 
you provide additional information in this regard and, in particular, could you specify what 
measures Canada is taking to ensure that any change is consistent with its WTO commitments and does not unilaterally harm other members of this organization?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada will continue to administer its WTO TRQ for cheese under Canada's 
Export and Import Permits Act in conformity with its WTO obligations. The size of the WTO cheese 
TRQ will remain at 20,411,866 kg. 
 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1.4 Tariffs 
3.1.4.2 WTO bindings 
Page 55, table 3.6  
[Argentina Question 11 (Third Set)]: According to Table 3.6 on page 55, there are 5 tariff lines for 
which the applied tariff rate exceeds the bound tariff. Could you explain the reasons for this? In such cases, could you explain whether you are consid ering reducing the applied rate to adjust it to 
the maximum bound rate or whether you are considering invoking Article XXVIII of the GATT/94? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada applies specific rates of duty for these items which have been in 
effect since January 1, 2000 (when these goods reached their final rates under the Uruguay Round 
reductions). The rates have been rounded according to the provisions in our Customs Tariff . 
Subsections 30(6) through (9) pertain to rounding the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff.  Canada does not apply the ad valorem equivalent (AVE). If Canada was to apply the AVE for these 
products, it would ensure that it did not exceed the AVE of the bound rate. 
Excerpt from Canadian Customs Tariff : 
Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff 
Application of MFN Tariff 
 30. (1) Subject to section 24 and any order made under section 31, goods that originate 
in a country set out in the List of Countries are entitled to the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff rates of customs duty. 
Rounding percentage rates 
(6) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5) results in a rate of customs duty that 
includes a fraction of one per cent, the resulting percentage shall be rounded to the nearest one-
tenth of one per cent or, if the resulting percentage is equidistant from two one-tenths of one 
percent, to the higher of them. 
Rounding of rates other than 0.5 per cent 
(7) If, for any goods other than motor vehicles of tariff item No. 8701.20.00, heading 
No. 87.02, 87.03, 87.04 or 87.05, and chassis ther efor of heading No. 87.06, a reduction under 
any of subsections (3) to (5) or a rounding of rates under subsection (6) results in a rate of customs duty that includes a fraction of one per ce nt other than 0.5, the resulting percentage shall 
be rounded down to the nearest percentage that divides evenly by 0.5. 
Elimination of rates of less than two per cent WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 171 - 
 
  (8) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5 ) results in a rate of customs duty that is a 
percentage of less than two per cent, the rate sh all be further reduced to "Free" immediately. 
Rounding specific rates 
(9) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5) results in a rate of customs duty that 
includes a specific rate that includes a fraction of one cent and the final rate 
o (a) is or includes a specific rate, the specific rate component of the reduced rate 
shall be rounded 
 (i) if the final rate is or includes a specific rate expressed in cents to two 
decimal places, to the nearest one-hundredth of a cent or, if the specific rate component of the reduced rate is equidistant from two one- hundredths of a cent, to the higher of them, 
 (ii) if the final rate is or includes a specific rate expressed in cents to one 
decimal place, to the nearest one-tenth of a cent or, if the specific rate component of the 
reduced rate is equidistant from two one-tenths of a cent, to the higher of them, and 
 (iii) in any other case, to the nearest cent or, if the specific rate component 
of the reduced rate is equidistant from two cents, to the higher of them; or 
o (b) is "Free" or does not include a specific rate, the specific rate component of the 
reduced rate shall be rounded as provided in subparagraphs ( a)(i) to (iii), except that the 
references to the final rate in subparagraphs ( a)(i) and (ii) shall be read as references to the 
initial rate. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 172 - 
 
  CHILE (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1.6 Foreign Direct Investment 
Page 29, paragraph 1.40 
 [Chile Question 1]: Paragraph 1.40 indicates that the share of Canadian investment abroad going 
into the manufacturing sector has fallen from a peak of 31.9% in 2000 to 9.3% in 2013.   
 Chile would like to ask Canada if there is any cause or reason for this significant reduction.  
Canada's Response:  From the Canadian economy perspective, the share of manufacturing sector 
in Canadian GDP, as elsewhere in most developed countries, has been shrinking. The decrease in manufacturing CDIA is consistent with overall global trends: the share of global 
outward FDI stock in manufacturing accounted for 18.7% in 2012, down from 43.5% in 1990, 
whereas the services share reached 68.9% in 2012, up from 47.5% in 1990;  
The declining importance of CDIA in manufacturing was offset by gains in other major sectors 
where CDIA has shown strong growth, largely consistent with Canada's comparative advantages. Of the overall increase in CDIA stock between 2000 and 2014 ($472.3 billion), almost one-half (45%) was accounted for by finance and insurance, followed by mining, oil and gas 
(23%) – the latter receiving an impetus from the boom in commodity prices. 
 2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1.1 New Development 
Page 33, paragraph 2.7   
[Chile Question 2]: Paragraph 2.7 states that in 2011, the United States and Canada jointly 
launched the Beyond the Border Action Plan to im prove and speed up legitimate trade and travel 
between the two countries. The paragraph also indicates that the Plan is being implemented in phases and includes improvements to infrastruc ture at the border, implementing the single 
window, and enhancing the benefits of the trusted trade and traveller programmes.  
 Chile would be grateful if Canada could state what is meant by "trusted traveller", and if 
applicable, the requirements for obtaining that status. 
Canada's Response:  'Trusted traveller' status (for NEXUS members) refers to travellers eligible 
for expedited travel across the Canada-U.S. border  at airports, land ports and marine locations. 
These low security risk, pre-approved travellers into Canada and the United States benefit from expedited security screening lines in pre-clearance areas at major Canadian airports and at over 
100 participating U.S. airports for domestic, trans-border and select international flights.  
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are 
cooperating in this joint venture to simplify border crossing for members while enhancing security. 
To become a member in this  program, travellers must: 
 submit an application and go through a registration process;  
 satisfy the eligibility criteria, including being a citizen or permanent resident of Canada or 
the United States;  
 be admissible in Canada and the United States; and 
 pass risk assessments by both countries.  
Travellers approved to participate in NEXUS receive a membership identification card to use when 
entering Canada or the United States at all design ated NEXUS air, land and marine ports of entry: 
 using automated self-serve kiosks in dedicated areas at designated international airports; 
 using designated lanes at the land border; WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 173 - 
 
   reporting to border officers by phone in advance of arrival in the marine mode of 
transportation; and 
 using the Trusted Traveller Canadian Air Tran sport Security Authority (CATSA) Security 
Line at major and select medium-sized Canadian airports to expedite airport pre-boarding security screening. For detailed information, please visit the CATSA Web site  
http://www.catsa.gc.ca/using-your-nexus-card.  
For more information on NEXUS, please visit www.nexus.gc.ca.  
Page 33, paragraph 2.9 
[Chile Question 3]: Paragraph 2.9: indicates that in 2011, the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign 
Officials Act was passed to allow Canada to freeze assets placed in its territory by former foreign 
leaders in order to fight corruption and misappropriation.  
Chile would be grateful if Canada could explain how that act works, and in particular what is 
required: a request from an authority in the official's country or firm and final judgment, or is it enough for the official to have been charged wi th an offence of corruption or its equivalent. 
 
Canada's Response:  Under the Freezing Assets of Corrupt  Foreign Officials Act (FACFOA), the 
Government of Canada may issue orders or regulations that freeze the assets or restrain property of a foreign state's former leaders and senior officials if the following preconditions are met: 
1. The foreign state asserts in writing to the Government of Canada that a person has 
misappropriated property of the foreign state or acquired property inappropriately by virtue of their office or a personal or business relationship. 
2. The written assertion asks the Government of Canada to freeze property of the person. 
3. The circumstances associated with the request demonstrate to the Government of Canada's satisfaction that: 
• the person is, in relation to the foreign state, a politically exposed foreign 
person; • there is internal turmoil, or an uncertain political situation, in the foreign state; and 
• the making of the order or regulation is in the interest of international relations. 
If these conditions are met, the Government of Canada may issue an order or regulation that lists and designates the person in question as someone with whom Canadians may not engage in the 
following activities, whether carried out in or outside Canada: 
• the dealing, directly or indirectly, in any property, wherever situated, of a listed politically exposed foreign person; 
• the entering into or facilitating, directly or indirectly, any financial transaction related to 
a dealing, directly or indirectly, in any property, wherever situated, of a listed politically exposed foreign person; and • the provision of any financial services or other related services in respect of any property 
of a listed politically exposed foreign person. 
In addition to restricting and prohibiting dealing with the properties of corrupt foreign officials, 
their associates and their family members, FACFOA further provides that Canadians and financial 
entities must disclose to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police whether they have property 
possession or control of property of person who is  the subject of an order or regulation. As such, 
property associated with a politically exposed fore ign person can be identified and frozen at the 
request of the foreign state on an ongoing basis for the duration of the order or the regulation, 
which is five years with the possibility of renewal. While FACFOA does authorize the Government to seize property, seizure cannot occur unless the 
property is identified as a proceed of crime. As described above, however, it is not necessary to 
establish that the property is a proceed of crime in order for it to be frozen under FACFOA. Rather, 
the freeze ensures that the property remains in Cana da to give the foreign state the time it needs 
to pursue its investigations and gather evidence to support a formal request for the seizure and 
forfeiture of such assets. For more detailed information, States are encouraged to review the Act 
and its regulations at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-31.6/index.html.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 174 - 
 
  Page 33, paragraph 2.10 
[Chile Question 4]: Paragraph 2.10 mentions that Canada continues to promote CSR by 
incorporating the provisions of CSR in all its Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements and Free Trade Agreements signed since 2010.  
Chile would be grateful if Canada could provide so me examples of provisions on corporate social 
responsibility.   
Canada's Response:  Examples of language on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) included in 
the preamble, investment and environment chapters of Canada's FTAs, as well as in agreements on environmental and labour cooperation, are included below. These examples are drawn from Canada's FTAs with Peru, Colombia, Jo rdan, Panama, Honduras and Korea.  
Party (Entry into Force) CSR Language in Preamble, Investment and Environment Chapters 
and Agreements on Environmental and Labour Cooperation 
Peru (2009) PREAMBLE 
Promote sustainable development; ENCOURAGE enterprises operating within 
their territory or subject to their jurisdiction, to respect internationally recognized corporate social responsi bility standards and principles and 
pursue best practices; 
INVESTMENT 
Article 810: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or 
subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies, such as statements of principle that have been endorsed or are supported by the Parties. These principles address issues such as labour, the environment, human rights, community relations and anti-corruption. Th e Parties remind 
those enterprises of the importance of incorporating such corporate social 
responsibility standards in their internal policies. 
AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 
Article 6: Corporate Social Responsibility Recognizing the substantial benefits brought by international trade and 
investment, the Parties shall encourage voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility by enterprises within  their territories or jurisdictions, to 
strengthen coherence between economic and environment objectives. 
 AGREEMENT ON LABOUR COOPERATION 
Recognizing  the importance of encouraging voluntary practices of corporate 
social responsibility within their territories or jurisdictions, to ensure 
coherence between labour and economic objectives;  
Annex 1 - Cooperative Activities 
The following lists possible areas for cooperative activities directly related to 
the obligations under this Agreement, that the Parties may develop pursuant 
to Article 9:  
technical issues: programs, methodol ogies, and experiences regarding 
productivity improvement, encouragement of best labour practices, including 
through the promotion of good Corporate Social Responsibility practices, and 
the effective use of technologies, including those that are internet-based; WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 175 - 
 
  Party (Entry into Force) CSR Language in Preamble, Investment and Environment Chapters 
and Agreements on Environmental and Labour Cooperation 
Colombia (2011) PREAMBLE 
Encourage  enterprises operating within their territory or subject to their 
jurisdiction, to respect internatio nally recognized corporate social 
responsibility standards and principles  and to pursue best practices; 
INVESTMENT 
Article 816: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or 
subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized 
standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies, such as 
statements of principle that have been endorsed or are supported by the 
Parties. These principles address issues such as labour, the environment, 
human rights, community relations and anti-corruption. The Parties remind 
those enterprises of the importance of incorporating such corporate social 
responsibility standards in their internal policies. 
AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 
Article 6: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Recognizing the substantial benefits brought by international trade and 
investment, the Parties shall encourage voluntary best practices of corporate 
social responsibility by enterprises within  their territories or jurisdictions, to 
strengthen coherence between economic and environment objectives. 
AGREEMENT ON LABOUR COOPERATION 
Recognizing  the importance of encouraging voluntary practices of corporate 
social responsibility within their territories or jurisdictions, to ensure 
coherence between labour and economic objectives;  
Annex 1: Cooperative Activities 
The following lists possible areas for cooperative activities directly related to 
the obligations under this Agreement, that the Parties may develop pursuant 
to Article 9:  
technical issues: programs, methodol ogies, and experiences regarding 
productivity improvement, encouragement of best labour practices, including 
through the promotion of good Corporate Social Responsibility practices, and 
the effective use of technologies, including those that are internet-based; 
Jordan (2012) PREAMBLE 
Encourage enterprises operating within their territory or subject to their 
jurisdiction, to respect internatio nally recognized corporate social 
responsibility standards and principl es and pursue best practices;  
AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 
Article 10: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Recognizing the substantial benefits brought by international trade and 
investment, the Parties should encourage voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility by enterprises within their territories or jurisdictions, to strengthen coherence between economic and environment 
objectives. 
Article 14: Cooperative Activities 
1. The Parties recognize that cooperation is an effective way to achieve the 
objectives and fulfill the obligations under this Agreement. Accordingly, and subject to the availability of appropriate financial and/or non-financial WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 176 - 
 
  Party (Entry into Force) CSR Language in Preamble, Investment and Environment Chapters 
and Agreements on Environmental and Labour Cooperation 
resources, the Parties may develop pr ograms of cooperative activities 
including information sharing and technical exchanges based on each Party's national environmental agendas. Priorities for the programs are to be identified by the Environment Committee established under Article 15 of this 
Agreement. 
2. In this regard, the Environment Committee shall consider the following 
topics: enforcement and compliance; corporate social responsibility; trade 
and environment; and environmental technologies to address, inter alia , 
water management and renewable energy. 
AGREEMENT ON LABOUR COOPERATION 
Recognizing  the importance of encouraging voluntary practices of corporate 
social responsibility within their territories or jurisdictions, to ensure 
coherence between labour and economic objectives;  
Panama (2013) PREAMBLE 
Encourage  enterprises operating within their territory or subject to their 
jurisdiction to respect internationally recognized corporate social 
responsibility standards and principl es and pursue best practices; 
INVESTMENT 
Article 9.17: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or 
subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized 
standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies, such as 
those statements of principle that have been endorsed or are supported by 
the Parties. These principles address issues such as labour, the environment, 
human rights, community rela tions and anti-corruption. 
AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 
RECOGNIZING  the importance of encourag ing voluntary practices of 
corporate social responsibility within their territories or jurisdictions to 
advance coherence between environmental and economic objectives; 
Article 11: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Recognizing the substantial benefits brought by international trade and 
investment, the Parties shall encourage voluntary best practices of corporate 
social responsibility by enterprises within  their territories or jurisdictions, to 
strengthen coherence between economic and environmental objectives. 
AGREEMENT ON LABOUR COOPERATION 
Recognizing  the importance of encouraging voluntary practices of corporate 
social responsibility within their te rritories, to ensure  coherence between 
labour and economic objectives;  
Honduras (2014) PREAMBLE 
Recognizing the importance of corporate social responsibility standards and 
principles and the pursuit of best vo luntary practices with enterprises; 
INVESTMENT 
Article 10.16: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory, or 
entreprises subject to its jurisdic tion, to voluntarily incorporate 
internationally recognized standards of co rporate social responsibility in their 
internal policies, such as those statements of principle that are endorsed or WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 177 - 
 
  Party (Entry into Force) CSR Language in Preamble, Investment and Environment Chapters 
and Agreements on Environmental and Labour Cooperation 
supported by the Parties. These principl es address issues such as labour, the 
environment, human rights, communit y relations, and anti-corruption. 
AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 
Article 10: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Recognizing the substantial benefits brought by international trade and 
investment, each Party shall make its best endeavours to encourage voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility by enterprises 
within its territory or jurisdiction, to strengthen coherence between economic 
and environmental objectives. 
AGREEMENT ON LABOUR COOPERATION 
Recognizing  the importance of encouraging voluntary practices by 
corporate social responsibility within their territories or jurisdictions, to 
ensure coherence between labour and economic objectives; and 
Korea (2015) Chapter Eight: INVESTMENT 
Article 8.16: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or 
subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognised 
standards of corporate social responsibility in their practices and their 
internal policies, including statements  of principle that are endorsed or 
supported by the Parties. These princi ples address issues such as labour, 
environment, human rights, communit y relations, and anti-corruption. 
 
Examples of language on CSR included in Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPAs) are also included below. Two of Canada's FIPAs that are in force include 
language on CSR: Benin and Serbia. All of Canada's  FIPAs that are signed and awaiting ratification 
include language on CSR. Examples below are dr awn from Canada's FIPAs with Benin, Serbia, 
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 178 - 
 
  Party 
(Entry 
into Force 
or 
Signature) CSR Language in Foreign Investment Prom otion and Protection Agreements (FIPAs) 
Benin 
(2014) ARTICLE 16: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Each Contracting Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to 
its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internat ionally recognized standa rds of corporate social 
responsibility in their practices and internal policies, such as statements of principle that have been endorsed or are supported by the Contractin g Parties. These principles address issues such 
as labour, the environment, human rights, community relations an d anti-corruption. 
Serbia 
(2015) ARTICLE 16: Corporate Social Responsibility 
Each Party should encourage enterprises operat ing within its territory or subject to its 
jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internatio nally recognized standards of corporate social 
responsibility in their practices and internal policies, such as statements of principle that have 
been endorsed or are supported by the Parties. These principles address issues such as labour, 
the environment, human rights, community relations and anti-corruption. 
Burkina 
Faso (signed 2015) ARTICLE 16: Corporate Social Responsibility  
Each Party should encourage enterprises operat ing within its territory or subject to its 
jurisdiction to incorporate internationally recogniz ed standards of corporate social responsibility 
in their practices and internal po licies, such as statements of principle that have been endorsed 
or are supported by the Partie s. These principles address issues such as labour, the 
environment, human rights, communit y relations and anti-corruption. 
Cameroon 
(signed 
2014) ARTICLE 15: Health, Safety and Environm ental Measures and Corporate Social 
Responsibility 
(…) 
2. Each Party should encourage enterprises oper ating within its territory or subject to its 
jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internatio nally recognized standards of corporate social 
responsibility in their practices and internal policies, such as statements of principle that have 
been endorsed or are supported by the Parties. These principles address issues such as labour, 
the environment, human rights, community relations and anti-corruption. 
Côte 
d'Ivoire (signed 2014) ARTICLE 15: Health, Safety and Environm ental Measures and Corporate Social 
Responsibility 
(…) 2. Each Party shall encourage enterprises oper ating within its territory or subject to its 
jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internatio nally recognized standards of corporate social 
responsibility in their practices and internal policies, such as statements of principle that have been endorsed or are supported by the Parties. These principles address issues such as labour, 
the environment, human rights, community relations and anti ‑corruption. 
Mali 
(signed 
2014)  ARTICLE 15: Health, Safety Environmental Measures and Corporate Social 
Responsibility 
(…) 
3. Each Party should encourage enterprises oper ating within its territory or subject to its 
jurisdiction to incorporate internationally recogniz ed standards of corporate social responsibility 
in their practices and internal po licies, such as statements of principle that have been endorsed 
or are supported by the Partie s. These principles address issues such as labour, the 
environment, human rights, communit y relations, and anti-corruption.  
Nigeria 
(signed 2014)  ARTICLE 16: Corporate Social Responsibility  
Each Party should encourage enterprises operat ing within its territory or subject to its 
jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internatio nally recognized standards of corporate social 
responsibility in their practices and internal policies, such as statements of principle that have been endorsed or are supported by the Parties. These principles address issues such as labour, 
the environment, human rights, community relations and anti-corruption.  
Senegal 
(signed 
2014)  Corporate Social Responsibility 
Each Party should encourage enterprises operat ing within its territory or subject to its 
jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internatio nally recognized standards of corporate social 
responsibility in their practices and internal policies, such as statements of principle that have 
been endorsed or are supported by the Parties. These principles address issues such as labour, 
the environment, human rights, community relati ons and anti-corruption. Such enterprises are 
encouraged to make investments whose impacts cont ribute to the resolution of social problems 
and preserve the environment.  
 
2.2 Trade Policy Objectives Page 35, paragraph 2.15 
 
[Chile Question 5]: Paragraph 2.15 indicates that "The following priorities and achievements have 
been reached under the GMAP as of January 2015: Launch of a pilot Canadian Technology 
Accelerator in India to facilitate business between high potential technology-based Canadian and 
Indian start-ups".  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 179 - 
 
  Chile would be grateful if Canada could explain what a technology accelerator is, and its main 
characteristics.  Canada's Response:  The Canadian Technology Accelerators (CTAs) are short-term (3-6 month) 
programs run through Canada's trade offices. Ge nerally, the CTAs provide Canadian companies 
with private sector mentorship and education to help them grow ("accelerate") their business through trade. The CTAs' objective is to help Canadian companies develop international business 
skills, develop new strategic partnerships, and meet potential customers abroad. The programs are 
run for groups of 6-12 companies. In most CTAs, programing takes place in private-sector accelerators and includes access to mentors and facilitated introductions to local market contacts relevant to their business. The CTAs do not provide funding to companies, and do not take equity 
from companies. 
Some CTAs - like the CTA in India - operate "virtual" programing. In such CTAs, companies participate remotely, utilizing video conferencing, webinars, and emails to engage with mentors 
and subject matter experts over the duration of the program. 
The CTA in India is the only CTA initiative that offers a "reverse" model, aimed at helping Indian companies understands the benefits of doing business or locating in Canada. In this "reverse" 
model, Indian companies participate in virtual programing that educates them on the Canadian 
market through webinars and video conferencing.   2.4.2 Investment Canada Act 
Page 42, paragraph 2.38 
 [Chile Question 6]: Paragraph 2.38 ends by saying that in 2013, the first rejection of a foreign 
investment on national security grounds was taken.   
Chile would be grateful if Canada could indicate what that request for foreign investment consisted of, and how the investment affected national security. 
 
Canada's Response:  On October 7, 2013, the Minister of Industry made a statement that the 
Government of Canada concluded its review of Accelero Capital Holdings' proposed acquisition of the Allstream division of Manitoba Telecom Serv ices Inc. (MTS) under the national security 
provisions of the Investment Canada Act . The result of this review is that the transaction will not 
proceed. The Minister added that "MTS Allstream operates  a national fibre optic network that provides 
critical telecommunications services to businesses and governments, including the Government of 
Canada" (news release available at: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=778709).  Preventing us from providing any further detail, Section 36 of the Investment Canada Act  contains 
strict confidentiality provisions and the Government does not go into detail with respect to matters 
of national security.  2.4.4 Investment Promotion 
Page 45, paragraph 2.43 
 [Chile Question 7]: Paragraph 2.43 (page 48) indicates that "Export Development Canada (EDC) 
provides flexible inbound foreign direct investment financing programmes to support greenfield 
and brownfield direct investments in Canada. In addition to providing financing support for an investor's initial investment in Canada, EDC also offers highly flexible support to foreign direct 
investors once they are operating and exporting from Canada through loans, guarantees and lines 
of credit."  
Chile would be grateful if Canada could indicate what form that flexibility takes and what conditions would have to be met to gain access to it. 
 
Canada's Response:  The flexibility provided by EDC primar ily relates to its broad-based suite of 
products and services, which enables EDC to provide the right solution to companies, depending 
on their specific needs (e.g direct loans, a ccounts receivable insurance, performance bonds, 
contract frustration insurance, political risk insurance). In order to gain access to EDC products, the transaction must fall within EDC's Mandate, which is to support and develop, directly or 
indirectly, Canada's export trade and Canadian capaci ty to engage in that trade, and to respond to 
international business opportunities.    WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 180 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3.1 Financial services 4.3.1.2 Regulatory framework Page 137, paragraph 4.100 
 
[Chile Question 8]: Paragraph 4.100 indicates that foreign insurance companies wishing to 
establish a branch in Canada must obtain federal authorization to be able to insure against risks.  
 
Chile would be grateful if Canada could state whether this means that the foreign company must comply with any requirement or procedure to  obtain the corresponding authorization. 
 
Canada's Response:  Part XIII, section 579 (1), of the Insurance Companies Act  sets out the 
information, material and evidence that the Superintendent may require as part of an application for an order to insure in Canada a risk ("an order"). These include, inter alia , documents relating 
to the constitution of the foreign entity, statements on the financial condition and business of 
insurance undertaken by the foreign entity, and evidence that the foreign entity is authorized under the laws of the country where it is incorporated or formed to insure risks.  
The Act requires a foreign company to appoint a natural person who is ordinarily resident in 
Canada to be its chief agent. As part of the application for an order, a foreign entity must submit a power of attorney expressly authorizing the chief agent to receive all notices under the laws of 
Canada from the Minister or the Superintendent. 
The Act requires that, before filing an application for an order, a foreign entity must, at least once 
a week for four consecutive weeks, publish, in a form satisfactory to the Superintendent, a notice 
of intention to make the application in the Canada Gazette and in a newspaper in general 
circulation at or near the place where its chief agency is to be situated. 
Finally, section 581 (1) states that the Superintendent shall not make an order in respect of a foreign entity until it has been shown that the foreign entity has (a) vested in trust assets of at 
least five million dollars or any greater amount that the Superintendent specifies; (b) appointed an 
actuary and an auditor as specified by the Act; and (c) established its chief agency.  4.3.1.3 Banking services 
4.3.1.3.1 Commercial banks 
Page 138, paragraph 4.105  
[Chile Question 9]: Paragraph 4.105 indicates that any transaction leading to a single investor 
acquiring more than 10% of any class of voting sh ares would require the approval of the Minister 
of Finance, and would be subject to a "fit and proper" test on the applicant.   
Chile would be grateful if Canada coul d explain the "fit and proper" test.  
 Canada's Response:  Matters for consideration pertaining to an application for a single investor to 
acquire significant interest in a bank are contained in section 369 (1) of the Bank Act . According to 
this section of the Act, when determining whether or not to approve the transaction, the Minister 
of Finance may take into account, inter alia : 
‐ the business record and experience of the applicant or applicants,  
‐ the character and integrity of the applicant or applicants, or, if the applicant or any of the 
applicants is a body corporate, its reputation for being operated in a manner that is consistent with the standards of good character and integrity; 
‐ whether the bank will be operated responsibly by persons with the competence and 
experience suitable for involvement in the operation of a financial institution. 
 
4.3.1.5 Securities Page 144, paragraph 4.133 
 
[Chile Question 10]: Paragraph 4.133 indicates that "The industry has also established the 
Canadian Investor Protection Fund, with a view to covering investors in case of insolvency by a 
member. The coverage is paid for by securities dealers, and is limited to Can$1 million per 
customer".  
Chile would be grateful if Canada could explain how financing from the Investor Protection Plan 
works. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 181 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  Customers who have an account at a Canadian Investor Protection Fund 
(CIPF) Member are automatically covered up to $1 million if a member cannot return the property in a customer's account as a result of the member's insolvency. CIPF coverage does not depend on residency or citizenship – it is available to everyone who opens an account with a CIPF Member. 
The CIPF is funded by its Members. The CIPF Board sets the size of the fund to be maintained for 
the client assets it protects. It also sets the quarterly Member assessment and the policy on how monies in the fund are to be invested. 
 
The Board uses a model to assist it in setting the fund size. The model weights client assets for the relative risk of the Member that is responsible to the customer for those assets. Members with strong internal controls, profitability and capital will have lower risk scores. 
 
The model is also used to determine the amount of the quarterly assessment that is allocated to each Member. Members with relatively more client assets, or a higher risk rating, will pay a larger 
percentage of the total assessment. CIPF also levies an additional assessment on Members that 
have not complied with the industry rule that requires them to maintain positive capital at all times.  
 
All investments must be in highly liquid Canadian or provincial government guaranteed debt obligations that mature over an 11-year period.   
For liquidity purposes the Fund has two lines of credit provided by two Canadian chartered banks 
totalling $125 million.  
The Fund has also arranged insurance in the amount of $160 million for any one loss and in the 
annual aggregate in respect of losses to be paid by  CIPF in excess of $150 million in the event of 
Member insolvency. 
 
4.1.2 Border measures Page 111, paragraph 4.7  
[Chile Question 11]: Paragraph 4.7: with respect to application of the tariff rate quota for chicken, 
the equation method explained in footnote 6.  
Note [6]: The TRQ for chicken is allocated using a mix of the historical, markets share, and equal-
share methods, as well as a variation of the pro-rata of demand measure.  
How does Canada guarantee that all countries, including Chile, have a place within Canadian 
imports under competitive conditions?   Canada's Response:  Canada's TRQ for chicken and chicken products is administered under the 
Export and Import Permits Act  and according to Canada's international obligations. It is fully 
allocated every year according to the method set out in the applicable Notice to Importers (which can be found here: http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/prod/agri/chicken-
poulet/index.aspx?lang=eng). Allocation holders are generally free to use their allocation to import 
any product covered by the TRQ at any time during the year. While allocations are issued only to residents of Canada, allocation holders are free to source their chicken imports from any country 
that has been certified by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Chicken exporters from certified 
countries seeking to access Canada's TRQ may do so by partnering with Canadian allocation holders. The list of allocation holders is public and is available at the link provided above.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 3.3.6.6 Copyright 
Page 104, paragraph 3.183 
 [Chile Question 12]: Paragraph 3.183: Chile would like to have more information on the system of 
parallel importation of books of Canada. 
 Canada's Response:  The general rule on parallel imports is found in ss. 27(2) of the Copyright 
Act. It applies to all categories of works other than books. A work lawfully made in a foreign 
country cannot be imported into Canada for the purposes listed in ss. 27(2)(a)-(e) if it could not WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 182 - 
 
  have been lawfully made in Canada by the person who made it in the foreign country. The 
protection against the parallel importation of books is given in s. 27.1. A person cannot import a book into Canada without the consent of the rights owner in Canada. The right to prevent parallel importation applies only if there is an exclusive distributor in Canada and only within that 
distributor's market sector. Exclusive distributors must meet certain performance requirements 
concerning pricing and delivery times established under the Book Importation Regulations. Pursuant to ss. 27.1(6) of the Copyright Act , the Book Importation Regulations 
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/SOR-99-324/inde x.html) were introduced in 1999 to bring the 
provision restricting parallel importation of books into effect. They were designed to ensure that booksellers, librarians and consumers would not be exposed to excessive book prices or poor service. The Regulations were developed in consultation with a range of book industry 
stakeholders and were based on voluntary industry guidelines that had already been negotiated 
among industry players.  Sub-section 45(1) of the Copyright Act  provides an exception that allows for the importation of 
certain copyright protected works made with th e consent of the copyright owner in the other 
country for personal use, use by a government department, use by libraries, archives, museums and educational institutions, and used books. 
 
3.3.6.9 IP Enforcement Page 107, paragraph 3.200  
[Chile Question 13]: Paragraph 3.200: Chile would like to have more information on the treatment 
of goods in transit in Canada.  
Canada's Response:  The Combating Counterfeit Products Act  adds new facilitating tools to 
enforce infringements of trademarks and copyrights, primarily for rights holders through its request for assistance mechanism. Other laws and regulations, such as the Customs Act, Criminal 
Code, Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, and Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act  already 
provide an enforcement framework for shipments ex hibiting health, safety or security issues. 
 Separate Question (not linked to any specific paragraph of the Report of the 
Secretariat): 
[Chile Question 14]: Provincial measures with respect to wine: in what way do the provinces of 
Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia, through their wine marketing and sales measures 
(which include the requirement for sales targets and measures or provisions on sales and promotion channels for imported wines) provide treatment that ensures equal conditions for 
competition between national and imported wines? 
 Canada's Response:  The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Boards (PTLBs) in Canada were established 
before the GATT was created, and their existence and activity is consistent with the provisions of 
GATT Article XVII ["State Trading Enterprises"]. In a ccordance with that Article, they are notified 
to the WTO as STEs. The PTLBs operate as businesses whose purchase and sales decisions are based on commercial considerations. The policies of Provincial liquor agencies have been accepted 
in various trade agreements to which Canada is a Party.  
  
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 2.8.2 Canada's Intellectual Property Regime 
Page 21, paragraph 2.86 
 [Chile Question 15]: Chile would be grateful if Canada could provide information on the treatment 
of goods in transit, if appropriate. 
 
Canada's Response:  The Combating Counterfeit Products Act  adds new facilitating tools to 
enforce infringements of trademarks and copyrights, primarily for rights holders through its 
request for assistance mechanism. Other laws and regulations, such as the Customs Act, Criminal 
Code, Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, and Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act  already 
provide an enforcement framework for shipments ex hibiting health, safety or security issues. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 183 - 
 
  COLOMBIA (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.2 Trade Policy Objectives 
Page 34, paragraphs 2.12-2.13 
 [Colombia Question 1]: Paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 of the Secretariat Report state that…  "2.12. The 
Global Markets Action Plan contains a pro-trade and investment plan to pursue ambitious growth in 
trade, job creation, and economic growth. It plan s to use many vehicles, including the WTO, FTAs, 
investment, and other agreements as the tools to achieving its goals. In particular, the following specific goals have been identified: 
… advance and conclude FTAs with major economic impact; …" and "2.13. In addition to 
prioritizing certain markets depending upon Canadian interests and advantages, the Global Markets Action Plan prioritises sectors where it has a strong competitive advantage and plans to 
develop strategies to help these sectors flourish …" 
What main difficulties that have arisen in developing the Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP) have prevented diversification of target markets?  
 
Canada's Response:  The GMAP seeks to provide the support necessary for Canadian companies, 
including first-time exporters and those alre ady present in foreign markets, to pursue 
opportunities in priority international markets. On e key challenge addressed by the GMAP is raising 
awareness by Canadian businesses of global commercial opportunities and the support available to 
them from the government. This is achieved in part through an extensive program of domestic outreach, including Minister of International Trade -led SME- focused workshops across Canada. As 
well, three-year market access plans are being deve loped under the GMAP for each priority market 
(plans for India http://international.gc.ca/global-markets-marches-mondiaux/markets-marches/map_india-pam_inde.aspx?lang=eng and the Philippines 
http://international.gc.ca/global-markets-marc hes-mondiaux/markets-marches/map-philippines-
pam.aspx?lang=eng have been released), another t ool in raising awareness by providing Canadian 
businesses with information that will assist them in their export market development efforts.  
The GMAP also seeks to create a level playing field for Canadian companies in foreign markets 
through the negotiation and implementation of strategic trade and trade-related agreements. Through instruments including FTAs, regional tr ade agreements, Foreign Investment Promotion 
and Protection Agreements, Double Taxation Agreements, etc., opportunities abroad become more 
promising and more attractive for companies.  
However, the Government does not seek to distort the commercial decisions of Canadian 
companies, which are typically attuned to external factors such as exchange rates or ease of doing 
business. At the end of the day, while the Government seeks to publicize global market opportunities to Canadian business and support these enterprises seeking to diversify their 
markets, the profile of Canada's trade results from private sector decisions. 
 2.3.3 Other agreements and arrangements 
2.3.3.1 Trade with Australia and New Zealand 
Page 41, paragraph 2.32  
[Colombia Question 2]: Paragraph 2.32 of the Secretariat Report indicates that… "Pursuant to 
long-standing Agreements on Trade or Trade and Economic Cooperation, Canada has special trading relations with Australia and New Zealand. The agreement with Australia gives preferential tariff treatment to a specified list of products in the annex for both countries; whereas the 
agreement with New Zealand contains tariff and non-tariff measures provisions. With respect to 
New Zealand, special tariffs were given through exchanges of letters, and a special status of 
preferred supplier was granted between the parties for agricultural, horticultural, and fisheries 
products. Canada implements these preferential tariffs through the Customs Tariff. There is no 
waiver or other instrument in place under the WTO for these Agreements…"  
How does Canada incorporate the special tariffs granted through exchanges of letters into its 
national legislation? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada incorporates all non-MFN tariff treatments (e.g. unilateral 
developing country tariff preferences), free trade agreements or any pre-GATT arrangements into WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 184 - 
 
  our domestic Customs Tariff  law through implementing legislation (an act through Canada's 
Parliament). For example, the tariffs granted to Colombia were incorporated into the Customs Tariff through the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act - House Government Bill - C-2, Royal Assent (40-3). 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports 
3.1.5.1 The GST/ HST and provincial sales taxes 
Page 58, paragraph 3.30  [Colombia Question 3]: Paragraph 3.30 of the Secretariat Report states that... "The Goods and 
Services Tax (GST) is Canada's largest indirect tax by revenue. It generated nearly Can$31 billion 
during the 2013/14 fiscal year, representing about two-thirds of indirect tax revenue and 14.1% of total tax revenues.28 The GST is a value-added tax levied on most goods and services at a rate of 
5%.29 For imported goods, the tax is calculated on the same basis as imports duties, and is 
generally levied at the time of importation. GST re lief is granted for some imported goods such as 
prescription drugs, medical and assistive device s, basic groceries, agriculture, and fishing 
goods.["]  
How does the Canadian government ensure that the taxes applied in each province do not become technical barriers to trade?  
Canada's Response:  Canada applies a Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the national level at a 
rate of 5%. The provinces of Ontario, Nova Sc otia, New Brunswick, Prin ce Edward Island and 
Newfoundland and Labrador have harmonized th eir provincial sales tax with the GST. The 
Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) includes the federal GST (5% nationally) as well as a provincial 
component, which is set by each of the harmoniz ed provinces. The province of Québec imposes 
and administers its own value-added tax, the Québec Sales Tax (QST). The federal government 
and Québec have entered into an agreement wher eby the province of Québec administers the GST 
in the province and agrees to harmonize the QST base with the GST base. In these provinces, the 
combined federal and provincial taxes are levied on imported goods at the same rate and on the same tax base as is levied on sales of domestic goods made in the provinces.  
The other provinces administer their own provincial  sales tax systems and set their own rates. In 
these provinces, provincial taxes are generally levied on imported goods at the same rate and on the same tax base as is levied on sales of domestic goods made in the provinces. 
Ultimately, supplies imported into Canada and supplies made within Canada are generally treated 
equally for sales tax purposes.   
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 
3.3.6.2 Economic Policy Context Page 97, paragraph 3.159  
[Colombia Question 4]: Paragraph 3.159 of the Secretariat Report indicates that ... "Given the 
diverse forms that IP takes in international trad e, including IP embedded in manufactured goods, 
IP royalties recorded as services trade, and consum er downloads of IP content, it is difficult to 
establish a comprehensive tally of the full IP co mponent of Canadian trade. However, several 
indicators permit an approximate estimation of Canada's IP trade and confirm its traditional situation as a net IP-importing country."  
What indicators are taken into account in estimating the intellectual property component in 
Canadian international trade?  Canada's Response:  Estimating the exact intellectual property (IP) component in Canadian 
international trade is complex due to the lack of data to show the share of IP in Canada's 
manufactured goods, provided services, and do wnloaded copyrighted and patented works. 
However, several indicators were developed to provide an approximate estimation of Canada's IP 
trade. These include: IP licensing activities and co ntribution of IP-intensive industries to Canada's 
trade balance.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 185 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 4.1.4 Export measures Page 116, paragraph 4.26 
 
[Colombia Question 5]: Paragraph 4.26 of the Secretariat Report states that... "Canada's WTO 
export subsidy reduction commitments apply to 11 product groups: wheat and wheat flour, coarse 
grains, oilseeds, vegetable oils, oilcakes, butter, skim milk powder, cheese, other milk products, 
vegetables, and incorporated products. However, only five product groups are actually subject to subsidies, with commitment levels being regularly reached for milk products and incorporated products (Table 4.2). For the marketing year runni ng from August 2011 to July 2012, total export 
subsidies outlays declined by 2.3% to Can$88.3 mi llion, representing some 0.14% of agricultural 
exports. According to the authorities, preliminary figures for 2012-13 indicate that Canada remains well within its export subsidies commitments."  
While Canada remains within its export subsidies commitments, what tools do the government and 
monitoring bodies use to measure subsidy levels to ensure that the commitments assumed with the WTO are not exceeded? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Canadian Dairy Commission ensures that Canada remains within its 
export subsidy commitments for those products listed in Table 4.2.  
 
[Colombia comments on Canada's TPR in matters of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures]: 
Canada is currently introducing major changes to its food safety system. The Safe Food for 
Canadians Act  (SFCA) was passed in November 2012. Its objective is to establish stricter food 
safety standards and more coherent and effective inspection, to replace the current food 
legislation (except the Food and Drugs Act ) and to strengthen inspection powers. The SFCA applies 
to all food products marketed between the prov inces and on international markets, but not to 
natural health products.  
The SFCA will enter into force by means of implementing regulations. In February 2015, 
consultations were held on the proposed regulati ons, which will apply international standards to 
preventive controls (for example, risk and critical control point analysis and best manufacturing 
practices) for all foods that are exported, import ed or marketed between the provinces. The new 
traceability requirements allow food products that are unfit for consumption to be more quickly removed from the supply chain. Like domestic manufacturers, importers of food must have a 
licence and preventive control plans to ensure that imported products comply with Canadian 
requirements.  It should be noted that the authorities have reported that CFIA will cooperate with small- and 
medium-sized businesses in coming up with approaches adapted to their operational needs that 
facilitate compliance. During the transition period prior to the entry into force of the SFCA, CFIA introduced certain changes to make inspection more effective, design ing an improved food inspection model that will 
modernize its regulatory oversight activities with in the framework of the current legislation. The 
latest round of consultations on the inspection  model ended in August 2014, and the multi-year 
implementation process is currently underway. 
The Model calls for a coherent, risk-based inspection system whose activities will be focussed on 
the food products that pose greater risk to consum ers. Although the model does not cover facilities 
abroad, it applies to them through national importers. 
It is important to mention in this regard that the above-mentioned model proposes requirements 
so that companies can develop, carry out and maintain preventive control plans based on the principles and rules of the Codex Alimentarius, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPF) 
and the OIE, which ensures that it will be applied in keeping with the provisions of the WTO in 
such matters. 
It should also be noted that CFIA implemented an automated import system to help importers and customs authorities manage imports of agriculture and livestock, fish and food products.  
Given that the changes indicated above to Canada's safety system have arisen from the 
consultation process, they are leading to its modernization and are consistent with WTO provisions in this regard. 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada notes Colombia's remarks. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 186 - 
 
  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.2.2 Unilateral preferential regimes 
Page 40 
[Dominican Republic Question 1]: As part of its 2013 Economic Action Plan, Canada has 
modernized its General Preferential Tariff, which is based on UNCTAD's Generalized System of 
Preferences and granted to developing and least- developed countries. This unilateral program 
has been modified and 72 countries have been graduated out of it as of 1 January 2015 due 
to no longer meeting the eligibility criteria.  
Taking into account the developing and least-deve loped countries that have been eliminated from 
the benefits as of January 2015, will furt her reviews of the program be ordered? 
Canada's Response: Canada will review the list of countries eligible for the General Preferential 
Tariff every two years, using the same criteria used in the 2013 review, which was published in 
Part II of the Canada Gazette  on October 9, 2013. (See http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-
pr/p2/2013/2013-10-09/html/sor-dors161-eng.php). The first biennual review will begin in fall 2015. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 187 - 
 
  ECUADOR (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
FIRST SET 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) SUMMARY 
Page 8, paragraph 7 
 [Ecuador Question 1 (First Set)]: Concerning the Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP): "[…] Canada 
launched its Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP) […] as a strategic plan to prioritize markets and 
support commercial success in trade. In particul ar, the GMAP sets priorities and objectives for 
trade initiatives and trade promotion activities, and contains a pro-trade and investment plan."  
Could Canada explain to us the method used under the above-mentioned Plan to identify and 
prioritize the markets with which actions will be taken to strengthen trade relations, and what conditions must be met by those markets, including countries with which trade agreement 
negotiations will be initiated? 
 Canada's Response:  These markets were identified through a two-step process of economic 
analysis and stakeholder validation. The economic analysis took into account key economic 
variables that allowed us to identify the markets with the greatest current or potential importance (overall, or for specific sectors), while also taking into account existing commercial linkages with Canada and complementarities between economies. Consultations with various advisory bodies 
(e.g. the Minister of International Trade's SME Advisory Board and his Global Commerce Strategy 
Advisory Panel) and some 400 businesses, universities, industry associations and other stakeholders across Canada validated that selected markets fit one of the definitions of either an 
emerging or established priority market. Priority markets demonstrate high potential for economic 
growth (whether across the board or in specific sectors); are markets where Canadian capabilities have good potential for success and where government support can have great impact; and are 
part of regional trading platforms that Canada is trying to tap into. 
 Ultimately, the Government chose the priority markets on the basis of analysis and consultation, and expects to modify the list periodically to reflect the dynamic nature of Canada's international 
trade interests. However, the list of priority markets does not represent the totality of markets 
where Canadian business has interests.  
Regarding trade negotiations, the Government takes into account a number of considerations 
when taking a decision regarding whether to launch negotiations with a potential partner. These include: the potential to generate significant economic and commercial benefits for Canada; and 
the level of Canadian business interest and dome stic support; the willingness and capacity of 
prospective partners to negotiate with Canada, including as determined through detailed, pre-negotiation exploratory talks.  
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 General Framework 2.1.1 New Developments 
Page 33, paragraph 2.10 
 [Ecuador Question 2 (First Set)]: "In November 2014, Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development 
Canada announced a new enhanced Corporate Soci al Responsibility (CSR) Strategy in Canada's 
extractive sector abroad. As a leading player in  the world mining industry, Canada expects the 
companies to promote Canadian values and operate with high ethical standards abroad."  
Could Canada provide us with further information and examples with respect to the new, enhanced 
social responsibility strategy for companies in Canada's extractive sector abroad? (Could you tell 
us where to find the document containing the new strategy?)  
Canada's Response:  Canada's enhanced CSR Strategy , Doing Business the Canadian Way: a 
Strategy to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada's Extractive Sector Abroad , is 
publicly available in English, French and Spanish on the Government's website at 
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements -accords-commerciaux/to pics-domaines/other-
autre/csr-strat-rse.aspx?lang=eng. The 2014 CSR Strategy now links a company's CSR performance to its access to enhanced government trade support, including advocacy services.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 188 - 
 
  This new measure has already been put into action. On April 8th, 2015, Canada's National Contact 
Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises issued its Final Statement on a specific instance, which indicated that "…the Company's non-participation in the NCP process will be taken into consideration in any applications by the Company for enhanced advocacy support from the 
Trade Commissioner Service and/or Export Development Canada (EDC) financial services…". For 
additional information, the Final Statement is publicly available at: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreemen ts-accords-commerciaux/ncp-pcn/statement-
gyama-valley.aspx?lang=eng. 
 2.2 Trade Policy Objectives Page 36, paragraphs 2.18-2.19 
 
[Ecuador Question 3 (First Set)]: On page 36, paragraphs 2.18 and 2.19, the Report by the 
Secretariat states that Canada has focused its existing multilateral and bilateral trade programs on 
development, which reaffirms Canada's commitment to the Doha Development Agenda and [shows 
that its approach] is fully aligned with the strategies set out in the Global Markets Action Plan GMAP. 
 
In this regard, could Canada tell us what those strategies are, how they are being applied, and 
which countries have been considered for this strategy?  
Canada's Response: Canada's Sustainable Economic Growth Strategy follows three paths: 
Building economic foundations: Support willing go vernments to build the necessary legislative and 
regulatory business, industrial, and financial framework upon which sustainable growth can take 
place; 
Growing businesses: Enhance the financial viability, productivity, and competitiveness of micro, 
small and medium-sized private sector enterprises, resulting in increasing employment 
opportunities for the poor; and 
Investing in people: Improve the employment potential of individuals to increase access to, and 
benefits from, opportunities in the in formal and formal business sectors. 
In pursuing these paths across our multilateral, bilateral and Partnerships development 
programming, we also ensure the integration of equality between women and men, environmental 
sustainability, and governance.  
In practice, we respond to demand from our developing country partners. Some concrete 
applications of this Strategy include:  
 Through the Canadian-Caribbean Cooperation Fund for instance, Canada provides technical 
assistance to governments to build the necessa ry legislative and regulatory frameworks to 
facilitate private sector-led growth, investment and innovation. 
 Canada also targets small and medium enterprises directly to help them reach new markets. 
In Haiti, Canada provided support to local artisans to improve their production, then facilitated their products being placed at Hudson's Bay Company, a major Canadian retailer.  
 Finally, in the Andean region and the Caribbean, Canada focuses on skill levels in the 
workforce, especially among women and youth, through training programs linked to the labour market and by fostering entrepreneurship.  
In June 2014, responding to country dema nd, Canada launched the Canadian Trade and 
Development Facility, an initiative designed to help developing countries negotiate, conclude, implement, adapt to and benefit from Free Trad e Agreements and Foreign Investment Promotion 
and Protection Agreements. The key focus is on countries with which Canada has or is negotiating 
trade agreements.  
 Under this initiative, for example, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada has 
partnered with the Trade Facilitation Office Cana da to provide smaller exporters in developing WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 189 - 
 
  countries with the information, advice and contac ts they need to gain access to the Canadian 
marketplace. 
 The criteria used for the assessment of individu al projects under the CTDF are the same ones 
used for regular development programming under Canada's aid programs. The CTDF will be 
allocated up to $25 million per year. 
 In the context of trade negotiations, developing countries are encouraged to discuss their 
needs with Canadian negotiators or with the relevant Canadian trade and/or development 
officials located at our diplomatic missions abroad. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.2 Customs valuation 
Page 49, paragraph 3.11 
 
[Ecuador Question 4 (First Set)]: Could Canada explain to us what actions or sanctions are 
implemented where origin, tariff classification or value is re-determined? 
 Canada's Response:  When a re-determination results in an amount owing to the Government of 
Canada, unpaid customs duties and interest will be charged. Furthermore, penalties may apply if 
importers had reason to believe that declarations of origin, tariff classification or value were incorrect but did not self-correct within legislated time limits.  [b] Also, where origin, tariff classification or valu e is re-determined, can the importer continue to 
carry out import processes? 
 Canada's Response: Normally yes. 
 
3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports 3.1.5.1 The GST/HST and provincial sales taxes 
Page 59, paragraph 3.34 
 [Ecuador Question 5 (First Set)]: In regard to page 59, paragraph 3.34, concerning the Export 
Distribution Centre Program (EDCP):  
Given the foregoing, this would be a measure linked to export products, which must have limited 
added value? Could Canada tell us if this measure is applied under a special customs regime?  
In the same context, based on the fact that it is a finished product that is being exported, which 
has not been substantially altered, and which benefits from relief of GST/HST provided that it is exported and that a specific added value is included, could Canada explain how this measure 
adheres to the provisions on prohibited subsidies in the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures?  Canada's Response:  The Export Distribution Centre Program (EDCP) is intended to benefit 
export-oriented businesses that import goods and/ or acquire goods in Canada, process them to 
add only limited value, such as by disassembling,  reassembling or labelling, and then export them. 
The EDCP is not intended to benefit companies that manufacture or produce new products in 
Canada that they then export.  
Under the program, EDCP participants do not pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) or Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on most imported goods or on domestic purchases of goods worth $1,000 or 
more. The GST/HST is a value-added consumption tax that generally does not apply to exports 
and which is fully recoverable for businesses engaged exclusively in commercial activities. The EDCP thus improves cash flow for EDCP participan ts because they do not need to pay GST/HST up 
front, claim an input tax credit to recover the taxes on their GST/HST return and then wait for 
their net tax refund to arrive. 
The program is administered by the Canada Reve nue Agency (CRA) and is not part of a customs 
regime. Companies qualified to apply for the program complete the relevant form and submit it to 
the CRA. 
With respect to its status under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), footnote 1 of the ASCM states that the ex emption of an exported product from duties or 
taxes borne by the like product when destined for domestic consumption, or the remission of such WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 190 - 
 
  duties or taxes in amounts not in excess of those which have accrued, shall not be deemed a 
subsidy. The EDCP does not exempt exported products from indirect taxes in excess of those levied in respect of the production and distribu tion of like products when sold for domestic 
consumption. As such, it is deemed not to be a subsidy under the ASCM. 
 
3.1.5.2 Excise taxes and duties Page 59-60, paragraph 3.36 
[Ecuador Question 6 (First Set)]: In reference to the imposition of an excise duty on domestic and 
imported spirits, wine, beer and tobacco products: "Reduced rates (or exemptions) may apply to beer made by domestic brewers, and wine wholly composed of Canadian-grown agricultural products". 
In this regard, could Canada tell us how these exemptions from the excise duty adhere to the 
national treatment provisions when we are speaking of reduced rates for domestic beer and wine wholly composed of Canadian-grown agricultural products, in regard to similar imported products 
that are directly competitive or substitutable? 
Further, how does granting an exemption for wine wholly composed of Canadian-grown agricultural products adhere to the provisions on subsidies? 
 
Canada's Response:  In 2006, excise duty relief measures were implemented for Canadian 
vintners and Canadian brewers. This relief included  the introduction of an excise duty exemption 
for wine produced from 100% Canadian-grown agri cultural product, and reduced rates of excise 
duty on the first 75,000 hectoliters of beer prod uced per year by Canadian brewers. Further 
information regarding the application of these relief measures can be found on the following Canada Revenue Agency webpages: 
For wine: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edn15/edn15-e.html 
For beer: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edbn8/edbn8-e.html 
These measures do not impose an additional tax burden on imports vis-à-vis domestic products. 
The amount of targeted excise duty relief under these specific measures is relatively small and was 
largely modelled after similar programs in other countries. Furthermore, these measures do not have any significant impact on the demand for beer and wine imports in Canada. Indeed, imports of beer and wine into Canada have increased 32% and 30%, respectively, since 2006.  
 
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports 3.2.4 Export support and promotion 
Page 77, paragraph 3.104 
 [Ecuador Question 7 (First Set)]: Could Canada tell us if there is any method for measuring the 
impact of the assistance provided by the Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) to businesses? 
 Canada's Response:  As a service-oriented organization, the Trade Commissioner Service has a 
rigorous performance measurement system based on the needs of clients rather than the scale of 
their outcomes. This is enforced from the Heads of Missions (i.e. an Ambassador, high 
commissioner or Consul-general of Canada who is accountable for the direction, integration, coordination, coherence, oversight and delivery of all DFATD programs at the mission) down to the 
officers delivering the trade program. Senior Trade Commissioners abroad have access to a 
dashboard, where they can see data such as the services delivered by their officers, the 
opportunities they have identified, the successes th ey have achieved, the level of satisfaction of 
their clients as well as their up-to-date budgets. Heads of Missions are equipped with quarterly 
reports, which indicate the progression of their trade program towards the targets set for key performance indicators. These quarterly reports draw information from six data systems, to give Heads of Missions a thorough and well-rounded pict ure of the performance of their trade programs 
and ensure that resources are best used.  
While trade results are rolled up into the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development's Departmental Performance Report, presented to Parliament, performance data is used in the 
Performance Management Agreement of executives in the trade program and of Heads of Missions, 
and they are also used in the Public Service Performance Management Program for Employees (PSPM) of the officers delivering the trade program. 
However, the direct impact of the assistance to business is not regularly measured through this 
system, which only tracks the impact of services as far as two kinds of success: as an intermediate outcome, the pursuit of a business opportunity or the visit of a foreign investor to Canada, and, as WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 191 - 
 
  an ultimate outcome, the facilitation of an economic outcome or a foreign investment to Canada. 
The economic outcome is defined in terms of the cl ient's aspirations and can be anything from an 
export sale to a technology partnership. As the Trade Commissioner Service does not screen clients on the basis of size of operations or opportunities, the hard evidence of impact is largely 
anecdotal and is provided voluntarily by clients. To address this gap, in 2010, the Chief Economist 
of DFATD co-sponsored a peer-reviewed study of the impact of the Trade Commissioner Service: (http://www.international.gc.ca/econom ist-economiste/performance/state-
point/state_2010_point/2010_7.aspx?lang=eng#a1) th at used multiple sources of data to 
estimate impact; this study is currently being updated.  3.2.5 Export finance, insurance, guarantees 
Page 77-8, paragraph 3.107 
 [Ecuador Question 8 (First Set)]: Could Canada tell us what interest rate Export Development 
Canada (EDC) charges on its financing products? Also, in the case of insurance products, how are 
premiums paid, and what percentage is paid by the beneficiary of this program?  
Canada's Response:  Interest rates and premiums are charged in accordance with a number of 
factors, including risk levels, credit ratings, and the length of the repayment term. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the interest rates, premiums and percentages are not for release. 
3.3.4 State trading, state-owned enterprises and privatizations 
3.3.4.3 Other entities that operate wi th federal government participation 
Page 91, paragraph 3.137  
[Ecuador Question 9 (First Set)]:, Could Canada tell us how many joint enterprises are registered 
and where we could find a list of such enterprises?  
Canada's Response: From a federal perspective, a joint enterprise is one partly owned by the 
Federal Government, with the remaining ownership in terest held by another level of government.  
 There is currently only one active joint enterprise owned by the federal government: the North 
Portage Development Corporation (operating as The Forks North Portage Partnership). A second 
corporation, the Lower Churchill Development Corporation Limited, although still listed as a joint enterprise for the federal government, is inactive. 
 
Joint enterprises in which the federal government has an ownership interest are listed in the Inventory of Government Institutions , found on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website: 
see link: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapport s/cc-se/corporate-societe /ocip-pasl-eng.asp  
 3.3.5 Government procurement 3.3.5.2 Developments 
Page 94, table 3.26 
 [Ecuador Question 10 (First Set)]: Could Canada explain to us what is meant by consultant 
lobbyist groups as concerns the amendment of government contracts regulations? 
 Canada's Response:  Section 42 (1)(a) of the Financial Administration Act  prohibits the payment 
of a contingency fee by any party to the contract to a person to whom the Lobbying Act  applies.  
The registration of consultant lobbyist groups is discussed in section 5 of the Lobbying Act , as 
follows: 5. (1) An individual shall file with the Commissioner, in the prescribed form and manner, a return 
setting out the information referred to in subsection (2), if the individual, for payment, on behalf of 
any person or organization (in this section referred to as the "client"), undertakes to (a) communicate with a public office holder in respect of 
(i) the development of any legislative propos a l  b y  t h e  G o v e r n m e n t  o f  C a n a d a  o r  b y  a  
member of the Senate or the House of Commons, (ii) the introduction of any Bill or resolution in either House of Parliament or the passage, 
defeat or amendment of any Bill or resolution that is before either House of Parliament, 
(iii) the making or amendment of any regulati on as defined in subsection 2(1) of the 
Statutory Instruments Act, (iv) the development or amendment of any policy or program of the Government of 
Canada, WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 192 - 
 
  (v) the awarding of any grant, contribution or other financial benefit by or on behalf of Her 
Majesty in right of Canada, or (vi) the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada; or 
(b) arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other person. 
[Ecuador Question 11 (First Set)]: In regard to pages 41, 101 and 107, paragraphs 2.33, 3.172 
and 3.20[1], in regard to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): "The Act faced criticism from parliamentary opposition and other commentators for giving 
excessive powers to border officials, and for succu mbing to pressure to implement ACTA in Canada 
while the Agreement had been rejected in Europe  and was widely unpopular with civil society 
groups around the world". Could Canada tell us to which ex cessive powers the text refers?  
Also, what does the Combating Counterfeit Products Act  (Bill C-8) call for when there are alleged 
or actual indications of intellectual property rights violation by goods in transit?  
Canada's Response:  The Secretariat Report references questions posed in Parliament during 
Question Period on March 4, 2014. Statements from parliamentary opposition can be found at http://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/3/4/christian-paradis-3/. 
 
The Combating Counterfeit Products Act  adds new facilitating tools to enforce infringements of 
trademarks and copyrights, primarily for rights  holders through its request for assistance 
mechanism, to address domestic concerns over tr ade in pirated and counterfeit goods. While the 
Act reflects a Canadian approach to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, international 
standards and best practices were considered in developing the proposed reforms. This Act brings Canada's intellectual property rights enforcement regime in line with that of other G7 countries 
and key trading partners. Other laws and regulations, such as the Customs Act , Criminal Code , 
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act , and Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act already provide 
an enforcement framework for shipments exhibiting health, safety or security issues. 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 4.1.1 Overview 
Page 110, paragraph 4.4 
 [Ecuador Question 12 (First Set)]: In regard to international food assistance programs: "Most food 
assistance is channelled either through the World Food Programme (WFP), of which Canada is one 
of the largest donor countries; or the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, a non-profit charitable organization involved in humanitarian and development activities". 
Could Canada tell us what products are not channelled through the World Food Programme (WFP) 
or the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, and what is done to ensure that the part that is not channelled through those two organizations adheres to the needs of the food assistance recipient, so that it does not cause displacement of trade in countries benefiting from the donations? 
 
Canada's Response:  Food assistance is comprised of a broad toolbox of products and activities to 
address hunger, including food commodities, cash, vouchers, nutrition commodities and products 
intended for protecting and rebuilding livelihoods (i.e. seeds and tools).  
In addition to providing support to WFP and the Canadian Foodgrains Bank for food assistance, 
Canada also provides financial support to other United Nations agencies (i.e. UNICEF and FAO) and 
non-governmental organizations (i.e. the Micronutrient Initiative). The financial support to these 
other UN and non-government organizations is not used to procure food commodities, but rather is used for the procurement and distribution of nutri tion commodities (i.e. micronutrient powders and 
products, such as PlumpyNut) and seeds and tools, and is also used for cash-based programming.  
These UN and non-governmental organizations have the technical capacity to undertake 
vulnerability and market analyses to ensure that assistance adheres to the needs of recipients and 
does not cause the displacement of trade in beneficiary countries.  
 
4.1.3 Domestic programmes 4.1.3.2 Other programmes 
Page 115, paragraph 4.22 
 [Ecuador Question 13 (First Set)]: Concerning international food assistance programs, and in 
reference to the Price Pooling Program: "The object ive of the Price Pooling Program is to provide a WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 193 - 
 
  price guarantee mechanism that protects marketing agencies and producers against unanticipated 
declines in the market price of their products."  […] "If the realized price is less than the guaran tee value (the initial payment plus the eligible 
costs), the programme allows for a payment for the shortfall by the federal government (through 
participating marketing agencies)." 
According to the paragraph referred to above, this would appear to be a measure that helps 
support prices. 
Could Canada tell us what products benefit from this program and how this is viewed in terms of 
Canada's commitments on domestic support measures - Amber Box?  Canada's Response:  Canada does not directly provide food as part of its international food 
assistance programming, but rather funds key food  assistance partners, who in turn procure and 
provide food to beneficiaries. As per Article 10.4.c in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Canada also provides all of its food assistance in fully grant form, which is also in line with the new Food 
Assistance Convention that came into force in 2013. 
As background, in 2008, Canada fully untied its food assistance budget, opening 100 percent of its food assistance budget to international procurement. As Canada does not directly procure 
products, the Price Pooling Program does not apply to our international food assistance program. 
 4.1.2 Border measures Page 111, paragraph 4.7 
 
[Ecuador Question 14 (First Set)]: Concerning measures at the border:  "There have been no major 
changes to the administration of the TRQ regime since the last Review. No new TRQs have been 
introduced. An import permit from DFAITD is required for each shipment of a product subject to a 
TRQ. Except for TRQs that are administered on a first-come first-served basis, importers are 
required to obtain a quota allocation before requesting shipment-specific import permits. 
Allocations are based on a variety of methods, including: equal share amongst eligible applicants; 
market share (i.e. based on the applicants' share of  total sales, value added, imports, or others); 
pro-rata of demand (i.e., allocation made based on how much the applicants requested, or a pro-rata thereof); and historical (historical importers receive the same allocation every year). A 
number of TRQs are allocated using a mix and variations of these methods. Under-utilization 
penalties, transfer and return policies are used in order to maximize TRQ fills. Some TRQs are administered on a calendar year basis, while ot hers are administered on a marketing year basis 
[…]." 
Could Canada provide further information on quota allocation methods, in particular how they are administered, and market share (i.e., applicants' share of total sales, value added, imports, or 
others); pro-rata of demand (i.e., allocation made based on how much the applicants requested, 
or a pro-rata thereof)?  Canada's response:  The details of Canada's TRQ allocation methods and administration can be 
found in the applicable Notice to Importers, which are published on the website of Foreign Affairs, 
Trade and Development (DFATD) Canada:  http://www.international.gc.ca/control scontroles/prod/ind ex.aspx?lang=eng. 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1.4 Tariffs 
3.1.4.2 WTO bindings 
Page 55, paragraph 3.22  [Ecuador Question 15 (First Set)]: Concerning WTO bindings:  "Following the Uruguay Round, 
Canada bound all tariff lines in HS Chapters 1-97, except 24 tariff lines. Transposed to the 2014 
tariff schedule, the average bound rate is 8.1% (Table 3.5). For one tariff line where the bound rate is specific, the applied MFN rate appears to exceed the bound rate once the AVE of the bound 
rate is calculated (Table 3.6). 
There are also five further tariff lines for which applied rates are marginally higher than bound rates, due to rounding." 
Could Canada tell us whether it has analyzed this possible nonconformity with its commitments in 
terms of tariff concessions, in order to comp ly with the terms of Art. 2 of the GATT 1947? 
 Canada's Response: For the one tariff line where the bound rate is specific and the applied rate 
is ad valorem  and it appears to exceed the bound once the AVE calculated, that tariff line has been WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 194 - 
 
  revoked and reintroduced over the years with diff erent descriptions and rates. It has also been 
affected by HS transpositions and simplification of Canada's Tariff schedule. As such, it appears that either the bound rate and/or applied rate may be incorrect for this item as a result of these changes. Canada will undertake the necessary adjustments. 
With respect to the further five for which the applied rates appear to be marginally higher than 
bound rates due to rounding, these rates are ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) calculated by the 
Secretariat. Canada applies specific rates of duty for these items which have been in effect since 
January 1, 2000 (when these goods reached their final rates under the Uruguay Round 
reductions). The rates have been rounded according to the provisions in our Customs Tariff . 
Subsections 30(6) through (9) pertain to rounding the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff.  Canada does not apply the ad valorem equivalent (AVE). If Canada was to apply the AVE for these 
products, it would ensure that it did not exceed the AVE of the bound rate. 
 Excerpt from Canadian Customs Tariff : 
Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff 
Application of MFN Tariff 
 30. (1) Subject to section 24 and any order made under section 31, goods that originate 
in a country set out in the List of Countries are entitled to the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff rates of 
customs duty. 
Rounding percentage rates 
(6) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5) results in a rate of customs duty that 
includes a fraction of one per cent, the resulting percentage shall be rounded to the nearest one-
tenth of one per cent or, if the resulting percentage is equidistant from two one-tenths of one percent, to the higher of them. 
Rounding of rates other than 0.5 per cent 
(7) If, for any goods other than motor vehicles of tariff item No. 8701.20.00, heading No. 
87.02, 87.03, 87.04 or 87.05, and chassis therefor of heading No. 87.06, a reduction under any of 
subsections (3) to (5) or a rounding of rates under subsection (6) results in a rate of customs duty 
that includes a fraction of one per cent other than 0.5, the resulting percentage shall be rounded down to the nearest percentage that divides evenly by 0.5. 
Elimination of rates of less than two per cent 
(8) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5 ) results in a rate of customs duty that is a 
percentage of less than two per cent, the rate sh all be further reduced to "Free" immediately. 
Rounding specific rates 
(9) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5) results in a rate of customs duty that 
includes a specific rate that includes a fraction of one cent and the final rate 
o (a) is or includes a specific rate, the specific rate component of the reduced rate 
shall be rounded 
 (i) if the final rate is or includes a specific rate expressed in cents to two 
decimal places, to the nearest one-hundredth of a cent or, if the specific rate component of the reduced rate is equidistant from two one- hundredths of a cent, to the higher of them, 
 (ii) if the final rate is or includes a specific rate expressed in cents to one 
decimal place, to the nearest one-tenth of a cent or, if the specific rate component of the reduced rate is equidistant from two one-tenths of a cent, to the higher of them, and 
 (iii) in any other case, to the nearest cent or, if the specific rate component 
of the reduced rate is equidistant from two cents, to the higher of them; or 
o (b) is "Free" or does not include a specific rate, the specific rate component of the 
reduced rate shall be rounded as provided in subparagraphs ( a)(i) to (iii), except that the WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 195 - 
 
  references to the final rate in subparagraphs ( a)(i) and (ii) shall be read as references to the 
initial rate. 
SECOND SET 
Report by the secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
Page 73, paragraph 3.89 
 [Ecuador Question 1 (Second Set)]: Page 73, number 3.89, states that CFIA has developed an 
automated import system to assist importers and Customs in the management of their imported 
agriculture, fish, health and food products. The system consists of several modules including the 
Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) and a database of import requirements.  
We would to know whether the AIRS can be consulted to obtain information on plant health 
requirements for products that could enter Canada. Ecuador requires this information to ensure 
that the requirements indicated in number 3.83 are met.   
Canada's Response:  Canada's Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) was developed in 
1997 as a searchable database to provide accurate and timely information on import requirements 
for agriculture, fish, health and food products. The application uses a question and answer approach to guide the user through a series of  questions about the Harmonized System (HS) 
Codes, origin, destination, end use, and miscellaneous qualifiers of the product they wish to 
import.  The AIRS has been prepared for the convenience of reference only and has no official sanction. For 
all purposes of interpreting and applying the law,  users should consult the relevant Acts passed by 
the Canadian Parliament.  The requirements outlined in paragraph 3.83 of  the Secretariat Report do not apply to plant 
health. 
The AIRS can be accessed through the following website:  http://inspection.gc.ca/plants/imports/airs/eng/1300127512994/1300127627409 
 
Page 72, paragraph 3.83 
[Ecuador Question 2 (Second Set)]: In regard to amendment of the Food and Drugs Act to include 
two new tools—marketing authorizations and incorporation by reference—it is indicated that this 
legal framework allows technical and non-technical standards or documents to be incorporated.  
We require information on the scope of admissibilit y for such documents. If they are not technical 
documents, they would not adhere to internationa l regulations, [and] new technical requirements 
or parameters could be set out in rega rd to medicine or feed for animals. 
 Canada's Response: No official criteria regarding the scope of admissibility for such documents 
have been set out by Health Canada. Neither does the Food and Drugs Act  set out such 
criteria/conditions for the use of incorporation by reference. Section 30.5 of the Act states that: "A 
regulation made under this Act with respect to a food or therapeutic product and a marketing authorization may incorporate by reference any document, regardless of its source, either as it 
exists on a particular date or as it is amended from time to time." 
Recognizing the breadth of the authority provided  under section 30.5, the following checks and 
balances are in place to ensure that this regulatory instrument is used in a responsible, 
appropriate and transparent manner: 
First and foremost, a document can only be incorporated by reference pursuant to either a Governor in Council (GIC) regulation (i.e. incorporated into the Food and Drug Regulations ) or a 
ministerial regulation ("Marketing Authorization" or "MA"). As with any regulatory proposal, 
Canada's Department of Justice will first review the proposal to ensure that it is appropriate and 
does not constitute an unexpected use of the authority. Additionally, domestic and international stakeholders will be notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to share their comments or 
concerns with the proposed incorporation. For international stakeholders, notification and 
consultation would occur via the established WTO notification process. Once a document has been formally incorporated by reference, subsequent changes to the 
document (for instance, changing a level) are done administratively without recourse to the 
regulatory process. This said, proposed modifications to incorporated documents are only made following a thorough scientific safety assessment and appropriate engagement with domestic and WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 196 - 
 
  international stakeholders. Again, for international stakeholders, notification would occur via the 
established WTO process. Further to this, consistent with domestic and international obligations, the coming into force of change to an incorporated document will, where required, be delayed to provide stakeholders the time to amend their practices accordingly.  
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 197 - 
 
  EL SALVADOR (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
SECOND SET 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.4 Tariffs 
Page 51, table 3.4  
[El Salvador Question 1 (Second Set)]: According to the Report of the Secretariat, in Table 3.4 and 
Chart 3.1, Canada applies non-ad valorem tariffs to 283 tariff lines (equivalent to 3.9% of total lines). Does Canada intend to convert this type of tariffs into ad valorem  as a result of the Doha 
Round negotiations, to ensure greater predictability for exporters? 
Canada's Response:  With respect to eliminating or reducing the number of non- ad valorem  
tariffs, Canada will of course comply with the outcome of the Doha Round of negotiations 
regarding tariff structure. 
 Page 51-52, paragraph 3.18 
[El Salvador Question 2 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 3.18 – Could Canada provide further details on 
the tariff simplification process carried out in 2012? What products were not included in the process? Why? 
Canada's Response:  Unilateral tariff relief initiatives in 2009 and 2010 for machinery and 
equipment and manufacturing inputs resulted in many tariff items under one Harmonized System (HS) subheading being duty-free. Canada was able to simplify the structure of its tariff schedule 
by consolidating tariff items with the same tariff rates at the subheading level. The simplification of 
the structure coincided with the 2012 HS (HS2012) amendments.   
[El Salvador Question 3 (Second Set)]: What is the reason for the wide gap between the average 
tariffs applied to dairy products (238.7%) and the average MFN of agricultural products (22.5%)? Does Canada plan to reduce these tariffs in the future? 
 
Canada's Response:  Supply management is based on matching domestic production to domestic 
demand while ensuring a reasonable return for producers and stable prices for consumers. Predictable levels of imports, maintained throug h the use of tariff quotas, are necessary to the 
functioning of the system. Canada has implemented and continues to abide by its commitments in 
its Uruguay Round schedule of tariff concessions.  
3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports 
3.1.5.2 Excise taxes and duties Page 59-60, paragraphs 3.36-3.38 
 
[El-Salvador Question 4 (Second Set)]: According to paragraph 3.36 of the Secretariat Report, the 
"Excise Tax Act " of 2001 provides for the imposition of a tax on domestic and imported spirits, 
wine, beer, and tobacco products. However, reduced rates (or exemptions) may apply to beer 
made by domestic brewers, and wine wholly comp osed of Canadian-grown agricultural products. 
Also, paragraph 3.38 indicates that some provinces levy additional taxes on products such as tobacco, fuel and alcoholic beverages, which are generally applied equally to imports and domestic 
production, with the exception of reduced rates for certain domestic products in select provinces. 
To what specific domestic products do the reduced rates apply, and in which provinces? Are these measures consistent with the requirements of Ar ticle III of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3 and 5 of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
 Canada's Response:  In 2006, excise duty relief measures were implemented for Canadian 
vintners and Canadian brewers. This relief included  the introduction of an excise duty exemption 
for wine produced from 100% Canadian-grown agri cultural product, and reduced rates of excise 
duty on the first 75,000 hectoliters of beer prod uced per year by Canadian brewers. Further 
information regarding the application of these relief measures can be found on the following 
Canada Revenue Agency webpages: 
 For wine: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edn15/edn15-e.html 
For beer: http://www.cra-arc.gc.c a/E/pub/em/edbn8/edbn8-e.html WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 198 - 
 
  These measures do not impose an additional tax burden on imports vis-à-vis domestic products. 
The amount of targeted excise duty relief under these specific measures is relatively small and was largely modelled after similar programs in other countries. Furthermore, these measures do not have any significant impact on the demand for beer and wine imports in Canada. Indeed, imports 
of beer and wine into Canada have increased 32% and 30%, respectively, since 2006. 
 The federal government works closely with the provinces to ensure consistency of their measures 
with Canada's international trade obligations. 
 3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing Page 63, paragraph 3.43 
 
[El Salvador Question 5 (Second Set)]: In Paragr aph 43 of Section III, the Secretariat reports that 
Canada maintains some permit requirements with regards to textiles and clothing products that 
are eligible for tariff preferences. Could Canada  provide further details on the requirements in 
regard to textiles and clothing products?  
Canada's Response:  Since April 1, 2005, Canada only requires import permits for textile and 
clothing products that are eligible for tariff preference level (TPL) benefits established under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA; US /Mexico), Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement 
(CCFTA), the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Ag reement (CCCRFTA), or the Canada-Honduras Free 
Trade Agreement (CHFTA). Textile and clothing imports that are not seeking TPL preferences 
under these agreements do not require import permits. In order to monitor quota utilization rates, import permits are required for all imports of textile and 
clothing products that are eligible for TPL benefits.  
TPL provisions allow TPL-eligible goods to receive a tariff rate treatment equivalent to an originating good for certain non-originating textile and clothing goods - up to a negotiated level. 
TPL imports that go beyond the negotiated quantity are subject to an MFN duty rate. 
Canada has an automated permitting system which processes import permit applications within a 15 minute service standard. Permits requiring assistance are processed within 4 hours.  Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (D FATD) also posts guides and publications to 
assist importers applying for permits on the DFATD website: 
http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-con troles/textiles/index.aspx?lang=eng. 
 
3.2.4 Export support and promotion 
Page 77, paragraph 3.105  
[El Salvador Question 6 (Second Set)]: The Report of the Secretariat indicates that the Foreign 
Trade Zones - Marketing Program (FTZ-MP) was launched under the Economic Action Plan 2013. Its objective is to market FTZ advantage an d attract foreign investment. What are these 
associated advantages? What requirements must be met to access these advantages? Which 
sectors are the main beneficiaries of the foreign trade zones? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ)-related policies and programs are 
available across Canada and provide benefits to businesses that are comparable to those found in 
site-specific FTZs in other countries. For example, Canada is a tariff-free zone for manufacturers, a first among G-20 countries, and the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) is 
generally fully recoverable for businesses engaged in commercial activities and does not apply to 
exports. In addition, Canada also has five long-standing export-related programs which can further waive or defer duties and taxes payable on imported goods:  1. Customs Bonded Warehouse : allows for the deferral of customs duties and GST/HST for 
generally up to four years or until the goods enter the Canadian economy, provided the goods are 
not substantially altered.  
2. Duties Relief : provides upfront tariff relief on imported goods, provided the goods are 
subsequently exported from Canada  generally within four years. 
3. Duty Drawback : reimburses customs duties paid on goods that have been exported from 
Canada. 
4. Export Distribution Centre Program : generally relieves GST/HST on the importation or 
acquisition of goods in Canada, provided that export sales account for at least 90 per cent of a WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 199 - 
 
  company's revenues and that not more than 20 per cent of value be added to the imported 
products before they are exported. 
5. Exporters of Processing Services : generally relieves authorized businesses from having to pay 
GST/HST in respect of a non-resident's goods that  are imported by the business for processing and 
subsequent export.  
These complementary policies and programs are available across Canada and greatly enhance the appeal of Canada as a unique FTZ. Compared to the location-specific FTZs in other countries, 
Canada's FTZ programming offers investors the im portant advantage of geographic flexibility. 
More information can be found on the Government of Canada's FTZ webpage, available at the following link: http://www.fin.gc.ca/ftz-zf/index-eng.asp#a2  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.1. Agriculture and fisheries 
4.1.2 Border measures 
Page 110, paragraph 4.6  
[El Salvador Question 7 (Second Set)]: Paragraph 4.6 – "Canada maintains a tariff rate quota 
(TRQ) regime for some agricultural products (Table 4.1). About 41% of the applied MFN in-quota tariffs for agricultural products (totalling 152 tariff lines) are non- ad valorem . The ad valorem 
equivalents of these in-quota rates range from 0.3% to 8.6% (for products where import data 
were available to calculate the AVEs)." Does Canada have plans to replace this type of tariffs with 
ad valorem tariffs , to ensure greater predictability for exporters? 
 
Canada's Response:  With respect to eliminating or reducing the number of non- ad valorem  
tariffs, Canada will of course comply with the outcome of the Doha Round of negotiations regarding tariff structure. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 200 - 
 
  GUATEMALA (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH) 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreements 
Page 38  
[Guatemala Question 1]: Paragraph 2.3.2.1 refers to Reciprocal Trade Agreements. In that regard, 
Guatemala would like to know whether the trade agreements signed by Canada allow for a labour 
issue to be addressed by the dispute settlement mechanism and, if so, under what circumstances 
a labour matter could be dealt with in that manner, and how the procedure works. 
 
Canada's Response:  No, the trade agreement dispute settlement chapters in Canada's free trade 
agreement do not apply to labour issues. There ar e labour specific dispute settlement mechanisms 
in Canada's stand-alone bilateral Labour Cooperation Agreements and Labour Chapters within Free 
Trade Agreements.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.5 Other changes affecting imports 3.1.5.2 Excise taxes and duties 
Pages 59-60, paragraph 3.36 
 [Guatemala Question 2]: Could you please tell us about the excise taxes levied on pure alcohol 
used for manufacturing, in keeping with the provisions of the Excise Act  (2001, S.C. 2002, c.22) 
and its amendments. How are these taxes handled for domestic and imported products?  
Canada's Response:  Federal excise duty on spirits is generally imposed at the time it is produced 
in, or imported into, Canada. The regular duty rate  is $11.696 per litre of absolute ethyl alcohol on 
spirits with more than 7% alcohol by volume. The duty typically applies to all imported and domestic product with beverage end use, but can be relieved if used in an approved manner. In 
particular, duty is not imposed on denatured alcoho l or specially denatured alcohol. Further, when 
a spirits licensee (i.e., a person who is authorized under the Excise Act, 2001  to produce or 
package spirits) denatures bulk spirits into denatured alcohol or specially denatured alcohol in 
accordance with the Excise Act, 2001 , the excise duty imposed on the spirits is relieved. Duty is 
also relieved on bulk alcohol and non-duty-paid packaged alcohol that is used in an approved 
formulation under the Excise Act, 2001  by a licenced user (i.e., a person – generally, a 
manufacturer – who holds a user's license issued under the Excise Act, 2001  and who uses alcohol 
in manufacturing or processing other products).  Section 133 of the Excise Act, 2001  also imposes a special duty of 12 cents per litre of absolute 
ethyl alcohol on imported spirits that are delivered to or imported by a licensed user if the spirits 
do not meet the conditions discussed above. Th is special duty was grandfathered under the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and is of li mited scope. It only applies to imported spirits 
by a licensed user that have not been denatured or specially denatured. As such, the majority of 
imported industrial-use alcohol is exempt from this special duty, and imported spirits destined for 
other licensees, such as spirits licensees, are excluded from this special duty. This special duty provides an incentive to import denatured rather than potable alcohol, and thus helps prevent 
diversion of dutiable product and maintain the integrity of the Canadian alcohol market.  
For additional information, please see the Canada Revenue Agency webpages below: Licenced User: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/ em/edm3-1-2/edm3-1-2-e.html 
 
Denatured Alcohol and Specially Denatured Alcohol:  http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/ em/edm5-1-1/edm5-1-1-e.html 
Formulation Approval Process: 
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/ em/edm1-1-6/edm1-1-6-e.html 
 
[Guatemala Question 3]: Could you please explain to us in greater detail the existing limitations on 
the sale and distribution of distilled beverages?  How are these regulations applied to imported 
products and those produced locally? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 201 - 
 
  Canada's Response: In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in 
alcoholic beverages is governed by the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act  (IILA). The 
IILA delegates to the provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, control over the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the importation of such liquor into the provinces and 
territories. Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores operated by the provincial/territorial 
liquor control authority or through authorized private retailers or a combination of both. Provincial and territorial liquor control authorities purchase or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages in 
line with market needs as related to such commercial considerations as price, quality, availability 
and other conditions of purchase or sale. The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Boards (PTLBs) in Canada were established before the GATT was created, and their existence and activity is cons istent with the provisions of GATT Article XVII 
["State Trading Enterprises"]. In accordance with that Article, they are notified to the WTO as 
STEs. The PTLBs operate as businesses whose purchase and sales decisions are based on commercial considerations and market forces. 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 
4.1.3 Domestic programmes 
Page 111, paragraph 4.12  [Guatemala Question 4]: AgriInnovation  builds on the Agricultural Innovation Program and the 
Canadian Agri-Science Clusters (both terminated in 2013). It is designed to support agricultural 
R&D, and the commercialization and adoption of emerging innovations. Could you tell us which producers benefited from this program and whether it targeted micro-, small- or medium-sized 
farmers? If they all benefited, what was the percentage for each? What impact has the 
implementation of this type of program had, and wh at impact is it expected to have in the short, 
medium and long term? 
 
Canada's Response:  Stream B of the AgriInnovation Program supports research and 
development and knowledge transfer . Although farmers are eligible to apply, in terms of actual 
participation in the program as project proponents , they are the exception. Most projects are led 
by non-for-profit organizations and for-profit organizations involved in research. Farmers are 
expected to benefit from having access to the innovations developed, such as new agronomic 
practices, new varieties, etc. This type of programming is expected in the long term to accelerate 
the pace of innovation in the agriculture sector. Stream C, the commercialization stream of 
AgriInnovation, offers for-profit companies repayable contributions for commercialization, demonstration and adoption projects. Although farmers are eligible, the majority of participants in 
the program are Agri-Food processors. 
 Pages 112-113, paragraph 4.13 [Guatemala Question 5]: The AgriMarketing program also comprises an assurance systems 
stream, a component aiming at helping the industry improve its capacity to adopt assurance 
systems such as food safety and traceability. Under this stream, the program may contribute up to Can$ 1 million per project, with a minimum contribu tion of 25% from the applicant. What does the 
minimum contribution of 25% from the applicant refer to, and who can request this contribution? 
 Canada's Response:  The 25% contribution refers to funding from the Applicant. At least 15% of 
the overall funding for the project must be in the form of cash from the Applicant. A further 10% 
of the overall funding, may be either a cash or an in-kind contribution from the Applicant. In-kind contributions are goods and services contributed to a project that require no outlay of cash by the 
Applicant. 
National, not-for-profit industry organizations operating along the Canadian agriculture and agri-
food value chain and other non-governmental not-for-profit organizations and academic institutions which can clearly demonstrate how they can meet the objectives of the Assurance 
Systems stream are considered eligible Applicants. 
 Page 113, paragraph 4.14 
[Guatemala Question 6]: The AgriCompetitiveness program targets direct investments with a view 
to strengthening the food and agriculture industry's capacity to adapt and be profitable in domestic 
and global markets. It provides Can$ 114.5 mi llion in funding and comprises a combination of 
government initiatives and contribution funding fo r industry-led projects. Who are the beneficiaries 
of this program and is there a time limit applicable to this support? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 202 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  Direct beneficiaries of the industry-led projects portion of the program 
funding (up to $15.6M over the years 2013-2014 to 2017-2018) include not-for-profit national 
organizations (such as 4-H Canada and the Canadian Agricultural Safety Association) that deliver services and/or products for farmers and producers to develop their agri-businesses 
entrepreneurial capacity in one or more of the following areas: 
• Developing youth, young and established farmers;  • Delivering farm sa fety initiatives;  
• Developing business skills; and 
• Developing individual and industry leadership. Indirect beneficiaries of these industry-led pr ojects include Canadian farmers and producers. 
Similarly, Canadian farmers and producers are indirect beneficiaries of the government initiatives 
through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Value Chain Roundtables, Minor Use Pesticide Program 
and Industry Adaptation to Regulatory Modernization initiatives. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 203 - 
 
  INDIA 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
SUMMARY Page 10, paragraph 16 
 
[India Question 1]: "Canada maintains an overall open economy ……………….. state trading 
enterprises."  
Could Canada provide the eligibility criteria applicable for providing the special financing programs 
offered to aerospace, defence and small businesses?  Canada's Response:  BDC does not provide special financing programs to any industry. Rather, it 
combines its regular flexible financing tools to the understanding of the realities in which 
aerospace SMEs operate in order to provide adequate financing solutions to riskier projects.  BDC is a pan-Canadian lender. Its services are available to SMEs operating in Canada, regardless 
of sectors or region. Through its more than 100 business centres located across Canada, BDC 
serves 32,000 clients in all industries, with a total portfolio of approximately $22 billion. BDC's mandate is to support Canadian entrepreneurship, with a particular focus on small and 
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It has two key objectives: 
1. To serve as a catalyst for the entrepreneurial ecosystem; and 
2. To support the competitiveness of SMEs. 
Consistent with its complementary role in the market, BDC aims to share risk with banks and 
partner on deals, to ensure that small businesses are able to access the financing they need. As a 
complementary lender, BDC usually takes on riskier transactions and prices according to risk by 
assigning higher interest rates as transaction risks increase.   
[India Question 2]: Could Canada elaborate on whether special financial assistance provided to 
small businesses is limited to specific types of industries or sectors or to industries operating in a particular region? 
 
Canada's Response:  BDC does not provide special financial assistance to specific industries or to 
industries operating in a particular region.  
BDC's mandate is to support Canadian entrepreneurship, giving particular consideration to the 
needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It has a public policy mandate to achieve 
relevant government policy objectives and fill market gaps. In doing so, it may provide specialized support to a particular industry or region to address evolving market conditions and challenges. 
For example: 
 In response to the financial crisis of 2009, BD C extended a record amount of financing in 
fiscal year 2010, with loan volumes increa sing from $2.8 billion to $4.3 billion; 
 In response to low oil prices in 2014, BDC introduced its Oil and Gas Relief Program, designed 
to quickly and proactively provide flexibility to entrepreneurs affected by oil price volatility; 
and 
 In response to the Calgary floods in 2013, BDC extended credit support, working capital, and 
flexible repayment terms, to help its clients through this difficult period. 
Consistent with its complementary role, BDC ensures that its financial assistance fills out gaps or 
completes that available from private sector service providers. The bank is not a lender of last 
resort. Rather, BDC is required to operate in a financially sustainable manner by earning a return 
on equity at or above the government's long-term cost of capital. While BDC lends further up the 
risk curve, its pricing reflects the creditworthi ness of the borrower and loan repayment terms. BDC 
has turned a profit every year since 1995. 
[India Question 3]: Page 44, para 2.42: "The Canadian Trade Commission Service (TCS)………… 
funds have been disbursed as of January 2015…. Page 76, para 3.102-3.103: "Canada's 
commercial promotion activities…… under its various programmes (Table 3.12)."… Page 77, para 
3.104: "TCS generally delivers its services to its clients…… from 11,000 to 21,000 companies." 
 The programmes of TCS aim at export promotio n and there has been increase in export 
performance of businesses who received TCS assistance. Are these programmes not in the nature 
of export subsidies? Does Canada intend to notify these programmes to the SCM Committee? WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 204 - 
 
  Canada's Response:  The TCS facilitates a wide range of business activities through four core 
activities: preparing for international markets (identifying target markets, collecting market and industry information, improving international business strategies); assessing market potential (through market intelligence, advice on implementing a market strategy); finding qualified 
contacts (finding potential buyers, partners, foreign regulatory authorities and investment 
promotion agencies); and resolving business problems (assisting with customs clearance and shipping, assistance with unfair business treatment, storage and warehousing information).  
 
These activities do not constitute export subsidie s in the meaning of Article 3 and Annex I of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures .  
 
Canada is in the process of preparing the 2015 subsidies notification, which covers the period of 
April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, at which time any new programs introduced during that period will be included, as required under Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures. 
 [India Question 4]: It is provided that an amount of Ca n$53.2 million was disbursed by TCS under 
its various programmes including the following:  
I. Global Opportunities for Associations (GOA) under which Non-repayable support to 
associations starting or expanding international business development activities is provided. What kinds of associations receive support? Does the programme limit the 
eligibility to certain types of industries/enterprise? What comprises "expanding 
international business development"? 
II. Going Global Innovation (GGI) under which Matching funds of up to 75% of eligible 
expenses incurred in pursuing international collaborative R&D opportunities, with a 
minimum request of Can$5,000. The programme is currently on hold. Does the programme limit the eligibility to certain types of industries/enterprise? Does Canada 
intend to apply this programme anytime in future? 
III. Invest Canada-Community Initiatives (ICCI) under which TCS provides Non-repayable 
support to communities seeking to attract FDI. Could Canada elaborate on the nature of non-repayable support provided? What is the eligibility criteria for the communities to 
receive the support? Does Canada agree that this may amount to a subsidy which may be 
required to be notified as per Article 25 of the Subsidies Agreement? 
IV. Foreign Trade Zones – Marketing Program (FTZ-MP) under which non-repayable 
contributions to organizations for the promotion of Canada's Foreign Trade Zone 
 Are any of these programmes in the nature of subsidies? Does Canada intend to notify these 
programmes to the SCM Committee? 
 Canada's Response:  I. Eligible recipients in Global Opportunities for Associations (GOA) must be 
Canadian national industry associations representing a sector (or regional associations with a 
national perspective), be incorporated, and not directly sell products that are sold by its members. 
 
The following Associations or Organizations are not eligible for the program: 
- Organizations that represent foreign geographic areas (with or without a Canadian 
chapter); 
- Organizations funded entirely by government  (federal, provincial or municipal); and, 
- Organizations that have access to other Canadian federal contribution programs with 
similar objectives to GOA and that support the international business development efforts of a specific sector. 
 
Activities that promote products or services, improve market access, or generate market 
intelligence comprise "expanding international business development." The three types of international business promotion activities eligible under the program are: 
- direct contacts (such as trade shows, outgoing missions and incoming visits); 
- marketing tools (such as web site development targeting foreign customers, print 
materials and other materials) that promote integrative trade opportunities of a 
Canadian industry; and, 
- research / studies (such as custom market research, market intelligence reports, and 
Global Value Chain studies). 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 205 - 
 
  GOA contributes up to 50% of eligible expenses incurred by associations undertaking international 
business development and promotional activities of  an entire industry (association members and 
non-members alike). The GOA program is not aimed at  actual exporters, but rather their business 
associations, and the funding involved (just under $3 million in FY 2015/2016) is spread over 
36 industry associations. As a result, the amounts of specific contributions are negligible. 
 II. Going Global Innovation (GGI) provides $5,000 to $75,000 to support in-person, discussion, 
meetings and related activities to solidify an international R&D partnership. Eligible recipients are 
Canadian researchers from: a) Canadian small and medium enterprises based in Canada; b) Canadian post-secondary institutions, based in Canada; c) and Canadian non-government research or innovation centres based in Canada. GGI was active up to the end of March 2013.  
 
III. The Invest Canada-Community Initiatives (ICCI) program provides support to Canadian communities seeking to improve their capacity to attr act, retain and expand FDI. Eligible recipients 
are Canadian communities and non-profit, locally based organizations that are seeking assistance, 
for example: (1) to offset costs associated with developing marketing tools aimed at foreign investors; (2) for specific FDI training; (3) to identify potential investors and/or coordinate 
interactions with them; or (4) to develop and implement multi-year international investment 
attraction and retention strategies. The support consists of funding up to 50% of eligible FDI activities undertaken by Canadian communities. Eligible expenses consist mostly of consultant fees or registration costs for training activities.  
 
The ICCI program is not aimed at actual exporters, but rather communities and non-profit, locally based organizations.  
 
IV. The goal of Foreign Trade Zones – Marketing Program (FTZ-MP) is to contribute to Canadian economic prosperity by facilitating foreign direct investment attraction through the promotion of 
Canada's Foreign Trade Zone advantage. Eligible recipients are Canadian regional organizations 
and non-profit organizations with a mandate to promote local Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) benefits. Non-repayable contributions range from $10,000 to $150,000 for activities spanning a 12 month period. FTZ-MP provides matching funds of up to 50% of eligible expenses. Eligible activities 
include those which support the marketing of FTZ- type policies and programs such as: research, 
studies and purchasing of relevant data; develo pment of FTZ marketing and promotion strategies 
and plans; outgoing missions to meet with specific potential investors and discuss the region's FTZ 
benefits; websites, design and translation of marketing materials, and comparative analysis.  
 The FTZ-MP is not aimed at actual exporters, instead eligible recipients are Canadian regional 
organizations and non-profit organizations. 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 
4.1.7 fisheries 
Page 125, paragraph 4.60  
[India Question 5]: In 2013, government financial transfers (GFTs) to the fisheries sector were 
estimated at Can$718.6 million, returning to leve ls similar to the ones over the 2005 to 2008 
period. GFTs represented 22% of the total 2013 landed value of Canadian fisheries (including 
production from aquaculture). The provision of infrastructure and unemployment insurance 
accounted for 51.5% of the total support.  
Can Canada clarify that all the Government Financial Transfers (GFT) are in the nature of 
subsidies? Does Canada intend to notify all the programmes covered under GFT for the fisheries 
sector to the SCM Committee as per Article 25? 
Canada's Response:  Canada has calculated GFTs following the methodology utilised by the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Transfers accounted for by the 
OECD are broader in scope than the subsidies wh ich are subject to notification under the WTO 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  (ASCM). Canada's subsidy notification to the 
WTO is prepared in accordance with the obligations outlined in Article 25 of the ASCM. In 
particular, Canada notifies subsidies which it determines fall within the definition of Article 1 of the 
ASCM and are specific within the meaning of Articl e 2 of the ASCM. Details on specific programs 
can be found in Canada's most recent subsidy notification (G/SCM/N/253/CAN). WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 206 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailin g, and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing measures Pages 63-66, paragraph 3.46-3.50 
 
[India Question 6]: The CBSA then determines ……………………… to the domestic industry…. The 
second group of investigations ……………………..exported fr om India, Indonesia, the Philippines, the 
Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Viet Nam….  
G/SCM/N/281/CAN  
Semi Annual Report under Article 25.11 of Subs idies Agreement for the period 1 July to31 
December 2014  As per details provided by Canada in the Semi-Annual Report of Countervailing 
Measures for the period 1 July to 31 December 2014, provisional countervailing measure has been 
imposed by Canada on export of Certain oil count ry tubular goods from India on 3/12/2014. As per 
the details of the programmes countervailed mentioned in Appendix 2 of the Report, 48 subsidy 
programmes of India at Central or State Gove rnments level have been countervailed. India 
expresses its concerns on the provisional measur es imposed on the large number of programmes 
without proper investigation whether these programmes can be countervailed. As per footnote 1 of 
ASCM, the exemption of an exported product from duties or taxes borne by the like product when 
destined for domestic consumption shall not be deemed to be a subsidy. On the face of their description, the programmes at Sl. No. 8, 10, 28, 29, 31, 37, 38, 43, 44 of the said Appendix are 
covered by footnote 1 of ASCM and cannot be treated as subsidy.  
 
Can Canada please clarify the consideration that lead to its determination to countervail a large number of India's programmes without ascertaining the full facts and in disregard to the provisions 
of footnote 1 of ASCM? 
 Canada's Response:  The definition of a subsidy under subsection 2(1) of the Special Import 
Measures Act (SIMA) explicitly provides for the exemption set out in footnote 1 of the ASCM. 
Accordingly, where it is determined that the prog ram falls within this exemption, it will not be 
deemed to be a subsidy.   
At the initiation of an investigation, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) sends a request 
for information to all known exporters and the go vernment of the exporting country in order to 
solicit information concerning alleged subsidy programs. The exporters and the government of the 
exporting country are advised that a failure to coop erate could result in the use of facts available 
to determine the amount of subsidy.   
To conduct a complete subsidy analysis, the CB SA must have received sufficient requested 
information from the government of the country of  export and from the exporters and producers of 
the product under investigation in that country. If the information is incomplete, the CBSA may refer to the facts available in making its determination, in accordance with subsection 30.4(2) of 
SIMA and Article 12.7 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures . Facts available 
used in the determination of an amount of subsidy include all available information on the record, which may include information from the complainant, other cooperating exporters, customs 
documentation or any other information on the record. 
 [India Question 7]: Whether Canada accepts the claims made by the complaining domestic 
industry as available facts without further veri fication in countervailing duty investigations? 
 Canada's Response:  Subsection 30.4(2) of the Special Import Measures Act  provides for the use 
of facts available where sufficient information has not been provided by foreign exporters or the 
foreign government to enable the calculation of an amount of subsidy. When using facts available, 
the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) cons iders all available information on the record, 
which may include information from the complainant, other cooperating exporters, customs 
documentation or any other information on the record.  
With respect to facts available found in a complaint, upon receiving a properly documented complaint, the CBSA conducts its own research concerning alleged subsidy programs in order to 
analyze and validate the information submitted by the complainants to determine whether there is 
enough evidence to initiate an investigation. When there is an initiation of an investigation, the CBSA provides the exporters, importer and govern m e n t  o f  t h e  c o u n t r y  o f  e x p o r t  w i t h  a  R F I  i n  
order to obtain further information. If the information provided is insufficient, the CBSA will base 
its decision on the facts available.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 207 - 
 
  Pages 66-67, paragraphs 3.53-3.55 
[India Question 8 & 9]: Upon receipt of a notice of expiry  review, …………………….. establishment of 
a domestic industry. As at end-2014, 10 of ………………………..in all six cases they were continued 
G/SCM/N/281/CAN  
Semi Annual Report under Article 25.11 of Subs idies Agreement for the period 1 July to 31 
December 2014. As per details provided by Canada in the Semi-Annual Report of Countervailing Measures for the period 1 July to 31 December 2014, countervailing measures on Certain Hot-
rolled steel sheet (previously Hot rolled carbon steel sheet) from India are in place from 
17/08/2001. These countervailing measures have been extended twice after sunset reviews.  
 Can Canada please elaborate on the standards applied for conducting sunset reviews? 
 
H o w  d o e s  C a n a d a  r e a c h  t h e  c o n c l u s i o n  t h a t  e x p i r y  o f  d u t y  i s  l i k e l y  t o  l e a d  t o  c o n t i n u a t i o n  o r  recurrence of subsidization? 
 
Canada's Response:  The CITT is responsible for determining whether to initiate an expiry review. 
Section 76.03(4) of the Special Import Measures Act  states that "the Tribunal shall not initiate an 
expiry review at the request of any person or government unless the person or government 
satisfies the Tribunal that a review is warranted". If an expiry review is initiated, the CBSA will first determine whether the expiry of a measure is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping and/or subsidizing of subject goods. If the CBSA determines that that the expiry of a 
measure is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping and/or subsidizing, the 
CITT will then conduct an inquiry to determine if the continued and/or subsidizing of subject goods 
is likely to result in injury.  
Subsection 37.2(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations  (SIMR) prescribes the following 
factors that the CBSA may consider when determin ing whether the expiry of the order in respect 
of goods of a country or countries is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of 
subsidizing: 
(b) whether there has been subsidizing of goods while a finding or order in respect of the 
goods is in effect and, if applicable, 
(i) the nature and duration of the foreign subsidy program in respect of the goods, 
(ii) the period during which the subsidizing occurred, 
(iii) the volume of the subsidized goods, and (iv) the amount of subsidy; 
(c) the performance of the exporters, foreign pr oducers, brokers and traders including, where 
applicable, in respect of production, capacity utilization, costs, sales volumes, prices, inventories, market share, exports and profits; 
(d) the likely future performance of the exporter s, foreign producers, brokers and traders on 
the basis of factors, where applicable, such as production, capacity utilization, sales volumes, 
prices, inventories, market share, exports and profits; 
(e) the potential for the foreign producers to produce the goods in facilities that are currently 
used to produce other goods; 
(f) evidence of the imposition of anti-dumping or  countervailing measures by the authorities of 
a country other than Canada in respect of good s of the same description or in respect of 
similar goods; 
(g) whether measures taken by the authorities of a country other than Canada are likely to 
cause a diversion of dumped or subsidized goods into Canada; 
(h) any changes in market conditions domestically or internationally, including changes in the 
supply of and demand for the goods, in sources of imports into Canada, and in prices, market 
share and inventories; 
(i) the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing measures by authorities of Canada in 
respect of similar goods while an order or find ing in respect of the goods was in effect; and WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 208 - 
 
  (j) any other factor pertaining to the current or likely behaviour or state of a foreign 
government or of the domestic or international economy, market for goods or industry as a whole or in relation to individual prod ucers, exporters, brokers or traders. 
Similarly, subsection 37.2(2) of SIMR prescribes the following factors that the CITT may consider 
when determining whether the expiry of the order or finding is likely to result in injury or 
retardation: 
(a) the likely volume of the dumped or subsidized goods if the order or finding is allowed to 
expire, and, in particular, whether there is likely to be a significant increase in the volume of 
imports of the dumped or subsidized goods, either in absolute terms or relative to the production or consumption of like goods; 
(b) the likely prices of the dumped or subsidized goods if the order or finding is allowed to 
expire and their effect on the prices of like g oods, and, in particular, whether the dumping or 
subsidizing of goods is likely to significantly undercut the prices of like goods, depress those prices, or suppress them by preventing increases in those prices that would likely have 
otherwise occurred; 
(c) the likely performance of the domestic industry, taking into account that industry's recent 
performance, including trends in production, ca pacity utilization, employment levels, prices, 
sales, inventories, market share, exports and profits; 
(d) the likely performance of the foreign industry, taking into account that industry's recent 
performance, including trends in production, ca pacity utilization, employment levels, prices, 
sales, inventories, market share, exports and profits; 
(e) the likely impact of the dumped or subsidized goods on domestic industry if the order or 
finding is allowed to expire, having regard to all relevant economic factors and indices, including any potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on 
investments or utilization of production capacity, and any potential negative effects on cash 
flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth or the ability to raise capital; 
(f) the potential for the foreign producers to produce the goods in facilities that are currently 
used to produce other goods; 
(g) the potential negative effects of the dumped or subsidized goods on existing development 
and production efforts, including efforts to prod uce a derivative or more  advanced version of 
like goods; 
(h) evidence of the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing measures by the authorities in 
a country other than Canada in respect of good s of the same description or in respect of 
similar goods; 
(i) whether measures taken by the authorities in a country other than Canada are likely to 
cause a diversion of the dumped or  subsidized goods into Canada; 
(j) any changes in market conditions domestically or internationally, including changes in the 
supply of and demand for the goods, as well as any changes in trends and in sources of 
imports into Canada; and 
(k) any other factor pertaining to the current or likely behaviour or state of the domestic or 
international economy, market for goods or industry as a whole or in relation to individual 
producers, exporters, brokers or traders. 
Measures subject to an expiry review will be co ntinued if the CBSA determines that the expiry of 
the measure is likely to result in continued or resumed dumping and/or subsidizing of subject 
goods and the CITT determine that the continued or resumed dumping and/or subsidizing of 
subject goods is likely to result in continued injury to the domestic industry.   WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 209 - 
 
  3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 
3.3.6.2 Economic Policy Context Page 98, paragraph 3.164  
[India Question 10]: This apparent inconsistency between a positive record of innovation-
generating services on the one hand, and a negative trade balance on IP charges on the other, 
suggests that Canadian companies and post-secondary institutions are strong at invention, but 
that commercialization of these inventions is done to a large extent by foreign firms. 
 
What comprises innovation generating services? Please explain the statement that Canadian 
Companies and post-secondary institutions are strong at invention, but that commercialization of these inventions is done to a large extent by foreign companies in the context that domestic 
patenting as a proportion of overall patents is only 13%. 
 Canada's Response:  The concept of innovation-generating services was used by the Secretariat 
in its report in paragraph 3.162. It is not a concept used by Canada. Based on our reading of the 
Secretariat report, we would believe that it refers to technology-intensive services. The statement that Canadian companies and post-secondary institutions are strong at invention, 
but that commercialization of these inventions is done to a large extent by foreign companies was 
an observation by the Secretariat. This statemen t in the context that domestic patenting as a 
proportion of overall patents is only 13% may be misleading, as Canada is not aware of any evidence that domestic patenting as a proporti on of overall patents is directly linked to 
commercialization. To provide additional context to the figures in the Secretariat report we have 
included the following information: 
 Patent filing patterns by Canadians are shifting. While on average 13% of patents filed at 
Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIP O) are from Canadian residents, we are 
increasingly seeing Canadians apply abroad.  
 The top patent filing destination for Canadians is the United States, which receives about 
half of total global filings by Canadians. 
 Canadian industry patents are cited in other patents approximately 20% more than the 
world average, suggesting a relatively high impact on the development of related technologies. (Source: 2014 STI strategy, p.41; CCA State of Industrial R&D 2013, p.50)  
 Significant progress has been made to moderniz e Canada's intellectual property regime to 
align it with international standards and to reduce the administrative burden on innovators. As well, the Government of Canada recently launched a new science, 
technology and innovation strategy which emphasizes the need for Canadians to protect 
their intellectual property and enhance access to  global markets. It also seeks to increase 
the linkages among leading-edge research institutes and business to improve knowledge 
transfer and commercialization outcomes.  
 Page 98, paragraph 3.164 [India Question 11]: During the review period, the Canadian government has introduced a number 
of targeted measures to help innovative Canadi an firms that develop IP overcome barriers to 
commercialization and become globally competitive. The Economic Action Plans 2012 and 2013, among other measures, increased the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance 
Program, introduced a Can$400 million Venture Capital Action Plan, and increased support for 
incubator and accelerator organizations to help entrepreneurs.  
Can Canada provide further details of the National Research Council's Industrial Research 
Assistance Program, and its impact in promoting commercialization in the past four years? 
 
Canada's Response:  The National Research Council-Industrial Research Assistance Program 
(NRC-IRAP) is Canada's premier innovation assistance program for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).  
This program provides technology advice, assistance and services to SMEs to help them build their 
innovation capacity. This includes support in the development and activities up to 
commercialization of technologies, and collaboration in initiatives that support SMEs. More 
specifically NRC-IRAP offers expert technical an d business advice, financial assistance, access to 
business information, contacts, and national an d international networks, to some 10,000 SMEs 
annually. Over 200 Industry Technology Advisors (ITAs) work for IRAP. They represent the focal 
point of one-on-one relationships with companies that extend for years. NRC-IRAP also partners WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 210 - 
 
  with over 100 Network Member organizations at the regional level in order to supplement its 
advice and assistance to SMEs. IRAP is also responsible for administering and delivering a number of other programs, including: 
 
 the Business Innovation Access Program , a Government of Canada pilot program, 
announced in the 2013 Budget that provides $20 million in funding to SMEs to help them access business services or technical assistance at Canada's learning institutions and 
publicly-funded research organizations to br ing bigger and better innovations to market 
faster; 
 the Government of Canada's Concierge Service , which provides a single access point 
where SMEs can find high-quality, timely advice  to help them innovate and accelerate their 
growth; and 
 the Canada Accelerator and Incubator Program , that provides funding over a five year 
period in the form of non-repayable contributions to a limited number of accelerators and 
incubators that meet strict eligibility and selection criteria. 
More information on IRAP and the Programs that it manages is available on the following website: 
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng /irap/about/index.html. 
Over the past seven years the Government of Canada has introduced measures, including tax 
incentives and program funding, to encourage private sector investment in science, technology and innovation. Recently adopted measures to improve commercialization, including changes to the IRAP program, are part of a wider response to the Review of Federal Support for Business R&D 
(the Jenkins Panel), and are intended to provide a more comprehensive and coordinated suite of 
business innovation support programs focused on industry needs. They are also intended to 
remove obstacles and barriers to innovation, and address gaps in the current program and policy 
mix. These measures involved a shift towards more direct support.  
The impact of the changes to the National Rese arch Council's Industrial Research Assistance 
Program in promoting commercialization in the last four years as well as that of related measures 
announced in recent federal budgets is difficult to assess given that they have not been in place 
long enough to allow for a review of the program. As an example, measures, such as the $40 million in additional funding to the Canada Acce lerator and Incubator Program (which is delivered 
by IRAP), only came in Budget 2014. Although Canada has a robust results-based measurement 
system in place to track program impact, sufficient data is required to analyze that impact. 
Insufficient time has passed to allow for prop er review of the program at this time.  
 
3.3.6.1 Overview 
Page 96, paragraph 3.158  
[India Question 12]: Canada has a well-developed IP syst em ……………….. generic pharmaceutical 
industry. 
 
Please explain the interpretation of utility in the context of selection patents involving pharmaceutical inventions. 
 
Canada's Response:  The utility requirement in Canadian law is identical regardless of the area of 
technical innovation. A patentee will be required to either demonstrate or soundly predict at the 
time of filing that his/her invention will do what th e patentee asserts it will do. Such requirements 
are particularly critical in areas of innovation where the 'invention' is in effect a promised utility, such as a new use or selection patent. Canada's approach is fully consistent with the TRIPS 
Agreement, which inter alia  provides that patents are to be granted only for inventions that are 
'useful', leaving Members free to determine the appropriate method of implementing its provisions within their own legal system and practice.  Canada's rules are also consonant with sound patent policy, reflected both in its own law and in TRIPS,  as a system designed to promote innovation to 
avoid double-patenting and evergreening on the basis of speculation rather than of true invention.  
 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
Page 71, paragraph 3.80  
[India Question 13]: Canada is requested to provide justification for maintaining a higher MRLs for 
pesticides/herbicides/fungicides (e.g. Azoxystrobin; Boscalid; Chlorantraniliprole; Clothianidin; WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 211 - 
 
  Fludioxonil; Thiamethoxam and Zeta-Cypermethri n), compared to that of CODEX/International 
standards for the following Agricultural products. 
S. No. Name of the Product S. No. Name of the Product 
1 Cattle Meat 10 Cashew Nut 
2 Chickpea 11 Onion bulb 
3 Pepper (Non Bell) 12 Peanut 
4 Corn, grain 13 Rice 
5 Cucumber 14 Sesame Seed 
6 Grape 15 Soybean 
7 Dry Guar Seeds 16 Spearmint 
8 Milk 17 Turmeric Root 
9 Mustard seeds 18 Wheat, grain 
 
Canada's Response: Health Canada publishes Canadian pe sticide maximum residue limits (MRLs) 
that have been specified under the Pest Control Products Act  (PCPA ) i n  H e a l t h  C a n a d a ' s  M R L  
Database, which is available at: http://pr-rp.hc-sc.gc.ca/mrl-lrm/index-eng.php. The MRL Database also includes established MRLs for pesticide/commodities that were previously listed in 
Table II Division 15 of the Food and Drug Regulations  (FDR). 
While the MRL Database does not provide for a direct comparison with corresponding international standards, such as Codex MRLs, when consulting on a proposed MRL (PMRL) this information is 
included in the corresponding PMRL  document (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-
spc/pest/part/consultations/index-eng.php). For example, in PMRL2014-55, Azoxystrobin, Table 2 
compares the MRLs proposed for azoxystrobin in Canada with corresponding American tolerances 
and Codex MRLs. In addition, Appendix 1 provides the scientific data that supported the proposed 
M R L s .  D i f f e r e n c e s  i n  M R L s  c a n  b e  a t t r i b u t a b l e  t o  a  w i d e  r a n g e  o f  f a c t o r s ,  s u c h  a s  v a r i a t i o n s  between jurisdictions in the Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) used to calculate MRLs. For the commodities in the table below, in some cases the Canadian MRL may be higher than the Codex 
MRL, or in others there is no Codex MRL (i.e ., boscalid/rice pesticide-crop combination). 
 
[India Question 14]: Could Canada also indicate whether any risk assessment has been carried 
out, and the scientific justification, before application of higher MRLs?  
Canada's Response:  As part of the health risk assessment process prior to the registration of a 
pesticide or the importation of pesticide-treated food commodities, and in accordance with the PCPA, Canada must determine whether the consumption of the maximum amount of residues that are expected to remain on food products, when a pesticide is used according to label directions, 
will not be a concern to human health.  
Appendix I of the PMRL documents (where applic able) or the corresponding evaluation report 
published on Health Canada's website provides the scientific justification for the recommended 
MRLs and confirms that the MRLs are set at levels well below the amount that could pose a health 
concern. Once the consultation period of the PMRL is closed, these science-based pesticide MRLs become legally into effect as of the date they  are entered into the MRL Database. Additional 
information on how Canada establishes MRLs can be found here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-
spc/pest/part/protect-proteger/food-nourriture/mrl-lmr-eng.php.  Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 
2.8 Other Key Initiatives 2.8.2 Canada's Intellectual Property Regime 
Page 21, paragraph 2.86 
 [India Question 15]: On December 9, 2014, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act received 
Royal Assent. This new legislation will protect consumers, manufacturers and retailers as well as 
the Canadian economy from the health and economic threats presented by counterfeit goods coming into Canada. Its border measures came into force on January 1, 2015.  
Border Measures are provided under the Canadian Trade-Marks Act as well. How does the new 
legislation interact with the Trade-Marks Act? Wi ll the infringement of Trade-Marks be enforced 
also through the new Act?  
Canada's Response:  The border measures contained in the Combating Counterfeit Products Act  
are incorporated into the Trade-marks Act . The new border measures give border service officers 
ex officio  authority to detain shipments suspected of containing trademark counterfeit or copyright 
pirated goods, as well as to provide for a Request for Assistance system whereby rights holders WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 212 - 
 
  can seek assistance from Canada Border Services Agency to detain such goods. These new border 
measures are meant to complement the existing border measures under the Trade-marks Act that 
allow rights holders, to obtain a court or der to have CBSA detain  counterfeit goods. 
 
5 TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT 
Page 30, paragraph 5.4  
[India Question 16]: "Canada believes that mark et-based solutions…………. objectives of WTO 
members…………Canada is working collaboratively with  international partners to reduce and, as 
appropriate, eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers on key environmental goods, including sustainable or clean technology goods in addition to the liberalization of environmental services." 
 
Can Canada clarify its internal efforts in terms of regulations on these 54 EGS products? As a first step in how many of these products is the existing standard/regulation harmonised to international 
standard/regulation.  
 If Canada has taken any regional harmonisation in these products, India would like to know if the 
same was notified to the WTO in accordance to the transparency clause of SPS/.TBT Agreements. 
India also requests the details of the notification made to the WTO.  Canada's Response:  As noted in paragraph 5.4 of the Government Report , Canada liberalized 
trade in a list of 54 environmental goods by capping applied tariffs at 5% in line with the APEC 
commitment. This is one example of efforts with international partners to reduce and, as appropriate, eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers on key environmental goods. If Canada pursues 
any regional harmonisation efforts for these products, it would notify as per its WTO obligations 
under the SPS or TBT Agreement, as appropriate. Interested parties may review the Canada 
Gazette  website for details on all relevant regulations that may apply to these 54 environmental 
goods as they currently stand.  
 2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 2.2 The Canada-U.S. Trade Relationship 
Page 12, paragraph 2.26 
 [India Question 17]: "Now in its 21st year, the NAFTA has provided for the elimination of duties for 
practically all originating goods, facilitated the cross-border movement of persons, addressed 
certain non-tariff barriers and provided formal mechanisms for resolving disputes."  
Can Canada throw light on the various formal mechanisms for resolution of the disputes arising 
from the refusal of imports (based on SPS and TBT standards) into the country? India would like to know what are the transparency requirements for the customs department and other agencies 
(like, Food department, etc) which are responsible for such actions. Finally, India would also like to 
k n o w  a s  t o  w h a t  r e c o u r s e  i s  p r o v i d e d  t o  I n d i a n  e x p o r t e r s '  u n d e r  t h e  C a n a d i a n  d o m e s t i c  
regulations and are these compatible with the WTOs TBT and SPS regulations. 
 
Canada's Response: The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) ensures the requirements of 
Government of Canada departments such as Environment Canada, Transport Canada, and Natural 
Resources Canada are met for regulated goods entering Canada. Goods that are suspected of non-compliance are referred to the responsible department as appropriate. Complaints related to 
specific enforcement actions are to be directed to the responsible Department.  
The CBSA also offers a formal process of recourse for complaints related to actions taken by CBSA officers at the border. Information on the CBSA' s complaint process can be found on the CBSA's 
Web site at: http://www.cbsa-asfc. gc.ca/contact/com-eng.html.  
All food, plant products and by-products, and animal products and by-products imported to 
C a n a d a  m u s t  c o m p l y  w i t h  C a n a d i a n  r e q u i r e m e n t s .  C a n a d i a n  F o o d  I n s p e c t i o n  A g e n c y  ( C F I A )  officials are authorized under Canadian legisl ation to enforce these requirements. Canadian 
requirements are based on legislation that is consistent with WTO obligations.  
The CFIA has published guidelines with respect to the standard of service an importer or its agent 
can expect when interacting with the CFIA. These are set out in the " Statement of Rights and 
Service for Producers, Consumers and Other Stakeholders " at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-
the-cfia/accountability/statement-of-rights- and-service/eng/1326306477874/1326306582012. 
Stakeholders have a right to: •     speak to the CFIA about the service received; WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 213 - 
 
  •     be advised of the reasons for decisions in writing, where practical or legally required; 
•     receive written documentation outlining the rules of a destruction or regulatory order; •     receive information either in English or French; •     obtain information under the provisions of the Access to Information Act; 
•     have their privacy protected, as set out by the Privacy Act; 
•     contact the CFIA's Complaints and Appeal s Office to submit a formal complaint; and, 
•     seek redress through the courts. 
If there is disagreement with a decision taken by the CFIA, stakeholders can submit a formal 
complaint for review in writing to the CFIA's Complaints and Appeals Office, using the Complaints, 
Comments and Compliments  form. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 214 - 
 
  KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
SUMMARY Page 9, paragraph 9 
 
[Korea Question 1]: Could Canada explain concretely investment restrictions remaining in the areas of broadcasting, film distribution and telecommunications? 
 
Canada's Response: Over the past few years Canada has revised its foreign investment 
restrictions for telecommunications, allowing for more liberal investment in the telecommunications industry. The following are the remaining restrictions. 
1. Canada reserves the right to adopt or maintain a measure: 
(a) limiting foreign investment in facilities-based telecommunications service suppliers, provided that the measure adopted or maintained by Canada does not limit foreign investment to less than 
a cumulative total of 46.7 percent of voting inte rest, based on 20 percent direct investment and 
33.3 percent indirect investment; (b) requiring that facilities-based telecommunications service suppliers be controlled in fact by a 
Canadian; 
(c) requiring that at least 80 percent of the member s of the board of directors of facilities-based 
telecommunications service suppliers be Canadian. 2. The following exceptions apply to this reservation: 
(a) foreign investment is allowed up to 100 percent for suppliers conducting operations under an 
international submarine cable license; (b) mobile satellite systems of a foreign service supplier may be used by a Canadian service 
supplier to supply services in Canada; 
(c) fixed satellite systems of a foreign service supplier may be used to supply services between points in Canada and all points outside Canada. 
(d) foreign investment is allowed up to 100 perc ent for suppliers conducting operations under a 
satellite authorization; and (e) foreign investment is allowed up to 100 percent for facilities-based telecommunications service suppliers that have revenues, including those of its affiliates, from the provision of 
telecommunications services in Canada representing less than 10 percent of the total 
telecommunications services annual revenues in Canada. Where an exception applies, it applies to 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). For suppliers with less than 10 
percent of total telecommunications revenues referr ed to in 2(e), such suppliers may grow their 
market share to greater than 10 percent, but ma y not do so through the acquisition of other 
suppliers. Please refer to Section 16 of Canada's Telecommunications Act and the Foreign 
Ownership and Control Regulations for complete details. 
Separate foreign ownership restrictions apply to Canada's broadcasting industry: Subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act  states that: 3(1) "It is hereby declared as the 
broadcasting policy for Canada that (a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively 
owned and controlled by Canadians".  
The Direction to the CRTC (Ineligibility of Non-Canadians)  issued under the Broadcasting Act  
contains the Canadian foreign investment restrictions pertaining to broadcasting. These restrictions 
include both objective and subjective criteria for determining whether a non-Canadian owns and 
controls a Canadian broadcasting licensee.  Under the Direction, a corporate applicant must satisfy the following in order to be eligible to 
obtain, amend or renew a broadcast licence:  
(i) the corporation must be incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a Canadian 
province;  
(ii) 80 per cent of the members of the board of directors of the licensee corporation must 
be individual Canadians who ordinarily reside in Canada;  
(iii) the CEO, or the person acting in that or a similar capacity, must be Canadian; and,  
(iv) 80 per cent of the voting shares of the co rporation must be owned by Canadians.  
The Direction also contains specific provisions where a broadcasting licensee corporation is 
owned and controlled by a parent corporation. In order to qualify as a "Canadian," the parent 
corporation must satisfy the following:  
(a) the parent must be incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province; 
(b) at least 66 2/3 per cent of the voting shares must be owned by Canadians; and WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 215 - 
 
  (c) the parent corporation must not exercise any control or influence over any 
programming decisions of the subsidiary corporation in circumstances where: 
(i) Canadians own and control less than 80 per cent of the voting shares of 
the parent corporation; 
(ii) t h e  C E O ,  o r  t h e  p e r s o n  a c t i n g  i n  t h a t  o r  a  s i m i l a r  c a p a c i t y ,  i s  n o n -
Canadian; or  
(iii) fewer than 80 per cent of the directors of the parent corporation are 
Canadian.  
An applicant must also demonstrate that it is not "controlled in fact" by a non-Canadian, on the 
basis of personal, financial, contractual or business relations, or on the basis of any other considerations relevant to determining "control in fact". 
The Canadian Radio-television and Communication s Commission (CRTC) has authority under both 
the Broadcasting Act  and the Telecommunications Act  to determine whether Canadians "control in 
fact" broadcasting and telecommunications companies. 
The policy on film distribution, entitled the Invest ment Canada Policy on Foreign Investment in the 
Canadian Film Distribution Sector, states that takeovers of Canadian distribution businesses is not allowed and that foreign companies wishing to establish in Canada may do so on condition that 
they limit distribution activities to proprietary products (major investor or owner of world rights). 
The Policy is available on the Department's website at the following address:  http://www.pch.gc.ca/ eng/1359658212774. 
 
[b] In addition, given that FDI inflows were outpac ed by outflows during the review period, does 
the Canadian government have any specific plans to activate FDI inflows in the coming years? 
 
Canada's Response: Regarding investment attraction, the Government of Canada will continue to 
implement its investment attraction strategy in keeping with its current approach. This includes ensuring alignment with identified priority markets, Government's Global Market Action Plan and 
leveraging developments in on-going international trade agreements, such as focusing on Europe 
in anticipation of CETA ratification.  2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.4 Investment Regime 
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act Page 41-2, paragraphs 2.37-2.38 
 
[Korean Question 2]: Are these threshold linked  with only the asset value of the Canadian 
business regardless of the investment amount? Moreover, could Greenfield foreign direct 
investment be an exception in the application of these standards? 
 Canada's Response:  The Investment Canada Act  net benefit review thresholds are based either 
on enterprise value or asset value of the Canadian business. 
In the case of foreign investment by WTO member investors that are not state-owned enterprises 
(SOEs), the net benefit threshold is based on the enterprise value of the Canadian business. The 
method of calculating enterprise value is set out in the Investment Canada Regulations . The 
regulations specify that enterprise value is based on the market capitalization of the Canadian 
business (when the Canadian business is publicly traded) or the consideration paid (when the Canadian business is a private company). In both cases, the liabilities and cash on hand of the 
Canadian business are taken into account. Currently, this threshold is $600 million in enterprise 
value of the Canadian businesses acquired. The threshold will increase to $800 million in enterprise value on April 24, 2017 and to $1 billion in enterprise value on April 24, 2019. Beginning in January 2021, the threshold will be in dexed to reflect the change in Canada's nominal 
gross domestic product in the previous year. 
In the case of foreign investment by SOEs, the threshold is $369 million in 2015 and based on the asset value of the Canadian business. This threshold is adjusted annually to the change in 
Canada's nominal GDP.  
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 216 - 
 
  Greenfield investment, regardless of its dollar valu e, is not subject to the net benefit review 
provisions of the Investment Canada Act . However, all foreign investment, regardless of its dollar 
value, may be subject to a national security review if a potential security threat is identified.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.4 Tariffs 3.1.4.1 Applied MFN rate 
Page 53, paragraph 3.21 
 [Korea Question 3]: The Secretariat Report states that the 2014 applied MFN tariff (including AVEs) has rates ranging from 0 to 532.2. With regard to the highest rate of 532.2%, is the AVE of 
the over access commitment duty rate of Can$6. 12/kg applicable to dried egg albumin? Could 
Canada explain why the highest applied MFN tariffs are imposed on these products? In addition, please elaborate on any possible plans to improve this tariff structure. 
 
Canada's Response:  Yes, the over access commitment duty rate of CAN$6.12/kg applies to dried 
egg albumin. 
Supply management is based on matching domestic production to domestic demand while 
ensuring a reasonable return for producers and stab le prices for consumers. Predictable levels of 
imports, maintained through the use of tariff quotas, are necessary to the functioning of the system. Canada has implemented and continues to abide by its commitments in its Uruguay Round 
schedule of tariff concessions. 
 3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
Page 73, paragraph 3.89 
 [Korea Question 4]: Korea welcomes Canada's announcement that CFIA's has developed an 
automated import system to assist importers and Customs in the management of their imported 
agriculture, fish, health and food products. Could Canada provide a more detailed description of its 
automated import system, particularly with regard to the Automated Import Reference System (AIRS)? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) was developed in 
1997 as a searchable database to provide accurate and timely information on import requirements 
for agriculture, fish, health and food products. The application uses a question and answer 
approach to guide the user through a series of  questions about the Harmonized System (HS) 
Codes, origin, destination, end use, and miscellaneous qualifiers of the product they wish to 
import.  
The AIRS has been prepared for the convenience of reference only and has no official sanction. For 
all purposes of interpreting and applying the law,  users should consult the relevant Acts passed by 
the Canadian Parliament.  
The AIRS can be accessed through the following website: 
http://inspection.gc.ca/plants/imports/airs/eng/1300127512994/1300127627409.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 217 - 
 
  RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
Page 61, paragraph 3.42  
Canada regularly notifies its import licensing regime to the WTO. Import licenses are in place for 
various reasons, including the administration of tariff quotas (Section 4.1.2), trade remedies, or international commitments (Table 3.10). Import licences are also used on grounds of public interest or for monitoring purposes. The regime has remained largely unchanged since 2011. 
Imports controls are prescribed for a number of products under various legislative instruments. 
The Export and Import Permits Act provides for the establishment by regulation of a list, called the 
Import Control List (ICL), of goods that are subject to import controls. 
 
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports 3.2.3 Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
Page 75, paragraph 3.100 
 In general, an export permit is required for the ex port of items included on the Export Control List 
(ECL), irrespective of the destination, with some exceptions for exports to the United States. The 
issuance of export permits and certificates is under the authority of the DFATD. Exporters can 
submit their application by mail, fax, or onlin e through Export Controls Online (EXCOL) or the 
Export Import Control System (EICS). Fees are set out in the Export and Import Permits and 
Certificates Fees Order. Enforcement is under  the responsibility of the CBSA and the Royal 
Canadian Mounted Police…   
[Russian Federation Question 1]: The questions below relate to the trade restrictive measures 
imposed by Canadian Government in respect of the Russian Federation in relation to the situation 
in Ukraine.  
In accordance with mentioned trade restrictive me asures of Canada the property and interests in 
property of certain natural and legal persons of the Russian Federation are blocked; the access to 
the capital markets for affected persons, including certain Russian financial institutions, is 
restricted; admission of certain natural persons to the territory of Canada is prohibited; business dealings with certain natural and legal persons of the Russian Federation are prohibited to 
Canadians natural and legal persons.   
Such measures effectively restrict supply of serv ices by such persons within the territory of 
Canada, in particular through mode 1, 3 and 4, including in the sectors where specific 
commitments of Canada do not provide for such types of restrictions. Such measures also result in 
restriction of transfers of payments by such serv ices suppliers contrary to provisions of GATS 
Articles XI and XII. Moreover, these restrictions  are applied only in respect of the services 
suppliers of the Russian Federation. 
(a) Please explain the nature of these measures and rational behind them. 
 
Canada's Response: The recent actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula 
and in eastern Ukraine are a contravention of international law and comprise a grave threat to 
international peace and security. Accordingly, Ca nada has imposed a range of economic sanctions 
against Russian individuals and entities, as well as against individuals and entities inside Ukraine who have been complicit with Russia's armed aggression. We have done so in coordination with 
key partners in the international community. These measures are consistent with Canada's WTO 
obligations. 
Sanctions related to Russia are implemented under the Special Economic Measures Act . On March 
17, 2014, the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations  (the "Russia Regulations") came 
into force upon approval of the Governor in Council, as it was determined that the actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine constitute a grave breach of international peace and security that 
has resulted or is likely to result in a serious international crisis. The Russia Regulations prohibit 
any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to:  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 218 - 
 
  (a) deal in any property , wherever situated, held by or on behalf of a designated person whose 
name is on Schedule 1;  (b) enter into or facilitate, directly or indirectly, any transaction related to a dealing referred to in 
paragraph  
(c) provide any financial or other related service in respect of a dealing referred to in paragraph 
(a);  
(d) make any goods, wherever situated, available to a designated person listed in Schedule 1; or  
(e) provide any financial or related service to or for the benefit of a designated person listed in 
Schedule 1.  Travel restrictions to Canada have also been put in place for those listed individuals under 
Schedule 1 through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . In addition, it is prohibited for 
any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to transact in, provide financing for or otherwise deal in new debt of longer than 30 days maturity and deal in new securities, in relation 
to (a) a designated person listed in Schedule 2; ( b) the property of a designated person listed in 
Schedule 2; or (c) the interests or rights in proper ty of a designated person under Schedule 2. It is 
also prohibited for any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to transact in, provide 
financing for or otherwise deal in new debt and of longer than 90 days maturity in relation to ( a) a 
designated person listed in Schedule 3; ( b) the property of a designated person listed in Schedule 
3; or ( c) the interests or rights in property of a designated person listed in Schedule 3. 
Finally, it is prohibited for any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to export, sell, 
supply or ship any good referred to in column 1 of Schedule 4, wherever situated, to Russia or to 
any person in Russia for use in: ( a) offshore oil exploration or production at a depth greater than 
500 m; ( b) oil exploration or production in the Arctic; or ( c) shale oil exploration or production. It 
is also prohibited for any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to provide to Russia 
or to any person in Russia any financial, technical or other services related to these prohibited goods.  
 
(b) Please explain the criteria used for the inclusion of certain Russian natural and legal 
persons on the List of persons to which these measures are applied.   
Canada's Response : Under the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations  a person whose 
name is listed in Schedule 1 is a person in respect of whom the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe is:  
(a) a person engaged in activities that directly or  indirectly facilitate, support, provide funding for 
or contribute to a violation or attempted violation of the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine or that obstruct the work of international organizations in Ukraine; 
(b) a former or current senior official of the Government of Russia; 
(c) an associate or family member of  a person described in paragraph ( a) or ( b); 
(d) an entity owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, a person described in paragraph ( a) or 
(b); or 
(e) a senior official of an entity described in paragraph ( d). 
Decisions to designate certain persons on our sanctions list are made strategically and in close 
coordination with our international partners such as the United States and the European Union.  
 
(c) 
Please explain how these measures comply with Canada's specific commitments and GATS 
Articles II and XI. 
 
Canada's Response: Canada is a committed WTO Member and takes its WTO obligations very 
seriously. The sanctions related to Russia were enacted under the S pecial Economic Measures Act  
to respond to the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and are consistent 
with Canada's GATS  obligations.  
(d) Please indicate the timeframe for bringing these measures in consistency with provisions of 
the GATS. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 219 - 
 
  Canada's Response: Canada's sanctions related to Russia which were implemented under the 
Special Economic Measures Act  are consistent with Canada's GATS obligations.  
 [Russian Federation Question 2]: The said measures include certain restrictions affecting also 
trade in goods between the Russian Federation and Canada, in particular, though not exclusively, 
the restrictions on export of certain good s from Canada to the Russian Federation. 
(e) Please explain the nature of these measures and rational behind them.  
 
Canada's Response: The recent actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula 
and in eastern Ukraine are a contravention of international law and comprise a grave threat to international peace and security. Accordingly, Ca nada has imposed a range of economic sanctions 
against Russian individuals and entities, as well as against individuals and entities inside Ukraine 
who have been complicit with Russia's armed aggression. We have done so in coordination with key partners in the international community. These measures are consistent with Canada's WTO 
obligations. 
As it relates to economic sanctions, please see answer (i) below. Canada's export controls over items agreed to at the four multilateral export control and non-
proliferation regimes are contained on the Export Control List. Export permit applications related to 
these items are assessed on a case by case basis, as they are for all destinations. 
(f) Please indicate the provision of the WTO Agreement that justifies this measure. 
 
Canada's Response: Canada's sanctions related to Russia, implemented under the Special 
Economic Measures Act  and Canada's export control regime, are consistent with the WTO 
Agreement.  
 
(g) Please explain how these measures comply with GATT Articles I and XI. 
 
Canada's Response: Canada is a committed WTO Member and takes its WTO obligations very 
seriously. Canada's sanctions and export controls regimes are consistent with our WTO obligations.  
  
(h) Please indicate the timeframe for bringing these measures in consistency with provisions of 
the GATT. 
 Canada's Response: Per the answer in (g), these measures are already consistent with the 
provisions of the GATT. 
 [Russian Federation Question 3]: In respect of all measures mentioned above: 
(i) Does Canada apply measures that are similar to any of the measures described above in 
respect of any other WTO Member? If yes, please explain the reasons for applying such measures to other WTO Members and indicate legal acts according to which such measures are applied? 
 
Canada's Response:  In terms of WTO Members, Canada imposes sanctions under the Special 
Economic Measures Act  on Russia, Ukraine, Burma and Zimbabwe. Sanctions measures were 
imposed on Russia and Ukraine to respond to th e violation of the sovereignty and territorial 
integrity of Ukraine. Sanctions were imposed on Burma and Zimbabwe to respond to human rights violations, political violence and the humanitarian situation in these countries.  
Canada also imposed sanctions under the United Nations Act  on the Central African Republic, Cote 
d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Yemen. Canada is obligated to implement into Canadian domestic law legally binding measures imposed by the United Nations Security Council 
under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. 
Canada's export control regime, implemented under the Export and Import Permits Act  applies to 
the export of controlled goods and technology to all destinations. 
(j) Were all of the mentioned measures of Canada referred to above notified to the WTO?  If 
no, please explain, why? 
 
Canada's Response:  All of these measures were published promptly in a manner available to all 
WTO Members through the Canada National legal register (the Canada Gazette), in full compliance 
with GATT Article X and GATS Article III. Canada is not aware of any obligations it has in the WTO Agreement, and in particular under the GATT or the GATS, requiring, in addition to that publication, direct notification to the WTO. Nor is Canada aware of a practice of other 
WTO members of regularly notifying ec onomic sanctions of this sort.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 220 - 
 
  Page 62, table 3.10  
  [Russian Federation Question 4]: According to the mentioned table, the aim of Health of Animals 
Act is «to protect against the introduction and spread of diseases in Canada».  
Could you please specify the measures, which are taken against the outbreak of highly pathogenic 
avian influenza under mentioned Act. What is the extent of their effectiveness?  Canada's Response:  Canada's primary policy for Highly Pathogenic Avian influenza (HPAI) in 
domestic poultry is stamping out, including the us e of pre-emptive slaughter to stop the outbreak 
and possible secondary outbreaks, as well as to prevent related economic and genetic losses, and 
zoonotic risk.  
The Government of Canada's response to HPAI is based on the principles set by the World 
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in its Terrestrial Animal Health Code . All cases of HPAI and all 
cases of H5 and H7, regardless of their pathog enicity, are reported to the Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency for further characterization and confirmation in its avian influenza (AI) 
reference laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba. To ensure transparency with trading partners, Canada reports all confirmed HPAI to the OIE. 
 
Wild migratory birds are known carriers of the avian influenza (AI) virus. These birds pose a significant risk to poultry along migration routes. Canada has had two recent cases of HPAI, in 2014 in British Columbia and in 2015 in Ontario. The establishment of primary control zones 
limited the spread of the disease to 12 establishments in British Columbia and 3 in Ontario. 
 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.9 Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures 
Page 71, paragraph 3.80  
[Russian Federation Question 5]: Health Canada is responsible for establishing standards and 
policies governing the safety and nutritional quality of all food sold in Canada. Its mandate also includes conducting food-related health risk as sessment, approving and regulating pest control 
products and setting maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides that may remain in or on food; 
and, evaluating the safety of veterinary drugs used in food-producing animals and establishing 
corresponding MRLs.  
According to Article 3 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent, Members shall base their sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, if the 
measures are not based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, a scientific justification is necessary. Therefore we seek for information on the share of MRLs in 
Canada harmonized with the international standards,  the share of MRLs which are stricter than the 
international standards or with no international standard behind. Furthermore, please provide information, if there is a scientific justification for all MRLs, which provide a higher level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection. Please indicate the internet site or other sources that identify the 
source of information on such justification (for example a scientific justification for dichlobenil)? 
 Canada's Response:  Pest control products and MRLs for pesticides 
Consistent with Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement, Canada sets science-based pesticide 
maximum residue limits (MRLs) to ensure the food Canadians eat is safe, and the MRLs set for each pesticide-crop combination are set at levels well below the amount that could pose a health 
concern. As part of the health risk assessment proc ess prior to the registration of a pesticide, and 
in accordance with domestic law, Canada must determine whether the consumption of the maximum amount of residues that are expected to remain on food products, when a pesticide is used according to label directions, will not be a concern to human health. This maximum amount 
of residues expected is then legally estab lished as an MRL and is regulated under the Pest Control 
Products Act  (PCPA). Additional informat ion on how Canada establishes MRLs can be found here: 
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/protec t-proteger/food-nourri ture/mrl-lmr-eng.php. 
In December 2012, Health Canada made additional administrative changes to the MRL publication 
process under the PCPA (see: http://www.hc-sc.gc .ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_f act-fiche/mrl-change-
lmr/index-eng.php), which included publishing Canadian pesticide MRLs that have been specified 
under the PCPA in Health Canada's MRL search engine available at: http://pr-rp.hc-sc.gc.ca/mrl-
lrm/index-eng.php. The MRL search engine also includes established MRLs for pesticide/commodities that were previously covered by the Food and Drug Regulations  (FDR), such 
as the 0.1ppm for dichlobenil on raspberries and cranberries.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 221 - 
 
  While the MRL search engine does not provide for a direct comparison with corresponding 
international standards, such as Codex MRLs, when consulting on a proposed MRL (PMRL) this information is included in the correspond ing PMRL document (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-
spc/pest/part/consultations/index-eng.php). For example, Health Canada is currently consulting on 
PMRL2015-12 for dichlobenil on highbush and lowbush blueberries and Table 2 of PMRL2015-12 
provides for a comparison between the proposed  MRL, American Tolerances and Codex MRLs, 
when available. In addition, the scientific report supporting the proposed specification for this MRL 
under the PCPA can be accessed by selecting Applic ations/Minor Use/Historical and requesting the 
Evaluation Report found under Application Numb er 2014-1052 (s ee: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-
spc/pest/part/consultations/_pmrl2015-12/pmrl2015-12-eng.php). Differences in MRLs can be attributable to a wide range of factors, such as variation between 
jurisdictions in the Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) due to differences in pest pressures. 
However, where possible, Canada works through inte rnational standard setting bodies, such as the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, to promote common approaches for the establishment and 
alignment of MRLs globally, to the extent possible. 
The safety of veterinary drugs and corresponding MRLs Most of the Canadian MRLs for veterinary drugs are similar or comparable to those established by 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
(http://www.codexalimentarius.org/standards/vetdr ugs/veterinary-drugs/e n/). Several factors 
alone or in combination could contribute to slight variations in the established MRLs as compared to those of Codex; the following are some of the important ones: 
1. Differences in the acceptable daily intake derived from toxicity studies, either because 
of different studies submitted and/or availa ble for evaluation or differences in the 
interpretation of the results. 
2. Differences due to variations in livestock production practices 
3. Differences in the quantity of food consumed, including regional differences 
4. Differences in conclusions reached while evaluating the metabolism and residue 
chemistry studies (e.g., different marker to total residue ratio) 
5. Differences in the sensitivities of the laboratory methods used, etc. 
 In cases where the Canadian MRLs differ from those of the Codex, the differences could be either 
way. That is to say, they could be either less or more stringent. However, the underlying principle 
behind establishing MRLs is the same i.e. to provide adequate protection to consumers.   
Canada does take part actively in the standard setting process by making appropriate 
interventions to voice Canadian interests at the Codex Committee on Veterinary Drug Residues in Food. 
 
Page 72, paragraph 3.85   [Russian Federation Question 6]: The Safe Foods for Canadian Act (SFCA) will be brought into 
force through implementing regulations. Consultations on the proposed regulations were under 
way as of February 2015. The proposed regulations would apply international standards for preventive controls (such as the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points and Good 
Manufacturing Practices) to all food traded inter-provincially, exported and imported. New 
traceability requirements would allow for more ti mely removal of unsafe food from the supply 
chain. Like domestic manufacturers, food importer s would need to be licensed and have preventive 
control plans that demonstrate that imported products meet Canadian requirements. The 
authorities indicated that the CFIA will be working with small and medium enterprises to explore approaches tailored to their operational needs and to assist them in achieving compliance.  
The Russian Federation notes that Canada is modernizing SPS legislation. Please clarify the 
rationale for expanding SPS related licensing and food safety procedures. Please provide more 
detailed information on new import licensing procedures to be implemented.  
Canada's Response:  The proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations  will consolidate and 
harmonize 13 sets of regulations with a single set of provisions that will apply internationally recognized food safety standards and principles (e.g. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
and Good Manufacturing Practices) to all food that is imported into Canada or prepared for 
interprovincial trade or export.  The proposed provisions will articulate specific and measurable outcomes, thereby providing industry with greater flexibility to determine how the outcome can be 
achieved.  
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 222 - 
 
  It should be noted that the regulations proposed under the Safe Food for Canadians Act  (SFCA) 
are still under development and are not yet in forc e. Canada will notify when regulations have 
been proposed and seek comments from WTO Memb ers and will take any comments provided into 
consideration in the final regulations.  
The regulatory framework proposed under the SFCA would require that persons who import food 
into Canada meet all applicable requirements, including, but not limited to:  
1) Holding a licence, which requires: 
 a fixed place of business in Canada, or  
 if a person does not have a fixed place of business in Canada, a fixed place of business in a 
foreign state from which they carry on business related to the food that provides at least 
the same level of protection as that provided by the Safe Food for Canadians Act  and its 
proposed regulations. In addition, the food would be required to be sent or conveyed 
directly to Canada from that foreign state. 
2) Have preventive controls in place, including a preventive control plan; and 
 3) Meet traceability requirements to maintain records indicating who the product was bought from 
and who it was sold to. 
 The licensing of importers would permit Canada to  identify all persons importing food into the 
country. Imported products are inspected on a risk-basis, and currently importers without an 
address in Canada are not themselves subject to domestic inspection, making it challenging to verify that all importers are meeting the requirements of applicable Canadian food safety 
legislation. Requiring an address in a foreign state that has food safety controls that provide at 
least the same level of protection as those in Canada would provide the CFIA with additional confidence as to the safety of imported foods.   
3.3.4 State trading, state-owned enterprises, and privatization 
3.3.4.1 Stated trading enterprises Page 86, paragraph 3.132 
 
[Russian Federation Question 7]: In 2012 and 2014 Canada notified the WTO of three federal and 
13 provincial entities which it considers as st ate-trading enterprises (STEs) pursuant to the 
provisions of Article XVII: 4(a) of GATT 1994 and paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the 
Interpretation of Article XVII. One federal and the 13  provincial entities have special privileges with 
respect to sales or marketing abroad of certain products and the other two with respect to importation.   
The practices of these provincial entities appear discriminatory and hinder the access to the 
Canadian market. These state monopolies have cont rol over the import and distribution of all 
alcoholic beverages in the provinces of Canada. The Russian Federation expresses its concern over 
a number of practices, including labelling requirements and fees, discriminatory listing and de-
listing practices as well as discriminatory distribution practices. These practices vary from province to province and represent a different combination of practices for wines, spirits and beers and can 
vary between local, national, U.S. and other im ported products. In our view, these mentioned 
above practices create an obstacle to trade that appear not to comply neither with MFN and National Treatment principles nor with Article XI of GATT. Please indicate if there is an intention to 
remove these trade-distortive measures. 
 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in 
alcoholic beverages is governed by the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act  (IILA). The 
IILA provides the provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over 
the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the im portation of such liquor into the provinces and 
territories. Provincial and territorial liquor control authorities purchase or permit the purchase of 
alcoholic beverages in line with market needs as related to such commercial considerations as 
price, quality, availability and other conditions of purchase or sale. The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Boards (PTLBs) in Canada were established before the GATT was created, and their existence and activity is cons istent with the provisions of GATT Article XVII 
["State Trading Enterprises"]. In accordance with that Article, they are notified to the WTO as WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 223 - 
 
  STEs. The PTLBs operate as businesses whose purchase and sales decisions are based on 
commercial considerations. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 224 - 
 
  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
SUMMARY Page 9, paragraph 9 
 
[Trinidad and Tobago Question 1]: The report mentions the Investment Canada Act which requires notification or review of foreign investments to assess if they bring benefits to Canada and are not 
l i k e l y  t o  i n j u r e  n a t i o n a l  s e c u r i t y .  I n  l i g h t  o f  C a n a d a  p l a c i n g  m o r e  e m p h a s i s  o n  p u r s u i n g  m o r e  
foreign investment promotion and protection agreements where there is potential for economic growth and interest to Canadian investors, are there any intentions to review and amend the investment Act so as to create more confidence in the Canadian market? 
 
Canada's Response:  Recognizing the importance of investment flows into the country, Canada 
has a broad framework in place to promote trade and investment, and to ensure that foreign 
investment benefits Canada. 
In order to focus reviews on the transactions of greatest significance to the Canadian economy, the Government brought into force changes to increase the net benefit review threshold to $1 
billion over a four-year period, for private sector , WTO member investors. Currently, this threshold 
is $600 million in enterprise value of the Canadian  businesses acquired. The threshold will increase 
to $800 million in enterprise value on April 24, 2017 and to $1 billion in enterprise value on April 24, 2019. Beginning in January 2021, the threshold will be indexed to reflect the change in 
nominal gross domestic product in the previous year. For foreign investors that are state-owned 
enterprises, the threshold is $369 million in 2015 and based on the book value of the assets of the 
Canadian business (adjusted annually for changes in Canada's economic growth). 
When the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) comes 
into force, the threshold will increase to $1.5 billi on for European Union countries, as well as for 
those countries with whom Canada has free trade agreements with relevant most-favoured nation 
provisions (i.e., Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexi co, Panama, Peru, South Korea, and the United 
States). This will further focus the Government's reviews on the most significant transactions, while helping to attract beneficial foreign investment to the Canadian economy.  
Page 9, paragraph 10 
[Trinidad and Tobago Question 2]: Given that Canada's Release Prior to Payment program is 
geared towards a quicker release of goods, an d through other programs that allow qualified 
importers to benefit from more efficient border processes, how is the programme actually 
implemented without putting the exporters/ traders at risk of loss of payment? 
Canada's Response:  Canada's Release Prior to Payment (RPP) Program provides importers and 
licensed customs brokers with deferred accounting and payment privileges for the duties and taxes 
payable to the Government of Canada (GoC). The RPP Program does not apply, nor extend, to the 
private payment arrangements made between the importer and the exporter. As the RPP Program 
applies only to the duties and taxes owing to the GoC, the program introduces no risk to exporters 
with respects to the receipt of payments for their private transactions. 
 In order to protect the duties and taxes owing to the GoC, the RPP Program participants are 
required to post financial security with the CBSA in an amount equivalent to their average monthly 
duties and taxes. Should a participant client fail to pay the duties and taxes on imported goods and the CBSA is unable to collect on the debt, the CBSA would file a claim against the security 
posted by the client to recover the amount of duties and taxes owing, along with any applicable 
interest and penalties.   Account Security holders are obligated to self-assess their financial security requirement annually, 
in order to ensure that they have posted sufficient security to cover the value for duty and taxes of 
their imported goods. In addition, the CBSA monito rs financial security levels on a risk-managed 
basis, whereby the account security levels of all new clients, non-resident clients and a percentage 
of existing RPP Program participants are assessed by the CBSA each year. 
 Account Security is an integral component of the RPP Program as it allows for the facilitation of 
trade while ensuring that the duties and taxes ow ing to the Government of Canada are protected. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 225 - 
 
  2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.2 trade Policy Objectives Page 36, paragraph 2.16  
[Trinidad and Tobago Question 3]: With regards to the priorities of Canada's Department of Trade, 
how is the department structured or configured in order to meet these priorities?  
Canada's Response:  T h e  t r a d e  s i d e  o f  t h e  D e p a r t m e n t  o f  F o r e i g n  A f f a i r s ,  T r a d e  a n d  
Development (DFATD) is structured to develop and execute a coordinated approach toward advancing its priorities across its national and global networks of the Trade Commissioner Service (TCS). The TCS has been providing international business services to Canadian companies since 
1894 and is Canada's network of trade promotion professionals, attuned to the realities of 
Canadian companies, as well as the challenges and opportunities that they face abroad. Comprised of close to 1000 staff in 160 offices in Canada an d around the world, the TCS works to enable 
business success internationally and to attract investment to Canada; together with the 
Government's trade negotiations agenda, it is key to the implementation of the Global Markets Action Plan. 
 
Trade Commissioners abroad report to the Head of Mission (HOM): an Ambassador, high commissioner or Consul-general of Canada, who is accountable for the direction, integration, coordination, coherence, oversight and delivery of all DFATD programs at the mission with the goal 
of developing mutually beneficial bilateral or multilateral relations and activities in the foreign 
policy, international security, commercial, development, consular and other fields. Furthermore, the HOM promotes integrated mission planning and operational coordination involving all major 
Canadian programs operating at or through the mission, based on a whole-of-government 
approach. Employees with specific mandates, such as trade commissioners, obtain functional and policy guidance from their home organizations, in this instance, the TCS. 
 
The trade element of DFATD at headquarters in Ottawa is essentially structured in to two principal trade branches: one dealing with trade promotion in itiatives and the other with trade policy work. 
Both branches consult relevant stakeholders in side and outside the federal government on how 
trade priorities may best be pursued. 
 Page 36, paragraph 2.19 
 
[Trinidad and Tobago Question 4]: The Canadian Trade and Development Facility (CTDF) aims to 
help developing countries attain sustainable development and economic progression of developing 
countries. Is this a specific agenda item to be addressed during negotiations? Further, who stands 
to benefit from this and what criteria is used for assessment?  Canada's Response:  The Canadian Trade and Development Facility is an initiative designed to 
help developing countries negotiate, conclude, implement, adapt to and benefit from Free Trade 
Agreements and Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements. The key focus is on countries with which Canada has or is negotiating trade agreements.  
Under this initiative, for example, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada has partnered 
with the Trade Facilitation Office Canada to provide smaller exporters in developing countries with the information, advice and contacts they need  to gain access to the Canadian marketplace. 
The CTDF will be allocated up to $25 million per year. 
The criteria used for the assessment of individual projects under the CTDF are the same ones used 
for regular development programming under Canada's aid programs. In the context of trade negotiations, developing countries are encouraged to discuss their needs 
with Canadian negotiators or with  the relevant Canadian trade and/ or development officials located 
at our diplomatic missions abroad.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 226 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3 Services 4.3.3 Tourism 4.3.3.1 Overview and developments 
Page 145, paragraph 4.143 
 [Trinidad and Tobago Question 5]: It was stated that domestic tourism accounts for 81% of 
tourism revenue (as stated for 2013). Could Canada comment on the possible reasons for the 
small percentage of foreign to urists (outside of the US)? 
The Report states that Canada does not have a federal tourism act. Has Canada considered the possibility of developing and enacting a federal tourism act (with minimum standard legislation)? 
 
Canada's Response:  Domestic tourism comprises a large percentage of Canada's tourism 
revenue. Canada is a geographically large and diverse nation, and Canadians often choose to 
explore the many exciting places and events that Canada has to offer. Geographically, Canada is a 
long-haul destination for visitors other than those coming from the northern United States (who can drive across the border). However, the number of overseas visitors to Canada continues to 
grow: overnight travel from countries other than the United States increased 9.4% to 5.0 million 
in 2014.   Canada does not have a federal tourism act, other than the Canadian Tourism Commission Act  
(S.C. 2000, c. 28), which established a national marketing agency to market and promote Canada 
as a premier tourism destination. In Canada, many of the activities associated with travel, tourism and travel agents are within the exclusive jurisd iction of the provinces/territories. Canada does, 
however, have federal acts that govern immigratio n, national parks, the national transportation 
system, and border clearance. Canada also has a Federal Tourism Strategy to ensure a government-wide approach to tourism, which was first announced in 2011. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 227 - 
 
  TURKEY 
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
1 TRADE AND ECONOMIC POLICY ENVIRONMENT 1.1 Economic Review 
Page 5, paragraph 1.11 
 [Turkey Question 1]: It is mentioned in the report that "Foreign direct investment continues to be 
an important channel of productivity growth and innovation for Canada. Two-way direct 
investment flows in 2014 amounted to $117.8 billion , a decrease of 5.6% from 2013. The flow of 
Canadian outward investment increased by $6.2 billion (11.8%) to 58.2 billion compared to previous year. On the other hand, foreign direct investment into Canada decreased by $13.1 billion 
to $59.6 billion in 2014, an 18.0% decrease over 2013 inflows. 
Could Canada kindly state whether is there any incentive mechanisms to encourage Canadian outward investment? If so, could you briefly describe how these mechanisms work? 
 
Canada's Response: There are no specific incentive mechanisms to encourage Canadian Direct 
Investment Abroad (CDIA). The Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) facilitates Canadian 
investment overseas in a responsive manne r (by request from a specific company). 
 Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
1.6 Foreign Direct Investment 
Page 29-30, paragraph 1.40  
[Turkey Question 2]: As stated in the Report,  "The share of Canadian investment abroad going 
into the manufacturing sector has fallen from a peak of 31.9% in 2000 to 9.3% in 2013. Some 44% of the increase in the stock of Canadian direct investment abroad was channeled into the 
finance and insurance sector, up by Can$48.3 b illion to Can$312.9 billion during 2011-13. The 
sector maintained its position as the primary destination for investment with a 40% share of overall Canadian direct investment abroad." Could Canada make an evaluation on the above mentioned trend of declining share of foreign 
direct investment abroad going into the manufacturing sector? 
 Canada's Response:  Canadian strengths in the financial services and insurance sector lend 
themselves well to expansion into international markets. As a result, this sector occupies an 
increasing share of overall Canadian Direct Inve stment Abroad (CDIA) and, correspondingly, other 
sectors have had their share of overall investment reduced proportionally. 
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.2 Trade Policy Objectives Page 34, paragraph 2.11 
 
[Turkey Question 3]: It is mentioned in the Report that  "Building upon the success of the 2007 
Global Commerce Strategy, Canada launched its Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP) in 2013 as a 
strategic plan to prioritize markets and support commercial success in trade. In particular it sets 
priorities and objectives for trade initiatives and trade promotion activities. Canada's trade agenda is currently focused on achieving new free trade agreements." ( pg. 34, para. 2.11.) 
 
In GMAP, Turkey is also set to be a priority country. Could Canada give information about the accomplishments regarding its priority markets since 2013?   
Canada's Response: Accomplishments under the GMAP related to priority markets include 
successes achieved in or with each specific mark et. For example, major accomplishments achieved 
since the GMAP launch include the entry into force of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement on 
January 1, 2015, and the conclusion of negotiations of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive 
Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Additionally, four Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPAs) have entered into  force (Benin, China, Kuwait, Tanzania) and six 
have been signed with priority markets (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Nigeria, 
Senegal) since the GMAP's launch.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 228 - 
 
  The GMAP has also achieved success in supporting Canadian companies doing business in priority 
markets. For example, being designated a GMAP pr iority market of broad interest has allowed the 
Canadian Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) to intensify its efforts in Turkey, where trade flows were below potential, and there was not much aw areness in either country of the other market. 
Under the GMAP and through Canada's trade offices in Istanbul and Ankara, the TCS has been able 
to achieve a higher profile for Canadian capabilities in priority sectors, such as infrastructure (convening Canada- Turkey public private partnership conferences; a SmartGrid Canada mission); 
education (Ministerial-led university mission from Ontario; Canadian school/university participation 
in education fairs); defence (Canadian mission to IDEF 2015); and mining (targeted activities including an annual CSR Workshop; Canada being a partner in the Turkish Mining Safety Conference). 
 
Page 35, paragraph 2.15 
1.1.  [Turkey Question 4]: I t  i s  s t a t e d  i n  t h e  R e p o r t  t h a t  "The following priorities and 
achievements have been reached under the GMAP (Global Markets Action Plan) as of 
January 2015:… Launch of a pilot Canadian Technology Accelerator in India to facilitate business between high potential technology-based Canadian and Indian start-ups." 
1.2.  Could Canada provide specifics to the above mentioned program by also touching 
upon the dynamics behind choosing India as the target country? Is it planned to extend it towards other countries as well? 
Canada's Response:  In November 2013, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and 
Development Canada (DFATD) received $5M in funding over three years through Canada's Global 
Market Action Plan (GMAP) towards the Canadian Technology Accelerator Initiative. The funding was for November 2013 to March 2016.  
Canadian Technology Accelerators (CTAs) are short-term (3-6 month) programs run through 
Canada's trade offices. Generally, the CTAs provide Canadian companies with private sector mentorship and education to help them grow ("accelerate") their business through trade. The 
CTAs' objective is to help Canadian companies develop international business skills, develop new 
strategic partnerships, and meet potential customers abroad. The programs are run for groups of 6-12 companies. In most CTAs, programing takes place in private-sector accelerators and includes access to mentors and facilitated introductions to local market contacts relevant to their business. 
The CTAs do not provide funding to companies,  and do not take equity from companies. 
In 2014, DFATD launched a CTA pilot in India to te st the model in an emerging market location. 
The CTA approach in India operates as a "vir tual" CTA, offering pr ograming for Canadian 
companies remotely, utilizing video conferencing, webinars, and emails to engage with mentors 
and subject matter experts over the duration of the program. India was selected as a pilot location based on demand of Canadian information and 
communications technology (ICT) companies to access identified market opportunities as well as 
availability of entrepreneurship services to support their business development in-market. 
Within the three-year funding period, the CTA Initiative supported 12 CTA initiatives in 8 locations including the virtual CTA India initiative, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, New York City, Boston, and 
Denver in the United States as well as London, United Kingdom, and Paris, France. 
 2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.2 Regional and Preferential Agreements 
2.3.2.2 Unilateral Preferential Regimes Page 40, paragraph 2.30 
 
[Turkey Question 5]: It is mentioned in the Secretariat Report that  "As part of its 2013 Economic 
Action Plan, Canada has committed to modernizing its GPT regime for developing countries. After a 
comprehensive review and consultations undertaken during 2012-13, Canada launched the 
process of modernizing the programme by graduating 72 higher-income, trade-competitive 
countries as of 1 January 2015, and renewing the programme for another 10-year period. " 
As being one of the countries which were graduated from the GPT Regime as of January 1, 2015, 
could Canada explain the graduation parameters  in general, and in particular for Turkey? 
 Canada's Response:  As announced in Economic Action Plan 2013 and published in Part II of the 
Canada Gazette on October 13, 2013, Canada graduated countries from its GPT program on 
January 1, 2015 if they met one of the following criteria: WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 229 - 
 
  (1) countries classified for two consecutive years as high income or upper-middle income 
economies according to the latest World Bank income classifications; or 
(2) countries that have a 1% or greater share of world exports for two consecutive years, 
according to the latest World Trade Organization statistics. 
(See http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2013/2013-10-09/html/sor-dors161-eng.php) 
Turkey met the first criterion as it is classified as an upper-middle income country by the World 
Bank. 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BU MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.4 Tariffs 
3.1.4.1 Applied MFN Rate 
Page 53, paragraph 3.21  
[Turkey Question 6 ]: It is highlighted in the Secretariat Report that  "The 2014 applied MFN tariff 
(including AVEs) has rates ranging from 0 to 532.2%, with a simple average tariff rate estimated at 6%. (Table 3.5) ". 
Given the fact that the highest average MFN rates are applied to clothing among non-agricultural 
products, could Canada state whether a gradual liberalization is envisaged especially for clothing products?  
Canada's Response:  Budget 2013 eliminated tariffs on imported baby clothing and certain sports 
and athletic equipment on an MFN basis, which represented $79 million in annual tariff relief. This was done as a test case to see whether tariff elimination could bring down prices for Canadian 
consumers. While the Government does not comment or speculate on possible domestic policy 
actions, or discuss what might be under consideration, it has repeatedly stated that it continues to work with consumers, retailers and manufacturers to identify areas where further tariff 
liberalization can benefit the Canadian economy. 
 3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing Page 61-2, paragraph 3.41 
 
[Turkey Question 7]: It is underlined in the Secretariat Report that  "Import prohibitions in Canada 
are imposed on: obscene material; hate propaganda and materials of a treasonable or seditious 
character; base or counterfeit coins; prison labor goods; certain copyrighted works; certain used 
or second-hand motor vehicles and aircraft; certain used and second-hand mattresses; white phosphorus matches; and, certain endangered species or those that could pose a threat to the 
environment. The CBSA's D9 Memoranda series provide further clarifications on these measures. " 
Following the examination of the CBSA's D9-1-11 Memorandum, could Canada explain its justification regarding the import prohibition applied to the used or second-hand vehicles imported to Canada directly from countries other than the United States, by taking into consideration GATT 
Article III.4? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada provides a liberalized vehicle market but does so within a 
framework that will not jeopardize th e safety of Canadian road users. 
 The treatment referred to in the question was nego tiated as part of NAFTA, a preferential trade 
agreement, but within a regulatory framework th at still maintains the precedence of Canadian 
vehicle safety regulations. The GATT recognizes the desirability of such closer integration between 
economies.  
Most vehicles sold at the retail level in the United States are manufactured to nearly identical 
safety standards to Canadian specification vehicles and most are capable of being modified to meet Canadian requirements. The similarity of safety standards between Canada and the United 
States means that only those used vehicles that are built to U.S. or Canadian safety and emission 
standards and can be modified (via fairly mino r changes that do not impair existing safety 
features) to meet the few additional Canadian sa fety standards that they may not meet at the 
time of importation, are eligible to be imported. Manufacturers can self-certify their vehicles to 
meet Canadian safety standards if they choose to, but many manufacturers building vehicles for other countries have decided not to do so as yet.  
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 230 - 
 
  3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing measures Page 66, paragraphs 3.51-3.52  
[Turkey Question 8]: It is specified in the Secretariat Report that "As at December 2014, there 
were 53 definitive antidumping measures in place. Some 60% of the measures were applied on steel products; another 20% were on other metal products; around 10% of the measures were on 
agricultural products, and the remaining on miscellaneous manufactured products… Also as at 
December 2014, there were 17 CVD measures in place: 14 of them on steel and metal products from China, one on imports of refined sugar from the EU, and two on steel products from India. " 
1.3.  Considering these statistics regarding anti-dumping and countervailing measures, 
could Canada comment on why most of the measures were applied to steel and other 
metal products and the reasons causing Canadian steel and other metal markets to act on? 
Canada's Response:  Trade remedies investigations are legitimate tools to address situations 
where unfair trading practices of foreign firms and governments are causing or threatening to 
cause injury to domestic industry. Canada notes that its experience in anti-dumping investigations 
involving steel in 2012-14 is consistent with global trends over this time period, and reflects 
underlying issues of global concern. The OECD has indicated that the current excess gl obal production capacity in the steel industry 
creates an increased likelihood of dumping and th e WTO has reported a global increase in anti-
dumping initiations in the sector during the period of review. As well, the OECD has identified 
government interventions as a contributing factor to global excess production capacity. Specific interventions include government subsidies, notably subsidies for the creation of new capacity or 
the maintenance of inefficient capacity, and continued approvals for new steel facilities. Other 
government policies such as constraints on fo reign investment, trade-related measures and 
activities of government financial agencies are also contributing to overcapacity. Subsidies that 
encourage steelmakers to keep production running at high levels, even under weak market 
conditions, have had significant effects on trade an d unfair trade practices have resulted in injury 
to industries in other economies.  
3.3.2 Incentives and subsidies 
Page 80, paragraph 3.115  
[Turkey Question 9]: It is expressed in the Secretariat Report that "According to Canada Business 
Network, a government information service for business, there are some 755 support programmes providing assistance to businesses in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax refunds and credits, 
and wage subsidies. Many are at the provincial level and thus, restricted to recipients established 
in the province. Others are sector specific, such as  agriculture and cultural industries. An overview 
of the programmes listed indicates that most are specifically targeted to a particular sector or location and that many programmes offered were with respect to grants or contributions. " 
1.4.  Given the fact that considerable amount of 755 support programmes are sector 
specific and/or limited to certain enterprises located within designated geographical regions, are there any anticipated changes in the eligibility criteria of these programmes 
to make them more compatible with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures?  
Canada's Response:  Most of the programs providing assistance to businesses identified in 
Canada Business Network's database fall outside of  the scope of the notification requirements of 
Article 25 of the ASCM. For example, while many are specific to a province, they are also provided 
and administered by provincial authorities and are not considered regionally-specific under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  (ASCM). Moreover, some of the programs 
apply to service sectors and are outside the scope of the ASCM. 
Canada, like many countries, maintains certain programs that support businesses in their efforts to expand and grow. Canada takes great effort to ensure that these programs are designed and 
implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures  (ASCM). WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 231 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3 Services 4.3.3 Tourism 4.3.3.1 Overview and developments 
Page 145, paragraph 4.142 
 [Turkey Question 10]: I t  i s  s t a t e d  i n  t h e  R e p o r t  t h a t  "The Canadian tourism industry is an 
important services sector, accounting for approxim ately 2% of Canadian GDP and 1.4% of total 
investment in Canada; it also contributes significantly to employment.102 Total tourism revenue from domestic and international travelers exceed ed Can$84 billion in 2013, while tourism revenue 
from foreign travelers amounted to Can$16.4 billion in 2013, making tourism Canada's most 
important services export." 
Could Canada state whether "health tourism" revenue is included in these figures? And if it is included, could Canada provide further information regarding its health tourism sector? 
 
Canada's Response:  Health tourism or medical tourism is the act of travelling for the primary 
purpose of receiving medical treatment. Accordin g to Statistics Canada, there are more Canadians 
travelling abroad for medical treatment (spending $447 million in 2013) than foreign visitors 
coming to Canada for health care (spending $150 million here in the same year). The numbers in both directions remain small.   
The numbers above may include people who became ill while visiting Canada. Anyone travelling to 
Canada on a Temporary Resident visitor visa, whether or not for the primary purpose of receiving medical treatment, is considered a visitor to Ca nada. They would be incl uded in overall visitor 
numbers to Canada and their expenditures would be included in Canada's tourism revenue from 
foreign travellers.   
Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
1 TRADE AND ECONOMIC POLICY ENVIRONMENT 1.2 Global Markets Action Plan Page 6, paragraph 1.13 
 
[Turkey Question 11]: It is stated in the Government Report that "The GMAP focuses efforts where 
Canadian capabilities and interests have the greatest potential for success: the major markets of 
both today and tomorrow. It concentrates on advancing Canada's commercial interests in 
established markets (covering 36 countries, counting EFTA and EU members separately), and on helping more businesses to engage successfully in priority emerging markets (44 countries). "  
 
Could Canada explain the main criteria in the determination of "established" and "priority emerging" markets?  
Canada's Response:  Priority markets under the GMAP are divided into three categories: 
established; emerging with broad interests for Canadian business; and emerging with specific interests for Canadian business. Priority established markets are markets where Canada places 
importance on building and maintaining its existing commercial relationships, in particular in the 
areas of two-way flows of trade in high value- added products and services as well as two-way 
direct investments and innovation. Priority emer ging markets with broad Canadian interests and 
those presenting specific opportunities for Canadi an businesses are markets that are emerging on 
the radar of Canadian industry, though some are already major trade and economic partners for Canada.  
These markets were identified through a two-step  process of economic analysis and stakeholder 
validation. The economic analysis took into account key economic variables that allowed us to identify the markets with the greatest current or potential importance (overall, or for specific 
sectors), while also taking into account existing commercial linkages with Canada and 
complementarities between economies. Consultations with various advisory bodies (e.g. the Minister of International Trade's SME Advisory Board and his Global Commerce Strategy Advisory 
Panel) and some 400 businesses, universities, indu stry associations and other stakeholders across 
Canada validated that selected markets fit one of the definitions of either an emerging or established priority market. Priority markets demonstrate high potential for economic growth (whether across the board or in specific sectors); are markets where Canadian capabilities have WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 232 - 
 
  good potential for success and where government support can have great impact; and are part of 
regional trading platforms that Canada is trying to tap into.  Ultimately, the Government chose the priority markets on the basis of analysis and consultation, 
and expects to modify the list periodically to reflect the dynamic nature of Canada's international 
trade interests. However, the list of priority markets does not represent the totality of markets 
where Canadian business has significant interests. 
 
Page 6, paragraph 1.15  [Turkey Question 12]: It is stated in the Government Report that , "Under the GMAP, Canada will 
continue to actively pursue new FTAs as well as  other trade-related agreements, such as foreign 
investment promotion and protection agreements. Canada has already achieved significant success recently with its FTA negotiations strategy  (e.g. Canada-European Union: Comprehensive 
Economic and Trade Agreement [CETA], Cana da-Korea Free Trade Agreement [CKFTA]) by 
deepening access to foreign markets for all Canadian businesses. The GMAP looks to match that success by further supporting Canadian companies to take advantage of these commercial 
agreements and expand their footprint into new markets."  
The Government Report has a dominant focus on free trade agreements. Given its interest in pursuing free trade agreements, could Canada provide information on the next steps to be taken, considering the TTIP talks between the US and the EU, and whether there will be an effort to start 
negotiations with the countries which explanatory talks have been concluded? 
 Canada's Response:  In 2013, the Government of Canada released the Global Markets Action 
Plan. Under the Global Markets Action Plan, the Government of Canada is concentrating on the 
markets that hold the greatest promise for Canadian business through vigorous trade promotion and ambitious trade policy. The Global Markets Action Plan is publicly available 
http://www.international.gc.ca/global-markets -marches-mondiaux/in dex.aspx?lang=eng. 
Prior to a possible launch of free trade negotiations, the Government of Canada undertakes an exploratory process, including domestic public consultations on a range of trade and investment-related issues as well as detailed discussions with the potential free trade partner or partners. This 
process helps the Canadian government to determine the potential to negotiate a comprehensive 
and mutually beneficial agreement and informs Canada's decision on whether to move forward with formal free trade negotiations. The decision to enter into free trade negotiations takes into 
account a number of considerations, including: the potential to generate significant economic and 
commercial benefits for Canada; the level of Canadian business interest and domestic support; and the willingness and capacity of prospective fr ee trade partners to negotiate a comprehensive 
agreement with Canada covering areas such as goods, services, investment, labour and the 
environment. Exploratory discussions allow both sides to gain a better understanding of each other's preferred approaches and objectives in the event of form al free trade agreement negotiations. Free trade 
exploratory discussions often help identify areas for one or both parties where further convergence 
of interests may be necessary in order to justify the launch of negotiations.   
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 
2.2 The Canada-U.S. Trade Relationship Page 12, paragraph 2.29 
 
[Turkey Question 13]: It is addressed in the Government Report that  "The Softwood Lumber 
Agreement was signed in 2006 to manage the on-going trade dispute related to Canadian exports of softwood lumber products to the U.S. The agreement is administered by a bilateral committee 
and supported by a bi-national industry council. It  was extended for two years in 2013 and is set 
to expire in October 2015. " 
Taking into consideration the softwood lumber issue being one of the most enduring trade disputes 
worldwide and the Agreement's efficacy in settl ing the dispute without any application to WTO 
Dispute Settlement Mechanism, could Canada state its position about the renewal of the Softwood Lumber Agreement? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's position is that the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement 
should be renewed on the same key terms.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 233 - 
 
  UKRAINE 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailin g, and safeguard measures 
 [Ukraine Question 1]: According to Article 3.8 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
GATT 1994 and Article 15.8 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, with 
respect to cases where injury is threatened by du mped or subsidized imports, the application of 
the measures shall be considered and decided with special care. That means that a degree of 
attention over and above that required of investigating authorities in all anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty injury cases is required in th e context of cases involving threat of material 
injury.   
Would Canada please explain how these WTO provisions are implemented into Canadian legislation? 
In what way investigating authorities of Canada make decisions in cases involving threat of 
material injury given the requirement of special care?  
Canada's Response:  In making a finding of threat of injury, the Canadian International Trade 
Tribunal (CITT) is guided by the following provisions in Canadian legislation and regulation. Subsection 2(1.5) of the Special Import Measures Act  (SIMA) states that "the dumping or 
subsidizing of goods shall not be found to be thre atening to cause injury or to cause a threat of 
injury unless the circumstances in which the dumping or subsidizing of goods would cause injury 
are clearly foreseen and imminent". The Special Import Measures Regulations  (SIMR) prescribes factors for the CITT to consider when 
determining whether the dumping or subsidizing of goods is threatening to cause injury. 
Specifically, subsection 37.1(2) of SIMR prescribes that the following factors may be considered: 
(a) the nature of the subsidy in question and the effects it is likely to have on trade; 
(b) whether there has been a significant rate of increase of dumped or subsidized goods 
imported into Canada, which rate of increase indicates a likelihood of substantially increased imports into Canada of the dumped or subsidized goods; 
(c) whether there is sufficient freely disposable capacity, or an imminent, substantial 
increase in the capacity of an exporter, that indicates a likelihood of a substantial increase 
of dumped or subsidized goods, taking into a ccount the availability of other export markets 
to absorb any increase; 
(d) the potential for product shifting where production facilities that can be used to 
produce the goods are currently being used to produce other goods; 
(e) whether the goods are entering the domestic market at prices that are likely to have a 
significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of like goods and are likely to 
increase demand for further imports of the goods; 
(f) inventories of the goods; 
(g) the actual and potential negative effects on existing development and production 
efforts, including efforts to produce a derivati ve or more advanced ve rsion of like goods; 
(g.1) the magnitude of the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy in respect of the 
dumped or subsidized goods; 
(g.2) evidence of the imposition of anti-dum ping or countervailing measures by the 
authorities of a country other than Canada in respect of goods of the same description or in respect of similar goods; and 
(h) any other factor that is relevant in the circumstances. 
In addition, subsection 37.1(3) of SIMR directs the CITT to consider whether a causal relationship 
exists between the dumping and subs idizing of subject goods and the threat of injury on the basis 
of factors listed in subsection 37.1(2) of SIMA and whether any factors other than the dumping 
and subsidizing of subject goods are threatening to cause injury. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 234 - 
 
  [Ukraine Question 2]: According to Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
GATT 1994 and Article 19.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures it is desirable that imposed anti-dumping or countervailing duty should be less than the margin or the amount of subsidy if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic 
industry. Thus, anti-dumping/countervailing duty rate should be imposed at the minimum level in 
which it becomes possible to remove the injury to the domestic industry.  
Would Canada please explain how this "lesser duty rule" is implemented into Canadian legislation? 
What methodology of the lesser duty calculation do the investigating authorities of Canada use? 
 Canada's Response: Canada notes that Article 9.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article 
19.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  are permissive, rather than 
mandatory.  
 The public interest provisions of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) provide a mechanism 
through which a lesser duty may be applied. Section 45 of SIMA provides for a public interest 
inquiry to be conducted by the Canadian Internat ional Trade Tribunal (CITT), upon request by an 
interested party or upon its own initiative to consider whether the imposition of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties in the full amount is not in the public interest.  
 Following its inquiry, if the CITT is of the opinion that the imposition of a duty in the full amount would not be in the public interest, it submits a report to the Minister of Finance recommending a 
reduction in anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties or a price level that is adequate to remove 
the injury. The Minister of Finance has discretion in whether to implement the recommendations of the CITT.  
 
In a public interest inquiry, the CITT has broad discretion in determining the recommended duty or price level, taking into account all relevant factors on the record, including written submissions 
from interested parties.  
 [Ukraine Question 3]: According to Article 6.5 of GATT 1947 no product of the territory of any 
contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be subject to both 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties to compensate  for the same situation of dumping or export 
subsidization. Thus, the investigating authorities may not, in fixing the appropriate amount of countervailing duties, simply ignore that anti-dumping duties have been imposed to offset the 
same subsidization. In order to avoid double remedy, an anti-dumping duty and a countervailing 
duty should not be applied simu ltaneously to a single product to compensate for the same 
situation.   
Do the investigating authorities in Canada comply with the provisions of this Article while 
conducting investigations? What provisions of the Canadian legislation regulate simultaneous imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties?  
Canada's Response:  Canada notes that Article 6.5 of the GATT 1947  does not preclude the 
concurrent application of anti-dumping (equal to  the full amount of dumping) and countervailing 
duties (equal to the full amount of subsidy) in situations where no export subsidy has been 
determined. 
Canada implements the obligatio n found in Article 6.5 of the GATT 1947  through section 10 of the 
Special Import Measures Act (SIMA). Section 10 of SIMA requires that the CBSA levy anti-dumping 
duties in an amount equal to that portion of the margin of dumping of the goods that is not 
attributable to the export subsidy.   3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements 
Page 47, paragraph 3.4  
[Ukraine Question 4]: All importers of commercial goods are required to obtain a business number 
by creating an import/export account with th e Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The business 
number is generally issued within minutes. Import documentation requirements are broadly the 
s a m e  a s  a t  t h e  t i m e  o f  C a n a d a ' s  p r e v i o u s  r e view. These include copies of the cargo control 
document, the invoice, a Customs Coding Form (Form B3)3, and any other relevant documentation (permit, health certificate, certificate of orig in or statement of origin when necessary). The 
documents can be presented in paper copies, or for authorized users, transmitted using the G7 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 235 - 
 
  Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) application. Canada does not have any law or regulation relating 
to pre-shipment inspection.  
Would Canada please explain how pre-shipment inspection performs without regulation, on what basis and how is regulated in case of a dispute, because the lack of regulations may enable excessive 
control by the authorities? 
 Canada's Response:  According to the World Trade Organization, pre-shipment inspection "is the 
practice of employing specialized private companie s (or "independent entities") to check shipment 
details — essentially price, quantity and quality — of goods ordered overseas. Used by governments of developing countries, the purpose is to safeguard national financial interests (preventing capital flight, commercial fraud, an d customs duty evasion, for instance) and to 
compensate for inadequacies in administrative infrastructures." 
Canada's Customs Agency, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) does not utilize pre-shipment inspection processes as a means to verify goods for trade compliance 
 
3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports 3.1.5.1 The GTS/HST and provincial sales taxes 
Page 58, paragraph 3.31 
 [Ukraine Question 5] : Some provinces and territories levy a sales tax in addition to the GST (Chart 
3.3). Some provinces have consolidated their sale s tax with the GST into a Harmonized Sales Tax 
(HST) that generally shares the same tax base as the GST. The resulting HST comprises the 5% 
GST and a provincial component. Most imported commercial goods are relieved of the provincial 
component of the HST. Different exemption regime s apply under each of the provincial sales tax 
regimes. There is no provincial sales tax in Al berta, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and 
Yukon.  
Would Canada please explain the calculation system of the tax in different regions of the country? 
And why it differs region to region? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada imposes a Goods and Services Tax (GST) at a rate of 5% at the 
national level. Five provinces have harmonized their provincial sales tax with the federal GST to 
create the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). The HST includes the 5% federal GST, as well as a 
provincial component that is set by each of the harmonized provinces. The HST applies to supplies 
of goods and services in these 5 provinces. 
The province of Québec imposes and administers its own value-added tax, the Québec Sales Tax 
(QST). The federal government and Québec have entered into an agreement whereby the province 
of Québec administers the GST in the province and agrees to harmonize the QST base with the 
GST base.  
A number of provincial governments impose and levy their own retail sales taxes at the provincial level. These provinces legislate and administer th eir own provincial sales tax systems and set their 
own rates, independent of the GST. It is up to  the provincial governments to choose whether to 
harmonize their provincial tax with the federal system.   
In some provinces and territories, there is no provincial sales tax. Only the national 5% GST applies in these regions. 
 
_______________ 
 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 236 - 
 
  REPLIES PROVIDED BY CANADA  TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS  
RECEIVED AFTER JUNE 15TH 2015 
ALPHABETICALLY BY MEMBER 
BRAZIL 
Report by Canada (WT/TPR/S/314) 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.3 Services 
4.3.1 Financial Services 
4.3.1.3 Banking services Pages 137-139, paragraphs 4. 100. 4.105, 4.106 & 4.112 
 
[Brazil Question 1]: Could Canada please elaborate on the criteria regarding the decision of the 
Minister of Finance in the situations mentioned in paragraphs 4.100, 4.105, 4.106 and 4.112?  
Canada's Response: The Minister of Finance has responsibility for all federal matters relating to 
the financial affairs of Canada and the stability of the financial system. This includes Canada's non-discriminatory ownership framework for federal financial institutions. 
The Minister is responsible for approving transa ctions involving fundamental changes to federal 
financial institutions and the financial sector, including the establishment and exit of an institution (e.g., incorporation and dissolution of banks and insurance companies), mergers, and significant 
changes in ownership. 
For Ministerial approvals, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) conducts 
a prudential review and provides a recommendation to the Minister. Matters for Ministerial consideration, where applicable, are transparently set out in Canada's federal financial institution 
legislation.
38 The Minister makes the final decision, after considering the Superintendent's 
recommendation and any other relevant matters in cluding the best interests of the financial 
system in Canada. The Minister can impose any terms, conditions and undertakings, and include 
any that are specified by the Superintendent to maintain or improve the safety and soundness of 
any institution.   
4.3.1.5 Securities 
Page 144, paragraph 4.133  
[Brazil Question 2]: The industry has also established the Canadian Investor Protection Fund, with 
a view to covering investors in case of insolv e n c y  b y  a  m e m b e r .  T h e  c o v e r a g e  i s  p a i d  f o r  b y  
securities dealers, and is limited to Can$1 million per customer.  
Do foreign investors have the same rights and treatment granted to local ones by the Canadian 
Investor Protection Fund?  Canada's Response: Canadian Investor Protection Fund (CIPF) coverage does not depend on 
residency or citizenship – it is available to everyone who opens an account with a CIPF Member.  
Customers who have an account at a CIPF Member are automatically covered up to $1 million if a member cannot return the property in a customer's account as a result of the member's 
insolvency.  
 
                                               
38 Bank Act, Insurance Companie s Act, Trust and Loan Companie s Act, and Cooperative Credit 
Associations Act WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 237 - 
 
  Report by Canada (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 2.3 Regional, Bilateral and Plurilateral Initiatives 2.3.3 Regional, Bilateral and Plurilateral Free Trade Agreements under Negotiation 
Page 16, paragraph 2.55 
 [Brazil Question 3]: Services are an important and growing part of Canada's economy. Canada is a 
strong and active supporter of efforts to liberalize market access and establish global rules for 
services trade as Canadian firms are active around the world in a wide range of services industries 
such as engineering and architectural services , energy and mining services, environmental 
services, financial services and information technology services. As a result, Canada has been 
actively engaged in the plurilateral negotiations for a Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which 
will complement other initiatives that Canada is taking to open up markets and provide legal stability where markets are already open but not subject to trade agreement rules.  
How does Canada reconcile the post financial crisis guidelines (G20, FSB, BIS, Basel 3) 
strengthening financial regulation with the financial services liberalization negotiations in the framework of TISA? 
 
Canada's Response: Canada seeks to ensure that internat ional trade agreements, including the 
Trade in Services Agreement, do not affect the ability of financial regulators to determine and enforce appropriate prudential standards, includin g those related to international standard-setting 
efforts. In Canada's view, financial services trade liberalization, supported by robust and 
transparent prudential frameworks, helps to promote competition, innovation and efficiency in financial sectors.  
 
[Brazil Question 4]: What are the Canadian main goals in financial services in the TISA negotiations? 
 
Canada's Response: For financial services, Canada is seeking a high-ambition agreement that 
builds on the existing disciplines and commitments contained in the GATS. Reflecting the fundamental nature of the financial sector in the economy, Canada wishes to secure robust market 
access and non-discrimination commitments, while maintaining governments' and regulators' 
ability to regulate the sector for prudential purposes.   
QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE REPORTS 
[Brazil Question 5]: Could Canada please explai n whether the activities of the "Canadian Milk 
Supply Management Committee" and of the "Farm Products Council of Canada" (under its supply 
management mandate) are subject to competition law? 
 Canada's Response:  Neither the activities of the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee 
nor the Farm Products Council of Canada (including the actions of agencies established under Part 
II of the Farm Products Agencies Act) are subject to Canadian competition legislation. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 238 - 
 
  INDONESIA 
Report by Canada (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 2.8 Other Key Initiatives 
2.8.5 Canada's Education Strategy 
Page 24, paragraph 2.103  
[Indonesia Question 1]: "The International Education Strategy (IES) was launched by the Minister 
of International Trade on January 15, 2014, build ing on the successful Edu-Canada pilot project 
and recommendations made by an independent adviso ry panel, the key objective of the IES is to 
double Canada's international student base to more than 450,000 by 2022. International education 
contributes to Canada's prosperity by promoting exports of educational services and goods, 
helping to address certain demographic challeng es, and improving the competitiveness of the 
Canadian economy as a result of increased research, development, innovation, and 
commercialization. In 2013 the 293,500 international students in Canada spent over $9 billion in 
communities across Canada and sustained over 90,000 Canadian jobs."  
Please elaborate the mechanism to implement the Strategy, or is there any public information 
regarding this matter? 
 Canada's Response: Canada's International Education Strategy was launched by the Minister of 
International Trade in January 2014, building on the Edu-Canada pilot which had been in place 
since 2007. Trade Commissioners in over 100 Canadian missions (embassies, consulates, high 
commissions, trade offices) around the world and across Canada provide core services to Canada's education sector clients and stakeholders to enhance their international business development 
initiatives and to coordinate Canada's participation in hundreds of education fairs and events 
where strong connections are made with international students, researchers, and institutions. Canadian national education associations are also eligible for the Department of Foreign Affairs, 
Trade and Development's (DFATD) Global Opportunities for Associations (GOA) program which 
provides cost-shared funding to support new international business development initiatives. As well, DFATD provides scholarships annually to Canadian and international students for study/research in Canada and abroad under its International Scholarships Program 
http://www.scholarships-bourses.gc.ca/schol arships-bourses/index.aspx?lang=eng and 
coordinates the promotion of other federally-funded international scholarship and fellowship programs. DFATD's International Education Division also provides information digitally for 
international students considering studying in Canada on its Education au/in Canada 
http://www.educationau-incanada.ca/educationau -incanada/index.aspx?lang=eng web site and 
Flickr gallery https://www.flickr.com/photos/educationau-incanada/ . 
 
Canada tracks the number of international students coming to Canada based on their country of origin; monitors the use of funding by missions abroad for international education initiatives; measures actual results of funding awarded to national education associations under GOA in 
comparison with anticipated results; tracks the number of scholarships awarded under the 
International Scholarships Program; liaises with other federal departments and agencies to track their international awards; and measures visitors, views, and other online metrics to its digital 
assets (e.g., Web sites and Flickr).  
 Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
1.5 Developments in Trade 1.5.2 Trade in Services Page 28, paragraph 1.34 
 
[Indonesia Question 2]: "As with merchandise trade, services trade is heavily concentrated on one 
market, the United States, which accounted for 57% of services imports and 56% of services 
exports in 2013. The next largest import sources are the United Kingdom (5%) and Hong Kong, 
China (3%), and for exports, the United Kingdom (5%) and China (3%). Canada's services trade takes place principally with North America, Europe, and Central and East Asia, accounting for over 
85% of Canada's services trade (Table 1.4)."  
Can Canada provide information on international transaction in services by region?  
Canada's Response: See table below: WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 239 - 
 
   Canada's international transactions in  services, by countries and regions, 
2013 
 million dollars     Exports   
 Exports   Imports   + 
Imports   
Countries or regions 2013 Share rank 2013  rank 2013  rank 
All countries 92,542 100  115,540  100  208082 100  
United States 51,477 55.6 1 66,402 57.5 1 117,879 56.7 1 
Europe 17,351 18.7  22,448  19.4  39,799 19.1  
European Union 14,483 15.7   19,103  16.5   0.0  
Austria 179 0.2 38 260 0.2 32 439 0.2 34 
Belgium/Luxembourg 789 0.9 16 805 0.7 19 1,594 0.8 16 
Denmark 268 0.3 28 237 0.2 34 505 0.2 31 
France 2,272 2.5 4 2,826 2.4 4 5,098 2.4 3 
Finland 147 0.2 42 129 0.1 41 276 0.1 44 
Germany 1,995 2.2 5 2,199 1.9 6 4,194 2.0 6 
Greece 270 0.3 27 965 0.8 16 1,235 0.6 19 
Ireland 807 0.9 14 1,348 1.2 14 2,155 1.0 15 
Italy 461 0.5 22 941 0.8 17 1,402 0.7 18 
Netherlands 963 1.0 12 1,714 1.5 9 2,677 1.3 11 
Norway 313 0.3 25 330 0.3 27 643 0.3 28 
Poland 115 0.1 48 119 0.1 44 234 0.1 47 
Portugal 115 0.1 49 238 0.2 33 353 0.2 38 
Russia 431 0.5 23 606 0.5 20 1,037 0.5 22 
Spain 263 0.3 29 504 0.4 22 767 0.4 25 
Sweden 546 0.6 20 334 0.3 26 880 0.4 24 
Switzerland 1,667 1.8 6 1,594 1.4 11 3,261 1.6 8 
Turkey 129 0.1 47 132 0.1 40 261 0.1 46 
United Kingdom 4,734 5.1 2 5,608 4.9 2 10,342 5.0 2 
Other Europe in OECD 293 0.3  537 0.5  830 0.4  
Other Europe not in 
OECD 594 0.6  1,022 0.9  1,616 0.8  
Middle East 1,834 2.0   1,394  1.2  3,228 1.6  
Iran 165 0.2 40 29 0.0 54 194 0.1 48 
Israel 238 0.3 33 163 0.1 38 401 0.2 35 
Saudi Arabia 287 0.3 26 359 0.3 23 646 0.3 27 
Other Middle East 1,145 1.2  844 0.7  1,989 1.0  
Africa 2,351 2.5  1,316  1.1  3,667 1.8  
Egypt 113 0.1 50 80 0.1 49 193 0.1 49 
Côte d'Ivoire 70 0.1 53 4 0.0 58 74 0.0 56 
Maghreb Countries 656 0.7  276 0.2  932 0.4  
Nigeria 89 0.1 51 22 0.0 55 111 0.1 54 
Senegal 65 0.1 54 50 0.0 51 115 0.1 53 
South Africa 208 0.2 35 317 0.3 29 525 0.3 30 
Other Africa 1,150 1.2  567 0.5  1,717 0.8  
Central and East Asia 10,124 10.9  12,334  10.7  22,458 10.8  
China 2,319 2.5 3 2,117 1.8 7 4,436 2.1 5 
Hong Kong, China 1,650 1.8 7 3,444 3.0 3 5,094 2.4 4 
India 694 0.7 18 851 0.7 18 1,545 0.7 17 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 240 - 
 
   Canada's international transactions in  services, by countries and regions, 
2013 
Indonesia 261 0.3 30 126 0.1 42 387 0.2 36 
Japan 1,415 1.5 10 1,727 1.5 8 3,142 1.5 9 
Korea 797 0.9 15 353 0.3 24 1,150 0.6 20 
Malaysia 415 0.4 24 274 0.2 31 689 0.3 26 
Pakistan 187 0.2 37 83 0.1 48 270 0.1 45 
Philippines 246 0.3 31 335 0.3 25 581 0.3 29 
Singapore 881 1.0 13 1,697 1.5 10 2,578 1.2 12 
Chinese Taipei 506 0.5 21 586 0.5 21 1,092 0.5 21 
Thailand 139 0.2 45 179 0.2 36 318 0.2 40 
Viet Nam 85 0.1 52 75 0.1 50 160 0.1 51 
Other Central and East 
Asia 529 0.6  488 0.4  1,017 0.5  
Oceania 1,833 2.0   1,232  1.1  3,065 1.5  
Australia 1,536 1.7 9 987 0.9 15 2,523 1.2 13 
New Zealand 244 0.3 32 196 0.2 35 440 0.2 33 
Other Oceania 54 0.1  49 0.0  103 0.0  
South America 1,783 1.9   1,056  0.9  2,839 1.4  
Argentina 165 0.2 41 154 0.1 39 319 0.2 39 
Brazil 634 0.7 19 276 0.2 30 910 0.4 23 
Chile 238 0.3 34 123 0.1 43 361 0.2 37 
Colombia 196 0.2 36 98 0.1 46 294 0.1 42 
Venezuela 140 0.2 44 32 0.0 53 172 0.1 50 
Other South America 409 0.4  373 0.3  782 0.4  
Central America 1,247 1.3  2,938  2.5  4,185 2.0  
Costa Rica 45 0.0 55 94 0.1 47 139 0.1 52 
El Salvador 14 0.0 59 16 0.0 56 30 0.0 58 
Guatemala 43 0.0 56 48 0.0 52 91 0.0 55 
Honduras 23 0.0 57 11 0.0 57 34 0.0 57 
Mexico 1,017 1.1 11 2,388 2.1 5 3,405 1.6 7 
Nicaragua 16 0.0 58 4 0.0 59 20 0.0 59 
Other Central America 88 0.1  376 0.3  464 0.2  
Antilles 3,796 4.1  6,178  5.3  9,974 4.8  
Bahamas 131 0.1 46 175 0.2 37 306 0.1 41 
Barbados 702 0.8 17 1,531 1.3 12 2,233 1.1 14 
Bermuda 1,564 1.7 8 1,358 1.2 13 2,922 1.4 10 
Jamaica 141 0.2 43 323 0.3 28 464 0.2 32 
Trinidad and Tobago 177 0.2 39 105 0.1 45 282 0.1 43 
Other Antilles  1,082 1.2  2,687 2.3  3,769 1.8  
International 
institutions 129 0.1   0 0.0  129 0.1  
Unallocated countries 615 0.7  240 0.2  855 0.4  
 
 
 
  
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.2 Trade Policy WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 241 - 
 
  Page 36, paragraph 2.17 
 [Indonesia Question 3]: "Canada also places an emphasis on the development aspects of trade as 
trade and investment is considered as key drivers of job creation and prosperity in Canada and 
play essential roles in promoting economic growth and poverty reduction in partner countries in 
development. Canada recognizes that many developing countries cannot effectively participate in trade, often because they lack necessary human, institutional and infrastructural capacities to 
implement the necessary legal, regulatory and structural reforms to facilitate trade." 
Canada is implementing programs to assist developing countries in order to take more roles in international trade. Indonesia's interests are in services sectors-manufacture, nursing, midwifery, 
and spa-some have been established on a Government to Government basis 
What measures did Canada adopt to assist developing countries, especially capacity building 
schemes in trade in services in order to help services providers from developing countries to build their capacity to fulfill the requirements to provide services in Canada? 
 
Canada's Response: Canada recognizes the importance of service related capacity building for 
participation of developing countries in international trade.  
For example, in 2014-2015, Trade Facilitation Office Canada  has helped small and medium-size 
enterprises from developed countries access information and knowledge on the Canadian Market in order to export their products to Canada.  
The Canada-Asia Trade and Investment for Growth Program  (TRIGR) is a responsive and directive 
technical assistance program designed with a focus on trade and investment in support of 
sustainable economic growth and poverty reductio n through engagement of the private sector in 
Asia. Some programming areas include, for example, local private access to finance, public-private 
partnerships for infrastructure, trade facilitation, business development, regional integration, 
agribusiness and extractives.  
Canada-Americas Trade-Related Technical Assistance Program (CATRTA) and Canadian Trade and 
Development Facility (CTDF) address trade agreem ent negotiation and implementation needs with 
Canada, including service capacity building. 
Canada's support to the multilateral institution, International Trade Centre (ITC) helps to 
strengthen the 'soft' infrastructure related to international trade in developing countries. This 
includes training and capacity building for instit utions and firms on standards, rules of origin, 
customs administration, trade information and identification of market opportunities. The ITC works with three client groups: policy makers, enterprises and trade support institutions.  
 
[Indonesia Question 4]: If the measures have not existed yet, will Canada consider developing it and providing such assistance? 
Canada's Response: Canada is always exploring new and innovative models to provide 
assistance in all areas under its Sustainable Economic Growth Strategy, ensuring the integration of 
equality between women and men, environmental sustainability, and governance across all 
development programming, including capacity building in services.  [Indonesia Question 5]: How does Canada translate this political commitment into negotiation on 
agriculture in the context of post-Bali work program? 
Canada's Response: Canada has been working with WTO Members, including Indonesia, to 
develop a post-Bali work program that would advance the reform in agricultural trade for the 
benefit of all Members.   
Furthermore, Canada is actively engaged in Aid for Trade (AfT) at the bilateral, regional and multilateral level. Since the beginning of the Doha Round, Canada's annual commitment to AfT, 
including agricultural trade assistance, has rise n from around $350 million in 2001/2002 to more 
than $500 million annually with Canada's AfT reaching $513 million in 2012-2013.    [Indonesia Question 6]: How does Canada perceive the proposals on SP, SSM and Public 
Stockholding by developing members? 
Canada's Response:  Canada fully supports the efforts of th e Chair of the Agriculture Negotiations 
to work with all WTO Members to find a way forward in the agriculture negotiations. Canada's 
views on various proposals will be addressed in the appropriate negotiating forum.  
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 242 - 
 
  [Indonesia Question 7]: In Canada's point of  view, do the proposals serve the development 
interest of developing members? Canada's Response: Canada's view is that transparent and predictable rules or processes related 
to trade, both from an importer and exporter perspective, benefit developed and developing 
countries.   
 Page 36, paragraph 2.19 
[Indonesia Questions 8-9-10]:  "Bilaterally, Canada works with developing country governments to 
help them create a domestic environment conducive to trade and investment. The Canadian Trade and Development Facility (CTDF) is an example of a Canadian trade-related assistance tool designed to support developing countries or groups of developing countries with which Canada is 
or will be negotiating Free Trade Agreements (FTA) or Foreign Investment Promotion and 
Protection Agreements (FIPAs). The CTDF assists negotiating partners to effectively negotiate, implement, adapt to and take advantage of conc luded agreements. DFATD continues to identify 
innovative ways to deploy resources and new programming opportunities in support of its 
international assistance and trade priorities." Could Canada elaborate more on the assistance program to help developing countries in creating a 
domestic environment conducive to trade and investment? 
How many countries will receive the assistance program in 2015? How the assistance program will be conducted?  
 
Canada's Response:  Trade and investment are the key drivers of employment and prosperity. 
When businesses reach new markets, they can grow , provide jobs and incomes, and contribute to 
poverty reduction. 
 
Despite the potential benefits international trade can bring to developing countries, many of these countries do not effectively participate in trade, often because they lack necessary human, 
institutional and infrastructural capacities to implement the necessary legal, regulatory and 
structural reforms to facilitate trade in accordance with international norms and standards.  Canada recognizes the importance of trade as a ke y enabler of shared and inclusive prosperity and 
responds to individual country partners' trade- related needs. The creation of an amalgamated 
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development leverages all three resources more effectively, to identify shared interest, and espe cially to harness trade to an inclusive growth. 
Canada, through our development programming, supports trade-related technical assistance in our 
developing partner countries.  
 
For example,  
 
 The Canada-Asia Trade and Investment for Growth Program (TRIGR) is a responsive and 
directive technical assistance program designed with a focus on trade and investment in 
support of sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction through engagement of the 
private sector in Asia. Some programming areas include, for example, local private access to finance, public-private partnerships for infrastructure, trade facilitation, business 
development, regional integration, agribusiness and extractives.  
 
 Facilitating Exports to Canada for Sustainable Economic Growth delivered by Trade 
Facilitation Office Canada and the Canada-Americas Trade-Related Technical Assistance 
Program (CATRTA) addressing Free Trade Agreement implementation needs in Latin 
America. 
 Canada's support to the multilateral institution, International Trade Centre (ITC) helps to 
strengthen the 'soft' infrastructure related to international trade in developing countries. 
This includes training and capacity building for institutions and firms on standards, rules of origin, customs administration, trade information and identification of market 
opportunities. The ITC works with three client groups: policy makers, enterprises and 
trade support institutions.  
  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 243 - 
 
   Currently, Canada has a bilateral project with ITC in Morocco, Developing Exports to Create 
Jobs in Morocco for $5 million from 2013-2017. Developing Exports to Create Jobs in 
Morocco ($5 million, 2013-2018). The expected intermediate outcomes for this project 
include: increased exports by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly 
women and youth-owned and operated enterprises, in the leather, seafood, and processed food sectors; and improved services by tr ade support institutions that support SMEs. 
According to the DFATD Morocco development programme, the ITC has been proactive in 
ensuring that the project aligns with the needs of the Moroccan partner as well as to Canadian priorities.  
  
 The Canadian Trade and Development Facility (CTDF) is an important trade policy tool 
designed to provide timely assistance to developing countries or groups of developing 
countries with which Canada is or will be negotiating Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and 
Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPA). Under the CTDF, for developing countries with which Canada is or will be negotiating an FTA or a FIPA, 
examples of how Canada could help them to create a domestic environment conducive to 
trade and investment are: 
 
o helping them to implement complex aspects of FTAs such as those related to 
customs administration thereby facilitating imports; 
o assisting their industries facing increased competition to become more 
competitive; and 
o helping their firms to take advantage of the new market access in Canada created 
by an FTA. 
 
Canada works through multilateral and bilateral channels to deliver assistance to all eligible developing countries. The criteria used for the asse ssment of individual projects are the same ones 
used for regular development programming under Canada's aid programs. The CTDF responds to 
requests made by developing countries.  2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
Page 37, paragraph 2.23 
 [Indonesia Question 11]: "Canada maintains a strong notification record to the WTO, as 
notifications during the period have been num erous and cover a wide range of WTO and GATT 
instruments (Table A2.2). However,  some notifications are outstanding, for example in the area of 
regional agreements, where the Canada – Honduras FTA has not been notified as of January 2015." 
Could Canada please provide its intention to notify some FTA which has not been notified yet to 
WTO?  
Canada's Response:  The FTA between Canada and Honduras was notified to the WTO on 
February 5, 2015. See: http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicShowRTAIDCard.as px?rtaid=911&lang=1&redirect=1. Currently, 
Canada has no outstanding FTA/RTA notifications.  
  2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.2 Regional and preferential agreements 
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreements Page 38, paragraph 2.25 
 
[Indonesia Questions 12-13]: "In order to improve its market access opportunities, Canada has 
pursued bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreemen ts (FTAs) as an important part of its trade 
policy and has gradually increased the number of FT As in recent years. As of January 2015 there 
were 11 agreements in force covering trade with 15 countries (Table 2.2). Canada's trade under FTAs is significant, accounting for approximately 61% of Canadian imports in 2013. FTA partners are also important to Canadian exports, as 78% of  Canadian 2013 exports were to countries where 
an FTA was in place.12 Canada retained a negative trade balance with 7 of its 11 FTA partners WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 244 - 
 
  (Table 2.2). But due to the significant trade surplus generated with NAFTA partners, there is an 
overall positive trade balance for Canada with FTA partners."  
What strategies that Canada can suggest to develo ping members so as to reap the benefit of FTA? 
Can Canada outline some parameters for considerations by developing members if they want to 
joint FTA/CEPA negotiations with developed members? 
 Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada takes into account a number of considerations 
when taking a decision regarding whether to launch FTA negotiations with a potential negotiating 
partner. These include: the potential to generate significant economic and commercial benefits for Canada; the level of Canadian business intere st and domestic support; the willingness and 
capacity of prospective partners to negotiate an ambitious and comprehensive FTA with Canada, 
including as determined through detailed, pre-negotiation exploratory talks; and whether or not 
the Government of Canada has sufficient resources to pursue the initiative. In negotiations with developing countries, Canada also considers the differing levels of economic development between 
potential negotiating partners and whether asymmetry and flexibility in areas such as goods 
market access are required. Developing members may similarly wish to take into account such concerns when considering joining existing FTA negotiations or launching new negotiations. 
After the conclusion of an FTA, it is important to promote the deal negotiated and share 
information on new commercial apportunities with stakeholders. Publishing formal documents and targeted informational guides can help ensure transparency. Developing countries can maximize the benefits of FTAs by promoting the benefits of an agreement both broadly and to specific 
audiences, and providing training and seminars for businesses and investors on the benefits (these 
can be targeted to specific industries or sectors).    
 
 2.3.2.2 Unilateral preferential agreements 
Page 40, paragraph 2.30 
 [Indonesia Question 14]: "As part of its 2013 Economic Action Plan, Canada has committed to 
modernizing its GPT regime for developing countries. After a comprehensive review and 
consultations undertaken during 2012-13, Cana da launched the process of modernizing the 
programme by graduating 72 higher-income, trade-competitive countries as of 1 January 2015, and renewing the programme for another 10-year period. Furthermore, beneficiaries will be 
reviewed every two years based on objective criteria to determine whether they remain eligible for 
the programme."  
Could Canada please provide information why Indonesia is removed from the GPT benefeciaries 
list? 
 Canada's Response: As announced in Economic Action Plan 2013 and published in Part II of the 
Canada Gazette on October 13, 2013, Canada graduated countries from its GPT program on 
January 1, 2015 if they met one of the following criteria: 
(1) countries classified for two consecutive years as high income or upper-middle income 
economies according to the latest World Bank income classifications; or 
(2) countries that have a 1% or greater share of world exports for two consecutive years, 
according to the latest World Trade Organization statistics. 
 
(See http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2013/2013-10-09/html/sor-dors161-eng.php) 
Indonesia met the second criterion as it has a share of world exports that is 1% or greater, 
according to WTO statistics.  
2.4 Investment Regime 
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act Page 42, paragraph 2.38 
 
[Indonesia Question 15]: "New provisions in the ICA were introduced in 2009, through 
amendment, to provide for the review of investme nts on national security grounds. Accompanying 
regulations, known as the National Security Revi ew of Investments Regulations, prescribe periods 
of time and investigative bodies for the reviews. The Governor in Council (GIC) can order a national security review of new businesses, in vestments below the net benefit threshold, and 
minority investments. The Minister of Industry makes a recommendation following consultation WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 245 - 
 
  with the Minister of Public Safety, who in turn consults the domestic security & intelligence (S&I) 
community. The decision to permit, block, or allow with conditions, rests with the GIC. Investments are considered on a case-by-case ba sis. In 2013, the first rejection of a foreign 
investment on national security grounds was taken."  
Could Canada please explain the changes that th e new law brought to the investment regime in 
Canada?  
Canada's Response:  National Security Reviews under the Investment Canada Act  
The national security review process is established in Part IV.1, Investments Injurious to National 
Security, of the Act, and the National Security Review of Investments Regulations . Under these 
authorities, the Government of Canada is able to review a foreign investment that could be injurious to national security. Under this part, an investment is reviewable if the Governor in Council (GiC) orders a review. For the GiC to order a review, the Minister of Industry must have 
reasonable grounds to believe, after consulting wi th the Minister of Public Safety, that a foreign 
investment could be injurious to national security. The Minister of Industry must make a recommendation to the GiC for a review. If, after co ncluding a review, the GiC determines that an 
investment would be injurious to national security, the GiC has the authority to take any measure 
with respect to an investment that it considers advisable to protect national security, including the following: 
 directing the investor not to implement the investment; 
 authorizing the investment on condition that the investor (i) give written undertakings that 
the GiC considers necessary in the circumstances, or (ii) implement the investment on the 
terms and conditions ordered by the GiC; or 
 requiring the investor to divest control of the Canadian business or of its investment in an 
entity. 
 
2.4.3 Other Investment Restrictions 
Page 43, paragraph 2.40  
[Indonesia Question 16]: "Canada's objective is to attract FDI in order to promote economic 
growth and competition. However, through the Investment Canada Act or other statutes, there are provisions that restrict or otherwise prohibit inve stment in certain sectors (Table 2.6). Provincial 
and territorial Acts and statutes may also contain provisions that restrict or prohibit investment in 
some sectors."  
Could Canada explain the reas on of such restriction? 
 
Canada's Response:  (Responding to the table entry on the oil sands) 
 Proposed investments are considered under the Investment Canada Act  on a case-by-case basis. 
In 2012, the Government announced that while each case would continue to be examined on its 
own merit, investments by SOEs to acquire control of a Canadian oil sands business would be found to be of net benefit on an exceptiona l basis only. The Government's December 2012 
statement regarding investments by SOEs says, "While the vast majority of global energy deposits 
are state-controlled, Canada's oil sands are primarily owned by innovative private sector 
businesses. If the oils sands are to continue to de velop to the benefit of all Canadians, the role of 
private sector companies must be reinforced." 
 
 [Indonesia Questions 17&18]: Could Canada please explain why there are also restrictions and 
prohibitions on investment in the province and territory level? 
Could Canada please inform the differences of the restriction and prohibition in federal and province or territory?  
Canada's Response:  The following Province and Territories have submitted responses as follows: 
Quebec  does not have laws that limit foreign investment.  
For Alberta , the only controls on foreign investment relate to the foreign ownership of land. More 
information can be found at: https://www.servicealberta.ca/586.cfm.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 246 - 
 
  The Northwest Territories  do not maintain any restrictions or prohibition on foreign investment.  
It does not concern Nova Scotia , as this question is directed to the Government of Canada on a 
matter of federal jurisdiction. The Saskatchewan  Farm Security Act contains provisions that restrict the amount of land a non-
Canadian (citizen or permanent resident) can own to 10 acres. 
This 10 acre restriction is, also in place for a registered company that is not 100% Canadian owned (and whose shares are traded on an exchange).  
The Act also contains provisions to allow the Farm Land Security Board to provide exemptions to 
allow non-eligible individuals or corporations to own land in excess of the above restrictions. Ontario  maintains foreign investment restrictions in various sectors. Below is an illustrative list of 
certain restrictions maintained within the agriculture, alcohol and gaming, and insurance sectors. 
 
For a comprehensive list of foreign investment restrictions, please refer to Ontario's service and investment reservations listed under the Ca nada-EU Comprehensive and Economic Trade 
Agreement.  
 Sector Specific Restrictions: 
Legislation: Farm Products Marketing Act, 1990. Milk Act, 1990  
Description: The above measures allow the Province to regulate and issue various authorizations 
relating to the production and marketing of agricultural and food products within the Province, 
including measures related to the supply manage ment of dairy, eggs and poultry products.  
 
Legislation: Gaming Control Act , 1992, R.S.O. 1992, Chapter 24; O. Reg. 68/94, OIC 1413/08 s. 
3(b), 16(i) 
Description: Ontario regulates gaming assistants and suppliers of services and equipment relating 
to lottery schemes, including games of chance, betting, bingos, casinos and promotional contests, including through provincial monopolies. Proceeds must be used to provide direct benefits to 
Ontario residents.  
 Legislation: Liquor Control Act , R.S.O. 1990, Chapter L.19 O. Reg. 717/90 – General  
Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act , R.S.O. 1996., Chapter 26;  
O.Reg.141/01 Registrar of the AGCO policies and practices 
Description: The above measures permit Ontario to re gulate and authorize the importation, 
purchase, production, distribution, supply, market ing and sale of alcoholic beverages in Ontario 
and to conduct such activities, including through provincial monopolies. Beer may only be sold in 
authorized government stores. The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming authorizes Ontario wine, spirits and beer manufacturers to operate stores for the sale of their own wine, spirits and beer, 
respectively. AGCO also authorizes only The Beer Store for the sale of domestic and import beer.  
 
Legislation: Insurance Act, 1990, s.42   
Description: Insurance services can be provided only through:  
i) a corporation incorporated under Ontario statutes;  
ii) an extra-provincial insurance corporation, i.e., an insurer incorporated by, or under 
the laws of another Canadian jurisdiction ; or 
iii) a federally-authorized branch of a foreign corporation; 
iv) an association formed on the plan known as Lloyds;  v) Reciprocal insurance exchanges; 
vi) Fraternal societies. 
 British Columbia  has no known restrictions on trade and investment at the provincial level. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 247 - 
 
  Page 44, table 2.6 
[Indonesia Questions 19]: Table 2.6 Foreign Investment Restrictions, 2014 
Industry sector Provision Reference 
Fishing  Only Canadians or Canadian-
controlled corporations are 
permitted to obtain fishing licenses. However the regulations specify that the Minister may issue a license to a foreign fishing vessel for certain purposes. Coastal Fisheries Protection Act  
Mining Foreign ownership of uranium 
mining properties is limited to 49% 
with the possibility of being 
exempted from the Policy. Non-Resident Ownership Policy in 
the Uranium Mining Sector 
Telecommunications  
 Restricts foreign ownership to 20% 
shares of a telecommunication carrier. Telecommunication Act 
 
On fishing sector, can Canada explain further on what condition that Minister will issue a license to 
a foreign vessel?  
Canada's Response:  A foreign fishing vessel must be licenced by the Minister of Fisheries and 
Oceans in order to enter Canadian fisheries waters for any purpose.   The activities for which a licence may be issued, as well as associated licensing considerations and 
conditions, are listed in Section 5 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations .  
 [Indonesia Question 20]: On mining, Can Canada explain further on what conditions that this restriction may not be applied? 
 
Canada's Response:  Exemptions to the policy may be granted by the Government in cases 
where it can be clearly demonstrated that Canadian partners cannot be found to control or to hold 
a majority ownership in the uranium mining property. 
 [Indonesia Question 21]: On telecommunications, Can Canada explain further why the foreign 
ownership is restricted to 20%? 
 Canada's Response:  In 2012, Canada amended the Telecommunications Act and lifted its foreign 
investment restrictions for communications companies holding less than 10% of the total Canadian 
telecommunications market. If a company grows beyond the 10% limit of its business other than 
by way of merger or acquisitions, it will continue to be exempt.   
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements 
Page 46, paragraph 3.2 
 [Indonesia Question 22] :"The objective of the ACI programme is to provide CBSA officers with 
electronic pre-arrival information, in order to allow them to undertake risk assessments in advance 
of the arrival of commercial imports into Canada. During the period under review, the CBSA has 
pursued the implementation of the ACI programme wi th the rolling out, in 2011, of eManifest, its 
third and last phase. Under the first two phases, air and marine carriers were required to submit 
cargo and conveyance information electronically before their arrival. The eManifest programme 
extended this requirement to carriers for all highway and rail shipments. In addition, freight forwarders and are required to submit advance secondary data. The deployment of electronic 
systems was completed in 2011 for highway carriers and in May 2012 for rail carriers. The 
eManifest programme is expected to become fully operational in 2016. Timeframes for pre-arrival information are as set out in Table 3.1."  
Could Canada please inform what data are needed to be given to Canada's authority by the 
importers? 
 Canada's Response: In fact, to clarify, importers are not required to submit advance secondary 
data. Under the present regulatory framework, sole ly Carriers and Freight Forwarders are required 
to submit data but importing parties may act on the behalf of freight forwarders. The data elements are as follows:   WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 248 - 
 
  Black – Mandatory 
Red – Conditional Blue – Optional  
Carriers  are required to submit the following:  
 Cargo Data Elements: 
 Shipper 
 Consignee 
 Notify Party (if available) 
 Place of Acceptance (if different than shipper address) 
 Foreign Place of Loading 
 Port of Report 
 Port of Destination/Exit 
 Delivery Address (if different  from consignee address) 
 Customs Self-Assessment (CSA) Indicator 
 CSA Importer Business Number 
 Estimated Date of Arrival 
 Estimated Time of Arrival 
 Seal 
 Cargo Control Number (CCN) 
 Consolidated Freight Indicator 
 Description 
 Quantity 
 Cargo Weight 
 Dangerous Goods Number (if applicable) 
 Special Instructions (if available) 
 Amendment Code (if applicable) 
 Marks and Numbers (if available) 
 Equipment Identifier 
Conveyance Data Elements:  
 Port of Report 
 Conveyance Reference Number 
 Estimated Date of Arrival  
 Estimated Time of Arrival  
 Empty/Loaded Status Code 
 Seal  
 Amendment Code 
 Mode of Transportation  
 Equipment Identifier  
 Tractor Plate Information (Highway Only)  
 Trailer Plate information (Highway Only)  
 Container Information  
 Cargo Exception Code  
 Related CCN  
 
Freight Forwarders  are required to submit the following:  
 
Supplementary Report Data Elements  
 Supplementary Reference Number  
 Primary Cargo Control Number  
 Carrier Code of Primary Carrier  
 Movement Type  
 Mode of Transport  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 249 - 
 
   Consignee  
 Shipper  
 Notify Party 
 Description of Goods  
 Quantity  
 Weight  
 Port or Terminal of Delivery 
 Equipment Number  
 Empty/Loaded Status Code  
 Dangerous Goods Code  
House Bill Data Elements  
 Freight Forwarder Carrier Code  
  Mode Type  
  Movement Type 
  Cargo Control Number  
  Port of Destination  
  Port of Destination Sub-location  
  Shipper  
  Consignee  
  Notify Party 
  Delivery Address  
  Quantity 
  Quantity Unit of Measure  
  Cargo Description  
  Cargo Weight  
  Cargo Weight Unit of Measure  
  Special Instructions  
  Dangerous Goods Code  
  HS Code  
  Equipment Type  
  Equipment Identifier  
  Primary Cargo Control Number 
  Consolidator  
  Place of Consolidation  
  Consolidated Freight Indicator / House bill 
  Dangerous Goods Special Instructions  
House Bill Close  
 Previous Cargo Control Number  
 Freight Forwarder Carrier Code  
 Related Cargo Control Numbers  
 Amendment Reason Code  
 
3.1.4 Tariffs 
3.1.4.1 Applied MFN rate 
Page 53, paragraph 3.21  
[Indonesia Question 23]: "The 2014 applied MFN tariff (including AVEs) has rates ranging from 0 
to 532.2%, with a simple average tariff rate estimated at 6% (Table 3.5). The average applied tariff for agricultural products (WTO definition) stood at 22.5%." 
What is Canada's view on the proposal of tariff reduction in the context of post-Bali work program? 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 250 - 
 
  Canada's Response: Canada fully supports the multilateral trading system. Canada believes that 
a post-Bali work program can be developed when all Members take a pragmatic approach that balances the needs of all Members.
 
 
3.1.4.2 WTO bindings 
Page 55, paragraph 3.22  
[Indonesia Questions 24-25]: "Following the Uruguay Round, Canada bound all tariff lines in HS 
Chapters 1-97, except 24 tariff lines. Transposed to the 2014 tariff schedule, the average bound rate is 8.1% (Table 3.5). For one tariff line where the bound rate is specific, the applied MFN rate appears to exceed the bound rate once the AVE of the bound rate is calculated (Table 3.6). There 
are also five further tariff lines for which applied rates are marginally higher than bound rates, due 
to rounding."  
Could Canada give more explanation on this report?  
When will Canada bring these applied tariffs in order not to exceed their bound rates? 
 Canada's Response: For the one tariff line where the bound rate is specific and the applied rate 
is ad valorem  and it appears to exceed the bound once the AVE calculated, that tariff line has been 
revoked and reintroduced over the years with diff erent descriptions and rates. It has also been 
affected by HS transpositions and simplification of Canada's Tariff schedule. As such, it appears that either the bound rate and/or applied rate may be incorrect for this item as a result of these 
changes. Canada will undertake the necessary adjustments. 
With respect to the further five for which the applied rates appear to be marginally higher than bound rates due to rounding, these rates are ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) calculated by the 
Secretariat. Canada applies specific rates of duty for these items which have been in effect since 
January 1, 2000 (when these goods reached their final rates under the Uruguay Round reductions). The rates have been rounded according to the provisions in our Customs Tariff . 
Subsections 30(6) through (9) pertain to rounding the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff.  
Canada does not apply the ad valorem equivalent (AVE). If Canada was to apply the AVE for these products, it would ensure that it did not exceed the AVE of the bound rate. Excerpt from Canadian Customs Tariff : 
Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff 
Application of MFN Tariff 
 30. (1) Subject to section 24 and any order made under section 31, goods that originate 
in a country set out in the List of Countries are entitled to the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff rates of customs duty. 
…. 
Rounding percentage rates 
(6) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5) results in a rate of customs duty that 
includes a fraction of one per cent, the resulting percentage shall be rounded to the nearest one-
tenth of one per cent or, if the resulting percentage is equidistant from two one-tenths of one 
percent, to the higher of them. 
Rounding of rates other than 0.5 per cent 
(7) If, for any goods other than motor vehicles of tariff item No. 8701.20.00, heading No. 
87.02, 87.03, 87.04 or 87.05, and chassis therefor of heading No. 87.06, a reduction under any of 
subsections (3) to (5) or a rounding of rates under subsection (6) results in a rate of customs duty that includes a fraction of one per cent other than 0.5, the resulting percentage shall be rounded 
down to the nearest percentage that divides evenly by 0.5. 
Elimination of rates of less than two per cent 
(8) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5 ) results in a rate of customs duty that is a 
percentage of less than two per cent, the rate sh all be further reduced to "Free" immediately. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 251 - 
 
  Rounding specific rates 
(9) If a reduction under subsection (3), (4) or (5) results in a rate of customs duty that 
includes a specific rate that includes a fraction of one cent and the final rate 
o (a) is or includes a specific rate, the specific rate component of the reduced rate 
shall be rounded 
 (i) if the final rate is or includes a specific rate expressed in cents to two 
decimal places, to the nearest one-hundredth of a cent or, if the specific rate component of 
the reduced rate is equidistant from two one- hundredths of a cent, to the higher of them, 
 (ii) if the final rate is or includes a specific rate expressed in cents to one 
decimal place, to the nearest one-tenth of a cent or, if the specific rate component of the 
reduced rate is equidistant from two one-tenths of a cent, to the higher of them, and 
 (iii) in any other case, to the nearest cent or, if the specific rate component 
of the reduced rate is equidistant from two cents, to the higher of them; or 
o (b) is "Free" or does not include a specific rate, the specific rate component of the 
reduced rate shall be rounded as provided in subparagraphs ( a)(i) to (iii), except that the 
references to the final rate in subparagraphs ( a)(i) and (ii) shall be read as references to the 
initial rate. 
 
3.1.4.4 Tariff remission 
Page 57, paragraph 3.27  
[Indonesia Question 26]: "Two pieces of legislation provide for the remission of customs duties: 
the Customs Tariff and the Financial Administration Act (FAA). Remissions can also be granted on the basis of administrative circumstances, for instance, when incorrect information has been supplied by a CBSA official to a client. Tariff remissions are generally proposed in situations where 
it is not appropriate to provide relief by other means, such as statutory tariff amendments or 
through another Order." Could Canada please inform the procedures of tariff remission? 
 
Canada's Response: The governing authorities for granting a remission of customs duties are 
section 115 of the Customs Tariff  and section 23 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA). Section 
115 of the Customs Tariff  states that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the 
Minister of Finance or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)) , re mit customs duty paid on imported goods. In 
addition, under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act, the Governor in Council may remit 
any tax, penalty, or other debt, on the recommendation of the appropriate Minister. 
Requests for tariff remission are generally handled on a case by case basis.  Requests based on administrative circumstances are handled by the CBSA's Tariff Policy Division, while applications 
based on the Customs Tariff or the FAA are to be submitted to the Department of Finance. The 
final decision to recommend a remission is always at the discretion of the relevant Minister.  
3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports 
3.1.5.2 Excise taxes and duties Page 60, paragraph 3.37  
[Indonesia Question 27]: "Since April 2011, a new tobacco stamping regime is in place, replacing 
the tear-tape or paper stamps. Unstamped tobacco (e.g., imports for duty free shops, traveler's tobacco) is subject to a special duty at the rate of Can$0.10515 per cigarette or stick of tobacco, 
or Can$131.4376 per kilogram for other tobacco products. Special duties also apply to imported 
spirits destined to a licensed user at a rate of Can$0.12 per litre of absolute ethyl alcohol contained in the spirits." 
Could Canada please inform the procedures to obtain the stamp for imported tobacco? 
 Canada's Response:  Since April 2011, all tobacco products must have an excise stamp which 
shows that federal excise tax has been paid, fac ilitating the detection of counterfeit products. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 252 - 
 
  The possession of excise stamps is restricted to tobacco licensees and importers of tobacco 
products into the Canadian duty-paid market who are registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. Registered stamp users can then access an on-line stamp ordering system. Further information regarding the registration process under the tobacco stamping regime and the excise stamp order 
process can be found on the following Canada Revenue Agency webpages: 
For the registration process: http://www.cr a-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/em/edn28/edn28-e.pdf.  
For the order process: http://www.cra-ar c.gc.ca/E/pub/em/edn29/edn29-e.pdf.  
 
3.1.5.3 Other provincial taxes Page 60, paragraph 3.38  
[Indonesia Question 28]: "Some provinces levy additional taxes on products such as tobacco, fuel 
and alcoholic beverages (Table 3.9). All these duties are consumption taxes and are generally applied equally to imports and domestic production, with the exception of reduced rates for certain 
domestic products in select provinces. With respect to the application of fuel taxes, various 
commercial operators benefit from fuel tax exemptions or rebates, including manufacturers, miners, farmers, fishermen, and persons involved in forestry."  
Could Canada please inform the products which are given the reduction rates for additional taxes? 
 Canada's Response: Based on the input received from provinces and territories, our 
understanding is that fuel products (e.g. diesel fu el) qualify for a reduced provincial or territorial 
tax rate in certain provinces and territories. With respect to charges applied to certain alcoholic 
beverages at the provincial level, Canada notes that cost of service differential charges, which may lead to a higher mark-up at retail on imported products, were found to be GATT compliant, as long 
as they are no greater than the additional costs necessarily associated with marketing imported 
products.  
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
Page 72, paragraph 3.84  [Indonesia Question 29]: "Canada is in the midst of important changes to its food safety system. 
On 22 November 2012, the Safe Food for Canadians Act (SFCA) received Royal Assent. The SFCA 
aims at stronger food safety rules and more cons istent and effective inspection, and provides for 
increased penalties for non-compliance. The Ac t will consolidate and replace existing food 
legislation, other than the FDA56, and enhance inspection powers. It applies to all food 
commodities that are traded inter-provincially and internationally, but not to natural health products. The new legislative framework prohibits food tampering, deceptive practices and hoaxes. 
Parties may still have recourse to a judicial review by the Federal Court if they are unsatisfied with 
the appeal mechanism."  
Could Canada please inform the changes that the new Act brought to the imported products from other countries? 
 
Canada's Response: All food imported into Canada must meet all applicable Canadian 
requirements including the requirement(s) that th e food(s) be safe. In addition, the regulatory 
framework proposed under the SFCA would require that persons who import food into Canada 
meet all applicable requirements, including, but not limited to:    
1) holding a licence, which requires: 
 • a fixed place of business in Canada, or  • if a person does not have a fixed place of business in Canada, a fixed place of business in a 
foreign state from which they carry on business related to the food that has been determined to 
provide at least the same level of protection as  that provided by the SFCA and its proposed 
regulations. In addition, the food would be requir e d  t o  b e  s e nt  o r  c o n v e y e d  d i r e c t l y  t o  C a n a d a 
from that foreign state. 
 
2) have preventive controls in place, including a preventive control plan; and 
3) meet traceability requirements to maintain records indicating who the product was bought from 
and who it was sold to. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 253 - 
 
  3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
3.2.4 Export support and promotion Page 76, paragraph 3.103  
[Indonesia Questions 30-31]: "The TCS is under the responsibility of the DFATD from which it 
receives its funding. Its services are free of ch arge, and available to companies and organizations 
deemed having meaningful economic ties in Canada, a demonstrated capacity for 
internationalization, and contributing to Canada's economic growth. During the fiscal year 2012-
13, the actual level of spending by the DFATD under the International Commerce Business line amounted to Can$160.6 million, a slight decline compared to the previous fiscal year. Most of 
these resources (78%) are spent under the International Business Development. It is estimated 
that the TCS has helped businesses to conclude  about 950 commercial agreements and facilitated 
147 FDI projects worth Can$2.7 billion of inve stment. Between 2010 and 2014, TCS disbursed an 
estimated amount of Can$53.2 million under its various programmes (Table 3.12)." 
Does the TCS program given only to company and organization from Canada? 
Could Canada please inform the services that TCS program would be given to companies and organization? 
 
Canada's Response: TCS services are offered free of charge to client companies and 
organizations. If an organization is part of the Canadian business community, and contributes to 
Canada's economic growth, has a demonstrated capacity for internationalization and has good 
potential to add value to the Canadian economy, it can benefit from TCS services. Meaningful 
economic ties include maintaining established offices, a subsidiary, a plant, a research and development establishment or a joint venture in Canada. A capacity for internationalization is 
reflected in having researched foreign markets,  dedicated human and financial resources, and 
having a business plan. Increased economic activity benefitting Canada could be increased exports of Canadian-made products or services, technology transfer, new job creation, increased research 
and development activity or increased production in Canada. 
 
Information on the services provided by the TCS can be found online at  
http://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca /eng/how-tcs-can-help.jsp. Th ey include the following: 
 
 Prepare for International Markets  – The TCS works with clients to: 
o Determine if you are internationally competitive 
o Decide on a target market 
o Collect market and industry information 
o Improve your international business strategy 
 Assess Market Potential 
o Market intelligence : the TCS offers up-to-date information on foreign markets. 
The TCS can inform clients about barriers and regulations associated with 
entering a specific region, provide an overview of the competitive landscape, 
and share knowledge about upcoming opportunities or emerging trends. 
o A d v i c e  o n  i m p l e m e n t i n g  y o u r  m a r k e t  s t r a t e g y : The TCS can provide clients 
with practical advice on such areas as navigating business and cultural 
practices, local representation, market entry strategies and participation in 
global value chains. The TCS can also identify upcoming events such as trade 
fairs, conferences, partnering seminars or trade missions. 
 Find Qualified Contacts  – With on-the-ground presence in more than 160 cities 
worldwide, the TCS knows the key players who can help clients pursue their market 
strategy or help them resolv e problems. Contacts include: 
o Potential buyers and partners 
o Professionals in financial and legal institutions 
o Technology sources 
o Agents 
o Manufacturers' representatives 
o Foreign regulatory authorities 
o 
Foreign investment promotion agencies WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 254 - 
 
   Resolve Business Problems  – Although the TCS cannot enter into private disputes or 
act on a client's behalf in legal situations, the TCS can advise on market access 
problems and other business challenges including: 
o customs clearance and shipping 
o unfair business treatment 
o contract bidding 
o storage and warehousing 
o insurance coverage and claims 
o overdue accounts receivable 
 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.4 State trading, state-owned enterprises, and privatization 
3.3.4.2 Federal Crown Corporations  Page 87, table 3.22 
 
[Indonesia Questions 32-33]: Table 3.22 Crown Corporations, 2014  
Crown 
corporation 
and 
sector Mandate Assets (Dec. 2012) 
Can$ million 
Agriculture   
Canadian Dairy 
Commission  To provide efficient producers of milk and cream with 
the opportunity of obtaining a fair return for their 
labor and investment and to provide consumers of 
dairy products with a continuous and adequate 
supply of dairy products of high quality.  117.5  
Farm Credit 
Canada To enhance rural Canada by providing specialized 
and personalized business and financial services and 
products to farming operations, including family farms, and businesses in rural Canada, including small and medium sized busi nesses, that are related 
to farming. The primary focu s of the activities of the 
corporation shall be on farming operations, including family farms. 25,925.2 
Ow 
How is the operational mechanism of Farm Credit Canada?  
Please give us detailed information of this programme? 
 
Canada's Response : Farm Credit Canada (FCC) is a federal commercial crown corporation, 
reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. FCC fulfils its mandate 
by offering loans and services to the agriculture and agri-food industry. 
Farm Credit Canada is a financially self-sustaining federal Crown corporation. It is not a programme. FCC provides financing, loans, insuranc e, software, learning programs and services to 
the agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada. More information can be found online at 
https://www.fcc-fac.ca/en.html.  
 4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture and Fisheries 
4.1.1 Overview Page 109, paragraph 4.3 
 
[Indonesia Question 34]: "Canada's large agricultural production amply exceeds domestic demand 
for those products, thus international trade is critical to the sector. Canada is among the major 
players in international trade of agricultural products. In 2012, Canada was the fifth-largest 
exporter of agricultural and agri-food products, accounting for 3.5% of the total value of world's exports. Similarly, Canada was the sixth-largest importer of agricultural products, accounting for 2.7% of the total value of world imports. The Un i t e d  S t a t e s  i s  b y  f a r  C a n a d a ' s  m a j o r  t r a d i n g  
partner in agricultural products, being the source of 61.2% of Canada's imports and the 
destination market for 48.4% of exports."  
How is the management system for utilization and management of Canadian farmers so they can 
grow up to be one of the highly developed countries in the agricultural sector?  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 255 - 
 
  Canada's Response: The Canadian agriculture and agri-food system (AAFS) is a complex and 
integrated supply chain which includes input and service suppliers, primary producers, food and 
beverage processors, food retailers and wholesal ers, and foodservice providers. The activities 
along this supply chain generate significant econom ic benefits at both the federal and provincial 
levels. Canada's agriculture sector is a resilient system that continuously responds to the 
challenges and opportunities it faces by restructuring and adapting to changing consumer 
demands, advancing technology and globalization. All of these components work together ensure 
that Canada's Agriculture sector remains a driving force in international trade. 
 Page 110, paragraph 4.4 
[Indonesia Question 35]: "Canada is a major player in international food assistance, providing it 
mainly through grants. Most food assistance is channelled either through the World Food 
Programme (WFP), of which Canada is one of the largest donor countries or the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, a non-profit charitable organization involved in humanitarian and development 
activities. In 2011-12, Canada provided a total of 306,422 tonnes of food aid to 40 LDCs and 14 
Net Food-Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs), valued at Can$258 million. This represented a volume increase of 36% compared to the previous period. Nearly half of this assistance was 
channelled through the WFP."  
How is the mechanism to utilize the international food assistance? please give us detailed information  
Canada's Response: Canada does not directly provide food as part of its international food 
assistance programming, but rather funds key food assistance partners, such as World Food Programme and the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, who in turn procure and provide food to 
beneficiaries. Canada provides all of its food assistance in fully grant form, which is also in line 
with the new Food Assistance Convention that came into force in 2013.   As background, in 2008, Canada fully untied its food assistance budget, opening 100 percent of its 
food assistance budget to international procurement.   
 
4.1.2 Border measures 
Page 110, paragraph 4.5 
 
[Indonesia Question 36]:  "Based on the 2014 MFN tariff, Canada's average level of applied tariff 
protection for the agricultural sector (WTO definition) remained at 22.5%, almost unchanged 
compared to the last review (Table 3.4). This relatively high level of protection is driven essentially 
by dairy products (with an average tariff rate of 238.7%), animal products (47%) and to a lesser extent, cereal products (28.2%)." 
 
Could Canada provide its intention to lower ta riff protection for th e agricultural sector? 
Canada's Response:  Supply management is based on matching domestic production to domestic 
demand while ensuring a reasonable return for producers and stable prices for consumers. 
Predictable levels of imports, maintained throug h the use of tariff quotas, are necessary to the 
functioning of the system. Canada has implemented and continues to abide by its commitments in its Uruguay Round schedule of tariff concessions. 
 
4.1.4 Export measures Page 116, paragraph 4.26 
 
[Indonesia Question 37]: "Canada's WTO export subsidy reduction commitments apply to 11 
product groups: wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains, oilseeds, vegetable oils, oilcakes, butter, skim milk powder, cheese, other milk products, vegetables, and incorporated products. However, 
only five product groups are actually subject to subsidies, with commitment levels being regularly 
reached for milk products and incorporated products (Table 4.2). For the marketing year running from August 2011 to July 2012, total export subs idies outlays declined by 2.3% to Can$88.3 
million, representing some 0.14% of agricultural ex ports. According to the authorities, preliminary 
figures for 2012-13 indicate that Canada remains well within its export subsidies commitments."  
To what extent, Canada is ready to eliminate its export subsidies? 
Canada's Response:  Canada supports the elimination of expo rt subsidies as part of a balanced 
outcome in the Doha agriculture negotiations, i.e. this effort would need to be reflective of the WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 256 - 
 
  overall level of ambition in all three negotiat ing pillars (domestic support, market access and 
export competition). 
4.1.6 Selected sub-sectors 
4.1.6.2 Milk and dairy products 
Page 119, paragraph 4.36 
 [Indonesia Question 38]: "The dairy industry is the third largest contributor to Canada's 
agriculture and agri-food output, after the grains  and red meat industries. It generated nearly 
Can$6 billion in farm revenues in 2013 (Table 4.6) . The industry relies on more than 12,000 dairy 
farms, located mostly in the provinces of Quebec (49.2%) or Ontario (32.3%). The industry is on a concentration path, with the number of farm s declining by 10% between 2008 and 2013, and 
about 75% of the milk production being processed by only 14% of the processing plants (owned 
by the three largest processors). Support levels for the dairy industry remain high; the Producer 
SCT as a share of revenue was 43.8% in 2013. The overall framework and regulation of the dairy 
sector has not changed significantly since the last review."  
Are there any specific investment programme to help the increasing of world dairy production in the countries that is not maximised in developing their dairy production?  
Canada's Response: As part of its international engagement efforts, Canada actively seeks 
opportunities for strengthened agricultural cooperation. Although no specific investment programs exist to increase dairy production in other countries, Canada has signed a number of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with countries to explore cooperation in areas of mutual interest/benefit 
( i . e . ,  d a i r y / m i l k  p r o d u c t i o n ) .  O n c e  a n  M O U  h a s been signed, Canada and its partner identify 
specific projects under each area that can be implemented generally through seminars or workshops.  
 
4.3 Services 
4.3.3 Tourism 
4.3.3.2 Legal and Regulatory Framework 
Page 147, paragraph 4.146  [Indonesia Question 39]: "Canada does not have a federal tourism act or legislation, only the Act 
establishing the CTC. Activities including visa issuance and facilitation, air sector competitiveness 
and border clearance are governed federally; however, other laws and regulations for tourism activities and travel agents are at the provincial /territorial level. For example, the licencing of 
travel agents, regulation of the food and bevera ge and accommodations industries, food safety, 
and liquor distribution and sale are all governed by provinces/territories subject to their individual legislation. Some provinces, such as British Colu mbia, Ontario and Quebec, have a specific Travel 
Assurance Fund to compensate consumers who do not receive their travel services. Other areas, 
such as hotel green eco-rating, tour operators approved to offer travel for Chinese groups, and a passenger rights code of conduct for airlines, are voluntary programmes by the private sector." Tourism is regulated federally regarding visa, while other regulations on tourism are provincial. It 
might be difficult to fulfill the requirements since every province has its own procedures. 
Does Canada have a single door mechanism to facilitate other countries interested in providing its tourism services to Canada? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada does not have a single window to facilitate other countries 
interested in providing tourism services to Canada. Access depends on the type of tourism service 
that is being offered. For example, establishing a direct flight to Canada or building a new hotel in 
Canada, would require dealing with different regulators representing various levels of government.  
 
OTHER QUESTIONS 
[Indonesia Question 40]: On June 2014, Citizenship and immigration Canada issued new 
restrictive regulation on Intra-Company Transfers.  The more burdensome provisions indicate that 
an Intra-Company Transfers must: 
‐ Show a high degree of both proprietary knowledge and advance expertise; 
‐ Be paid at least prevailing wage; and 
‐ Be supervised in Canada (not the home country). WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 257 - 
 
  It is assumed that the new provisions can be applied only to transferee on high-level 
management (regarding prevailing wage). It is restrictive to some unique services company such as spa. The spa therapists have both pr oprietary knowledge and advance expertise, but 
they are not in high-level management. Thus, the spa company could not fulfill the second 
provision. 
Is it possible for Canada to assist this type of service providers in order to allow them providing services in Canada? 
 
Canada's Response:  In 2014, Canada published guidelines for officers assessing work permit 
applications for intra-company transferees (ICTs) with specialized knowledge. These guidelines provide additional clarification around the determination of specialized knowledge in order to 
ensure that the program is used as intended. One of the elements for assessing specialized 
knowledge is comparing the wage being offered to the transferee to the Canadian prevailing wage 
for the specific occupation and region of work . For example, if an intra-company transferees 
specialized knowledge transferee is coming to work as a spa therapist in Toronto, the wage being 
offered to the intra-company transferees would be compared to the prevailing wage being paid to 
spa therapists working in Toronto. Note that the prevailing wage is not an overall average wage for 
all workers in Canada. If a service supplier does  not meet the criteria for an intra-company 
transferees with specialized knowledge, an applicat ion for entry to Canada to work could be made 
under either one of the other categories of the International Mobility Program or the Temporary 
Foreign Worker Program. 
 
[Indonesia Question 41]: Could Canada please inform regarding the draft on the import prohibition on clove cigarette in 2 Provinces in Canada: Alberta and Ontario? 
 
Canada's Response:  The federal government works closely with provincial governments to 
ensure the consistency of their measures with Canada's international trade obligations.   
Ontario's Schedule 2 of Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act , amends the Smoke-Free Ontario 
Act to prohibit the sale of all favoured  tobacco products in the province.  
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/b ills/bills_detail.do?locale= en&Intranet=&BillID=3080 
I t s  p u r p o s e  i s  t o  m a k e  i t  h a r d e r  f o r  y o u t h  t o  o b t a i n  t o b a c c o  p r o d u c t s  a n d  t o  p e r m i t  t h e  
government to further limit exposure to second-hand smoke in public areas.    
  As a result of the Tobacco Reduction Amendment Regulation , Alberta has prohibited characterizing 
flavours in tobacco products except for pipe tobacco and cigars that have a retail price of more 
than $4.00 each and weigh more than 5 grams. Th e prohibition on clove cigarettes took effect on 
June 1, 2015.  
The purpose of this prohibition is to help better protect Alberta's youth from tobacco. 
 [Indonesia Question 42]: Indonesia seeks a clarif ication regarding the regulations of Genetically 
M o d i f i e d  O r g a n i s m  ( G M O )  a n d  G e n e t i c a l l y  M o d i f i e d  F o o d  ( G M F ) ,  a s  w e l l  a s  t h e  S a f e  F o o d  f o r  
Canadian Act? 
 
Canada's Response: Information on Safe Food for Canadians Act  and Regulations : 
All food produced in Canada, impo rted into Canada, sold in Canada , or exported from Canada must 
meet all applicable Canadian requirements includ ing the requirement(s) that the food(s) be safe. 
There are currently no additional or specific legislative or regulatory requirements for Genetically 
Modified Organisms (GMO) or Genetically Modified Foods (GMF) in regulations proposed under the 
Safe Food for Canadians Act .  
 
The proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations  will consolidate and harmonize 13 sets of 
regulations with a single set of provisions that will apply internationally recognized food safety 
standards and principles (e.g. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point and Good Manufacturing 
Practices) to all food that is imported into Canada or prepared for interprovincial trade or export. The proposed provisions will articulate specific and measurable outcomes, thereby providing 
industry with greater flexibility to determine how the outcome can be achieved.  
 
It should be noted that the regulations proposed under the Safe Food for Canadians Act  (SFCA) 
are still under development and are not yet in forc e. Canada will notify when regulations have 
been proposed and seek comments from WTO Memb ers and will take any comments provided into 
consideration in the final regulations.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 258 - 
 
  Information on Government of Canada's approach to Genetically Modified Organisms and 
Genetically Modified Food: 
Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) carry joint responsibility for 
federal food labelling policies in Canada under the Food and Drugs Act . Health Canada is 
responsible for setting food labelling policies with  respect to health and safety matters (i.e., 
nutritional content, special dietary needs, etc.). Th is applies to all foods, including foods that have 
been derived through genetic engineering. CFIA is responsible for the development of non-health 
and safety food labelling regulations and policies and enforcement of all food labelling legislation. The CFIA sets standards for Canadian food labels so  that they will be truthful and not misleading. 
These standards help consumers to make informed choices about the foods they eat. 
The Novel Food Regulations  under the Food and Drugs Act  and Regulations  (Division 28) establish 
a clear and stringent process for evaluating the sa fety of novel foods, including those that have 
been genetically modified (GM). Manufacturers and importers of novel foods are required to notify 
Health Canada of their intention to market a new product in Canada, before sale or advertisement for sale. This pre-market notification permits Health Canada to conduct a thorough safety 
assessment of the proposed product. 
The safety assessment of GM food includes the fo llowing considerations: evaluation of the process 
used to develop the food product; comparison of its characteristics to those of traditional food 
counterparts; its nutritional quality; the potential for new toxicants or anti-nutrients; and the potential allergenicity of any proteins that have been introduced into the food.  
In Canada, food products derived from genetic modifications that are demonstrated to be safe are 
treated the same as non-genetically modified food with regard to labelling requirements. 
For information on novel foods, consult the Heal th Canada web site at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-
an/contact/index-eng.php  
[Indonesia Question 43]: Currently Canada enforces the provisions of standards and technical 
regulations namely the Bill C-32 that the prov isions of the Tobacco Act which prohibits the 
production and marketing of tobacco to prevent cigarette does not trigger youth people to smoke. 
In Provincial level, Province of Alberta enforces the Regulation of "Tobacco Reduction " (Flavoured 
Tobacco Products) Amendment Act, 2013-Bill 206. This  regulation prohibit all flavoured tobacco 
products in Alberta Province include clove that co nsidered having flavoured charateristic, but give 
exceptions for menthol cigarettes.  
Indonesia would like to reiterate our specific trade concerns regarding Canada's legislation on 
tobacco products containing certain flavoring and additives. The Provincial Government of Alberta 
recently introduces "Tobacco Reduction (Flavored Tobacco Products) Amendment Act, 2013 – Bill 
206" which works towards a ban on flavored tobacco products with an exception of menthol 
products. It is important to note that the WTO has rejected placing greater restrictions on clove products than menthol products. Canada is requested to explain the role of Federal Government in 
the case that Provincial legislation found inconsistent with Canada's commitment in the WTO. 
Indonesia seeks to find solution that kretek clove tobacco be exempted under Bill 206.  Canada's Response: The federal government works closely with provincial governments to 
ensure the consistency of their measures with Canada's international trade obligations.   
As a result of the Tobacco Reduction Amendment Regulation , Alberta has prohibited characterizing 
flavours in tobacco products except for pipe tobacco and cigars that have a retail price of more 
than $4.00 each and weigh more than 5 grams. Alberta has not exempted menthol cigarettes from 
the prohibition. The prohibition for menthol cigarettes takes effect on September 30, 2015.  The purpose of this prohibition is to help better protect Alberta's youth from tobacco. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 259 - 
 
  JAPAN 
Report by the Secretariat 9WT/TPR/S/314) 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
4.2 Mining and Energy  
4.2.2 Energy  
4.2.2.1 Crude Petroleum  
Page 127, paragraph 4.69 
 
[Japan Question 1]: Canada's Response to [Japan Question 7], p.74, Replies to Advance Written Questions According to the response to Japan, Question 7,  Canada explained that, when taking an export 
restriction relating to an energy or basic petrochemical good, Canada would apply Article 605 of 
NAFTA in accordance with the relevant provisions of GATT such as Articles XI, XIII, XX, and XXIV. 
Japan appreciates the above answer but finds that it has yet to sufficiently specify how Canada 
justifies the application of Article 605 of NAFTA against the obligation under the above relevant 
provisions of GATT. While these relevant provisions of GATT require quantitative restrictions in a non-discriminatory manner, Article 605 of NAFTA looks prima facie in breach of them, unless 
otherwise justified by exceptions in the GATT. Japan is interested in what exception Canada relies 
on.  With regard to Article 605 of NAFTA, Japan woul d also like to know (1) the standard for the 
determination that a price for exports of an energy  good is higher than the price charge for such 
good when consumed domestically, (2) how Article 605 relates to Article 604 (Export Taxes) of 
NAFTA.  
Canada's Response:  As previously noted, Article 605 obligations come into play when exceptions 
under GATT Articles XI:2(a) and XX(g), (i), or (j) have already been satisfied. Moreover, Article 
605 and other NAFTA obligations need to be considered in the light of GATT Article XXIV.  The 
conditions and circumstances associated with each of these provisions vary, and Canada would 
have to evaluate them in the context of the partic ular circumstances in which they may be applied. 
As noted, Canada would apply them in a manner that is consistent with its other trade obligations as they apply in the given circumstances.  
 
As Canada has explained, Article 605 has never been applied. Therefore NAFTA Parties have never had to confront the question of its application in the light of how various articles of NAFTA Chapter 
6 interrelate. Canada also recalls that the NAFT A was negotiated more than two decades ago and 
since then there have been significant change in  energy markets, which add further complexities 
as to how these provisions may actually be applied. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 260 - 
 
  THAILAND 
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314) 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.4 Investment Regime 
2.4.2 Investment Canada Act 
Page 41, paragraph 2.37  
[Thailand Question 1]: Please identify the type of a new Canadian business which established by 
foreign investors.  Canada's Response:  A "new Canadian business" is defined in the Investment Canada Act  as a 
business that is not already being carried on in Canada by the non-Canadian and that, at the time 
of its establishment, (a) is unrelated to any other business being carried on in Canada by that non-Canadian, or (b) is related to another business being carried on in Canada by that non-Canadian 
but falls within a prescribed specific type of busine ss activity that, in the opinion of the Governor in 
Council, is related to Canada's cultural heritage or national identity.  
2.4.3 Other Investment Restrictions 
Page 44, table 2.6  [Thailand Question 2]: What is Canada's rationale in capping foreign ownership to 20% shares of a 
telecommunication carrier? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada introduced its foreign investme nt restrictions in 1987 when the then 
Minister of Communications issued "A Policy Framework for Telecommunications in Canada" with a 
view to harmonize Canadian policy with that of other countries and ensure our national sovereignty, security and economic, social and cultural well-being. Over the past few years Canada 
has revised its foreign investment restrictions for telecommunications, allowing for more liberal 
investment in the telecommunications industry. The following are the remaining restrictions: 1. Canada reserves the right to adopt or maintain a measure: (a) limiting foreign investment in facilities-based telecommunications service suppliers, provided 
that the measure adopted or maintained by Canada does not limit foreign investment to less than 
a cumulative total of 46.7 percent of voting inte rest, based on 20 percent direct investment and 
33.3 percent indirect investment; 
(b) requiring that facilities-based telecommunications service suppliers be controlled in fact by a 
Canadian; (c) requiring that at least 80 percent of the member s of the board of directors of facilities-based 
telecommunications service suppliers be Canadian. 
2. The following exceptions apply to this reservation: (a) foreign investment is allowed up to 100 percent for suppliers conducting operations under an international submarine cable license; 
(b) mobile satellite systems of a foreign service supplier may be used by a Canadian service 
supplier to supply services in Canada; (c) fixed satellite systems of a foreign service supplier may be used to supply services between 
points in Canada and all points outside Canada. 
(d) foreign investment is allowed up to 100 perc ent for suppliers conducting operations under a 
satellite authorization; and 
(e) foreign investment is allowed up to 100 percent for facilities-based telecommunications service 
suppliers that have revenues, including those of its affiliates, from the provision of telecommunications services in Canada representing less than 10 percent of the total telecommunications services annual revenues in Canada. 
 Where an exception applies, it applies to 1(a) , 1(b) and 1(c). For suppliers with less than 10 
percent of total telecommunications revenues referr ed to in 2(e), such suppliers may grow their 
market share to greater than 10 percent, but ma y not do so through the acquisition of other 
suppliers. Please refer to Section 16 of Canada's Telecommunications Act  and the Foreign 
Ownership and Control Regulations for complete details. An applicant must also demonstrate that it is not "controlled in fact" by a non-Canadian, on the 
basis of personal, financial, contractual or business relations, or on the basis of any other 
considerations relevant to determining "control in fact". The Canadian Radio-television and Communications Commission (CRTC) has authority under both the Telecommunications Act  to 
determine whether Canadians "control in fact" telecommunications companies. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 261 - 
 
   
2.4.4 Investment Promotion Page 44, paragraph 2.42  
[Thailand Question 3]: What are the conditions for foreign investors in applying for the Foreign 
Trade Zone-Marketing Program (FTZ-MP)?  
Canada's Response:  Foreign investors are not eligible to apply for the FTZ-MP. Eligible recipients 
for the FTZ-MP are Canadian regional organizations and non-profit organizations with a mandate to promote local Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) benefits.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.3 Rules of Origin 
Pages 50-55, table 3.3-paragraph 3.23 
 [Thailand Question 4]: According to pages 50 and 55 of the Report by WTO Secretariat, Canada 
gives preferential tariffs and preferential rules of  origin to Australia and New Zealand. However, 
according to page 38 of the Report, Canada does not have any FTA with Australia and New Zealand. Please indicate the rationale and lega l basis for such preferences given to the two 
countries and how this preferential treatment is consistent with the MFN provision under the GATT . 
 
Canada's Response: Canada grants preferences to Australia and New Zealand through bilateral 
trade agreements. Preferential treatment under bo th agreements is limited in scope and depth. 
These longstanding agreements give preferential ta riff treatment (i.e. a margin of preference) to a 
specified list of products. The agreements extend the margins of preference that were originally 
provided to all Commonwealth countries as part of the Canada-U.K. Trade Agreement of 1937 
which predates the GATT. Preferences predatin g the GATT are governed by paragraph 2 of 
Article 1.  3.1.6 Imports prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
Page 63, paragraph 3.43 
 [Thailand Question 5]: According to permit requirements of textiles and clothing product, permits 
are granted on a first-come-first-served basis. Is  there any quantity restriction imposed on the 
said products? If so, please provide detailed information on the quantity restriction. Whether are they considered as automatic or non-automatic permit? 
 
Canada's Response:  In order to monitor quota utilization rates, import permits are required for 
imports of textile and clothing products that are el igible for Tariff Preference Level (TPL) benefits.  
TPL provisions allow TPL-eligible goods to receive a tariff rate treatment equivalent to an 
originating good for certain non-originating textile and clothing goods - up to a negotiated level. 
TPL imports that go beyond the negotiated quanti ty do not require import permits and are subject 
to an MFN duty rate. 
 
Negotiated Annual Tariff Pref erence Level Import Quotas 
Free Trade Agreement Textile and Clothing39 
North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) United States 
Wool apparel: 919 740 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre apparel: 9 000 000 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre fabrics and made-up goods: 2 000 000 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre spun yarns: 1 000 000 KGM 
Mexico 
Wool apparel: 250 000 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre apparel: 6 000 000 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre fabrics and made-up goods: 7 000 000 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre spun yarns: 1 000 000 KGM 
                                               
39 Other than for yarns, primary units of measure ar e converted into Square Metre Equivalents (SME). WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 262 - 
 
  Negotiated Annual Tariff Pref erence Level Import Quotas 
Canada-Chile Free Trade 
Agreement (CCFTA) Wool apparel: 112 616 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre apparel: 2 252 324 SME 
Cotton or man-made fabrics and made-up goods: 1 000 000 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre spun yarn: 500 000 KGM 
Wool fabrics and made-up goods: 250 000 SME 
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade 
Agreement (CCCRFTA) Apparel goods: 1 379 570 SME 
Cotton or man-made fabrics and made-up goods: 1 000 000 SME 
Cotton or man-made fibre spun yarn: 150 000 KGM 
Wool fabrics and made-up goods: 250 000 SME 
Canada-Honduras Free Trade 
Agreement (CHFTA) Fabrics and made-up goods: 1 000 000 SME 
Apparel goods: 4 000 000 SME 
Source: http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/textiles/im-15.aspx?lang=eng. 
Canada has an automated permitting system which processes import permit applications within a 
15 minute service standard. Permits requiring assistance by an officer are processed within 4 
hours.  Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD) also posts guides and publications on our 
website to assist importers applying for permits on the DFATD website: 
http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-con troles/textiles/index.aspx?lang=eng. 
 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and trade 
3.3.3 Competition policy and price controls 3.3.3.1 Main regulatory and institutional framework Page 82, paragraph 3.120 
 
[Thailand Question 6]: Comprehensive coverage of competition policy is important not only to ensure competition in specific markets but also  competition in downstream markets. Does the 
reach of competition policy (and its enforcement) extend to all goods and services markets? Or are 
owned by national government (State-Owned Enterprise: SOE)?  
Canada's Response:  As noted in the Secretariat report, the Competition Act is a framework law 
of general application that applies to most busi nesses and sectors of the economy. However, there 
are a number of provisions contained in the Competition Act  and other legislation that modify or 
exempt the application of the Competition Act  in certain circumstances. For example, the Shipping 
Conferences Exemption Act, 1987  exempts certain shipping conference practices from the 
provisions of the Competition Act . The Regulated Conduct Doctrine may also immunize certain 
conduct from provisions of the Competition Act . 
The Competition Act  does apply to Crown corporations (state-owned enterprises in Canada) 
engaged in commercial activities in actual or potential competition with other businesses.  [Thailand Question 7]: Please provide an overview of Canada's Anti-Spam Law (CASL). How does 
Canada's anti-spam Law (CASL) protect of unfair competition in this area? 
 Canada's Response: The intent of the anti-spam legislation is to deter the most damaging and 
deceptive forms of spam that impact Canadian s and Canadian businesses. The new law amends 
the Competition Act  in two key areas.  
First, new provisions have been added and others modified so that the Competition Bureau (Bureau) can more effectively address false or misleading representations and deceptive 
marketing practices in the electronic marketplace, including false or misleading sender or subject 
matter information, electronic messages, and locator information such as URLs and metadata.  Second, it includes technology-neutral language that catches emerging technologies. This will 
assist the Bureau in enforcing provisions in the Competition Act  as technological threats evolve. 
The amendments to the Competition Act  are specifically designed to address false or misleading 
commercial representations online, much in the same way as it currently does, but with more targeted enforcement tools.  
 
[Thailand Question 8]: According to its 2014-15 Annual Plan, the Competition Bureau has set out 
four priorities for 2014-15: applying effective and integrated enforcement and administration of 
the Competition Act and labeling statutes; increasing competition promotion efforts to advance a 
culture of compliance and competition advocacy; aligning with and delivering on Government of Canada priorities; aligning with and delivering on Government of Canada priorities; and, increasing WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 263 - 
 
  organizational synergies through its people, planning and systems. Please provide more details 
concerning the 2014-15 Annual Plan that fall wi thin the Scope of Application of the Canadian 
Competition Act.  
Canada's Response: The Competition Bureau's ( Bureau ) legislated mandate is to help the 
Canadian marketplace be more competitive and innovative for the benefit of businesses and consumers. We are committed to doing so through all means available, from law enforcement to 
competition promotion.  
2014-15 was a year of success and change for the Bureau. We applied an integrated, whole-
Bureau approach to build trust and promote co nfidence with our stakeholders, and increase 
compliance with our legislation, making best use of the full set of tools at our disposal. We also 
increased our competition promotion efforts while aligning with Government of Canada priorities. 
Within the Bureau, our team worked even more closely to increase synergies and efficiency.  
Our 2014-15 Annual Plan set out the four priorities pursued by the Bureau as we continued our 
efforts to ensure that Canadians benefit from  a competitive and innovative marketplace: 
1. We applied effective and integrated enforcemen t and administration of our legislation , 
concluding 49 investigations and securing more than $25 million in combined fines, 
administrative monetary penalties ( AMPs)  and consumer restitution for cartel conduct, 
abuse of dominance and deceptive marketing.  
2. We increased competition promotion efforts to advance a culture of compliance and 
competition advocacy , completing two markets studies and making nine representations to 
regulators (up from three the previous year).  
3. We aligned with and delivered on Government of Canada priorities , complementing the 
government's consumer agenda. This work included supporting the government's focus on 
increased competition in the wireless industry, completing a market study on the propane 
industry and active enforcement of Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation.   
4. We increased organizational synergies through our people, planning and systems , 
implementing more integrated business processes and more effectively leveraging the 
diverse skill-sets of our employees to ensure fair, healthy competition in Canada.  
Three-Year Integrated Plan 
The Bureau's recently released three ‑year integrated planning approach strengthens the link 
between the Bureau's actions and its longer-ter m goals. It seeks to ensure that Canadians 
continue to benefit from a wide variety of products and services at competitive prices. 
The Bureau's Strategic Vision and Annual Plan are key components of this approach. 
2015-18: Strategic Vision 
To serve Canadians better, the Bureau published its 2015-2018 Strategic Vision on June 2, 2015. 
This vision, which will guide the Bureau's activities  over the next three years, will help improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the Bureau's co mpetition enforcement and competition promotion 
activities. Competition enforcement will continue to be the Bureau's primary focus. However, 
enforcement will be used in a more strategic way to complement our advocacy and competition 
promotion efforts to produce maximum benefit fo r Canadians. More specifically, the Vision 
identifies the following five strategic objectives for 2015-2018: 
 Increase Compliance  – Use all available tools to increase compliance with Canada's 
competition laws and prevent and deter anti-competitive or deceptive conduct that could threaten the health, growth and confidence in the Canadian economy.  
 Empower Canadians  – Create an environment of competitive prices, greater product choice 
and informed decision-making for the benefit of all Canadians. 
 Promote Competition  – Promote and advocate for a more competitive marketplace, 
emphasizing smart regulation focused on ac hieving legitimate regulatory objectives. WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 264 - 
 
   Collaborate with Partners  – Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote 
strong competition principles and expand opportunities for Canadian participation in world 
markets. 
 Champion Excellence  – Promote a culture of excellence throughout the Bureau founded on 
openness, collaboration and engagement, and securing tangible results. 
2015-16 Annual Plan 
Concurrently with the release of its 2015-2018 Strategic Vision, the Bureau also published its 
2015-2016 Annual Plan entitled " Protecting and Promoting Competition for the Benefit of All 
Canadians ". This forward-looking plan sets out the acti vities through which the Bureau will deliver 
on each of the objectives in its Vision during the current year.  
The publication of these documents supports the Bureau's Action Plan on Transparency , which 
promotes the development of a more cost-effective and responsive agency, while providing 
Canadians with more opportunities to learn about the Bureau's work.  
 
3.3.5 Government procurement 
3.3.5.3 Legal framework and process 
Page 95, paragraph 3.150  
[Thailand Question 9]: The paragraph states th at "The ACAN process can be used when the 
contracting authority believes that only one supplier is capable of performing the contract". Please explicate in greater detail whether there are any cr iteria explicitly stipulated in Canada's related 
laws/regulations that have been used by the contracting authority to make certain that there is 
only one supplier having capability to perform in accordance with the contract.  Canada's Response:  The Contracting Policy of the Treasury Board of Canada and the 
Government Contracts Regulations  (GCRs) govern the conduct of procurement for the federal 
government. Both are established through the power and authority of the Financial Administration 
Act. To ensure that there is only one supplier capable of undertaking a contract pursuant to an 
ACAN, the Contracting Policy sets out specific criteria and procedures for their use. They are: 
1. The contracting situation must meet one of th e four exceptions of the GCRs, which permits 
the setting aside of the requirement to solicit bids, and, if applicable, the limited tendering 
provision of the trade agreement(s). 
2. Potential suppliers must be provided with the opportunity to demonstrate, by way of a 
statement of capabilities, that they are capable of satisfying the requirements set out in 
the ACAN.  
3. An ACAN must be posted for 15 days and: 
o indicate that a contract will be awarded to a pre-identified contractor if no other 
supplier submits a statement of capabilities that meets the requirements set out in the 
ACAN; 
o provide sufficient information in order to allow a potential supplier to determine if it 
possesses the capabilities required to satisfy the requirement, and to permit the contracting authority to have an adequate basis for reviewing a potential supplier's 
statement of capabilities; 
o the type of information which must be included in an ACAN is: 
 For goods requirements, a full description of the salient physical, functional, or 
other essential characteristics including performance requirements and, if applicable, part numbers, model numbers and/or brand names and optional 
items and quantities;  
 For services and construction requirements, a full description of the services to 
be provided, as well as the tasks to be performed, the objectives, expected 
results, performance standards, constraints (if any), and deliverables. 
 The required delivery date(s) or the period of the proposed contract, including 
options to extend the contract period; WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 265 - 
 
   The minimum essential requirements required to meet the requirement set out 
in the notice; and 
 The reason(s) for the proposed contract award, demonstrating why the pre-
selected supplier has been identified as the only supplier capable of meeting 
the government's requirements, and linking the justification for directing the contract to the applicable exception to soliciting bids under the Government 
Contracts Regulations and, if applicable, the Limited Tendering provisions of 
the trade agreements. 
4. To ensure impartiality, if a potential supplier submits a statement of capabilities, it must be 
reviewed by officials other than those who originally decided to proceed through the ACAN 
process. 
5. If other potential suppliers meet the requiremen ts set out in the ACAN, the department must 
proceed to a full tendering process. 
 
Page 95, paragraph 3.153 [Thailand Question 10]: The paragraph states that "Since 1996 Canada has maintained a strategy known as the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Businesses (PSAB), to foster aboriginal business 
development through the use of federal procuremen t contracts. Under certain conditions, a federal 
government procurement contract is set-aside for aboriginal businesses". Please explain the detail of the aforementioned conditions upon which the aboriginal businesses are fostered by the 
Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Businesses (PSAB). 
 Canada's Response:  A Federal government procurement is set-aside for aboriginal businesses 
under four conditions:  
1) On a mandatory basis when the good, service or construction is destined for an Aboriginal Community where the population is 80% Aboriginal People and the recipient of the good, service or construction is for the Aboriginal People.  
2) It may also be set-aside under the voluntary component if Canada can determine that 
there exists Aboriginal business capacity to perform the work.  3) While many Aboriginal businesses may not yet be in a position to bid on very large 
projects, they can enhance their competitive edge by building and expanding partnerships 
and strategic alliances with others. Joint ventures consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal businesses, or two or more Aboriginal businesses, may qualify as Aboriginal 
suppliers under the PSAB provided that the Aboriginal business or businesses have at least 
51 percent ownership and control of the joint venture. 4) Sub-contracting plans in federal procurement opportunities can be of further benefit to Aboriginal business. All departments and agencies awarding contracts are encouraged to 
request Aboriginal business sub-contracting plans within their solicitation documents. Such 
a plan could be mandatory or a point-rated evaluation criterion. The introduction of these elements into procurement may be developed in order to ensure appropriate consistency, 
fairness and effectiveness. However, neither of these options are available if the 
contracting opportunity is subject to NAFTA or the WTO-Agreement on Government Procurement. 
Since 1996, the PSAB has been working to strength en strategic partnerships between Aboriginal 
business owners, industry sectors and the Government of Canada. The benefits of the PSAB are explained in the video entitled "What PSAB can do for you" at the following link: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng /1403891518529/1 403891629310.  
In addition, it should be noted that the PS AB is excluded from Canada's Agreement on 
Government Procurement coverage (see General Note 3, Annex 7 of Canada's schedule to the WTO GPA: "This Agreement does not apply to any measure adopted or maintained with respect to 
Aboriginal peoples. It does not affect existing aboriginal or treaty rights of any of the Aboriginal 
peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.") Under the PSAB, Departments that contract in excess of $1 million annually must set annual 
performance objectives that address the following areas:  
 a. estimated number of contract awards to Aboriginal business;  b. estimated dollar value of contract awards to Aboriginal business. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 266 - 
 
  The Government of Canada informs suppliers by posting the requirement on the Government 
Electronic Tenders System (GETS – buyandsell.gc.ca). Suppliers are responsible for monitoring GETS to determine if a requirement has been po sted under the set-aside Program for Aboriginal 
Business either as a mandatory or voluntary set-aside opportunity.  
 
Canada has data regarding the value and number of contracts set-aside under the Federal Government Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Bu siness but does not have details on provincial 
procurement data. For the PSAB, AANDC, publishes on behalf of the government of Canada, an 
annual report which can be  found at: http://www.aadnc-
aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032805/1100100032806.  
3.3.5.4 WTO GPA and other agreements 
Page 96, paragraph 3.157  
[Thailand Question 11]: With regard to the NAFTA, please confirm as to whether there is a review 
mechanism for the government procurement disputes between the Parties, the function of which is 
analogous to the bi-national panel for trade remedi es disputes as embedded in Chapter 19 of the 
NAFTA. 
 Canada's Response:  Under NAFTA, there is no review mechanism for any disputes that might 
arise between Parties regarding procurement covere d by the Agreement. In the event of a dispute 
between Parties regarding government procuremen t, the provisions of Chapter 20 – Section B 
(State to State Dispute Settlement) would apply.  On the other hand, as required by Section C (Bid Challenge) of NAFTA 10 – the government 
procurement chapter, Canada has established a supplier bid challenge procedure to hear bid 
protects/complaints about procurement processe s subject to NAFTA Chapter 10. The Canadian 
International Trade Tribunal is the domestic admi nistrative tribunal given responsibility to hear 
challenges in relation to the federal procurement. 
 3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 3.3.6.7 The Trademark System 
Page 106, paragraph 3.190 
 [Thailand Question 12]: The paragraph informs that Canada will repeal the provision on the 
declaration of use of trademark as a condition of registration, will Canada also eliminate the 
provision regarding the withdrawal of trademark in case of non-use? In practice, how does Canada ascertain whether there is a real use by the trademark owner? 
 
Canada's Response:  The provision regarding the possible ca ncellation of a registered trademark 
for non-use will not be eliminated. In order to asce rtain whether there is real use by the registered 
trademark owner, the Registrar considers evidence of commercial activities provided by the owner 
demonstrating "use" of the trademark within the me aning of that term under s. 4 of the federal 
Trade-marks Act . 
 
3.3.6.8 Geographical indications 
Page 106, paragraph 3.196  
[Thailand Question 13]: According to the paragraph,  the protection of geographical indications of 
Canada goes beyond the level of protection requ ired by TRIPS Agreement, please explain how the 
law provides such extra protection, the scope of goods which are covered under this extra protection, and whether this extra protection extends beyond goods specified in the CKFTA. 
 
Canada's Response:  The Canada-Korea FTA provides for the protection of four Korean 
geographical indications; three for ginseng, one for rice. This protection was provided through 
implementation legislation for the FTA and it is limited to these four GIs.  
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 267 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 4.1.3 Domestic programmes 4.1.3.1 Business Risk Mana gement (BRM) programmes 
Page 113, paragraph 4.16 
 [Thailand Question 14]: Please explain in more detail about how allowance net sales and eligible 
producers of AgriInvest are determined. 
 Canada's Response:  Under AgriInvest, an individual or Entity is eligible to participate if they 
have carried on the business of farming in Canada and reported Farming Income (or loss) for 
income tax purposes. 
Allowable Net Sales (ANS) are calculated as the revenue from eligible agricultural commodities less purchases of eligible agricultural commodities. 
All agricultural commodities whose revenue is reportable as Farming Income are considered 
eligible commodities under AgriInvest, except for:  
 
a) Supply-Managed Commodities; 
b) Commodities generated through aquaculture;  
c) Trees produced or harvested for use in reforestation, or for firewood, construction material, 
poles or posts, fibre, or pulp and paper;  
d) Peat moss;  
e) Livestock sold in the operation of a wild game reserve; and  
f) Commodity sales and purchases related to farming activities outside of Canada.  
 
Revenue from and purchases of livestock in the operation of a hunt farm are allowable, excluding 
amounts related to any ancillary services (such as transportation, lodging, outfitting, etc). 
For more information on AgriInvest, please consult the AgriInvest Guidelines available at http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/ag riinvest guidelines. 
 
Page 114, paragraph 4.17 [Thailand Question 15]: The AgriRisk Initiatives appear to be a new programme under GF2. Could Canada indicate whether this programme meet the criteria established in Annex 2 of the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture? 
 Canada's Response:  The AgriRisk Initiatives will be reported in Canada's 2013 DS:1 notification; 
work on this is currently underway. AgriRisk Initiatives will be classified based on the relevant 
policy specific criteria of the Agreement on Agriculture.
 
 
4.3 Services 
4.3.3 Tourism 4.3.3.4 GATS and FTA commitments Page 150, paragraph 4.151 
 
[Thailand Question (typo) 3]: Thailand would like to seek more information regarding limitations under  Mode 4. To what extent has Canada made commitments on Mode 4 in the Tourism sector, 
what are the limitations as well as legal or regulatory framework of such requirements? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's commitments under the GATS, which also apply to its provinces 
and territories, cover the following Tourism sub-sectors: hotel and other lodging services (CPC 
641), food and beverage serving services (CPC 642/3), and travel agency and tour operator 
services (CPC 7471). In these sub-sectors, under Mode 4, Canada has scheduled "Unbound, except as indicated in the horizontal section".  
In the Horizontal Commitments section of Canada's GATS schedule (see GATS/SC/16 and 
GATS/SC/16/Suppl.2 and GATS/SC/16/Suppl.2/Rev.1), Canada has taken Mode 4 commitments for the temporary entry and stay of natural persons in the following categories: Business Visitors, 
Intra-Corporate Transferees, and Professionals. The limitations for these categories are set out 
therein. These commitments apply to tourism services and, to the extent that it is relevant, can facilitate the mobility of business persons in that sector. Canada's legal and regulatory framework WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 268 - 
 
  for Mode 4 includes the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  and the Immigration and Refugee 
Protection Regulations.  Report by Canada – (WT/TPR/G/314) 
2 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (2011-15) 
2.8 Other Key Initiatives 2.8.2 Canada's Intellectual Property Regime 
Page 22, paragraph 2.89 
 [Thailand Question 16]: As Canada plans to access the Madrid Protocol, does Canada foresee the collection of individual fee? And will Canada allow Subsequent Designation for trademarks that 
have been registered in the international registry before Canada joins the Madrid Protocol? 
 Canada's Response: Canada is not yet a member of the Madrid Protocol. Formal decisions 
concerning the collection of an individual fee or subsequent designations have not yet been made. 
 2.8.7 Government Procurement Initiatives 
Page 24, paragraph 2.108 
 [Thailand Question 17]:  As the CETA drills down and applies also to the provinces and the MASH 
sectors, please clarify as to whether the procurem ent process by the provincial and the municipal, 
academic, social and hospital (MASH) entities cove red by the CETA could be challenged by losing 
bidders through the Canadian International Trade Tr ibunal (CITT). If not, please specify what type 
of review mechanism is endowed with competency to review complaints in these cases. 
 
Canada's Response:  Municipal, Academic, Social, Hospital (MASH) entities are subject to their 
respective provincial or territorial legislative and regulatory frameworks. As such, challenges 
against MASH-level procurement processes by suppliers under CETA will be dealt with by the 
review procedure established by each provin ce or territory. Such a procedure may be 
administrative or judicial in nature, depending on the legal or regulatory framework of each 
province or territory. 
 
5 TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT Page 30, paragraphs 5.1-5.3 
 
[Thailand Question 18]: In Canada's report, it has been stated that all of Canada's recently concluded FTAs, including its agreements with the EU and with South Korea, contain ambitious and 
binding environmental obligations. In this regard, please provide information to whether these 
mutual obligations involve measures that may hinder trade with a third party based on environmental justification. If so, what approach will be adopted to ensure that these obligations are consistent with the WTO rule under the "chape au" of Article XX. In other words, it would be 
useful to clarify how to ascertain that they would not be applied in a manner that would constitute 
a means of arbitrary/unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, and would not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade. 
 
Canada's Response: Canada's approach to environmental provisions in FTAs is based on the 
principle that trade liberalization and environmental protection should be mutually reinforcing 
objectives. As reflected in its most recent FTAs, including its agreements with the EU and with 
South Korea, Canada's core environment provisions seek to ensure robust environmental governance and environmental protection in th e context of liberalized trade. Moreover, the 
environment provisions in Canada's FTAs recognize the sovereign right of each country to set its 
own levels of environmental protection and corresponding law and policies.  
However, any measure taken by a FTA party designed to protect the environment must also take into consideration the need for that measure to be consistent with the trade obligations in the 
FTA. Where such a measure is found to be inconsistent with a trade obligation but is necessary for 
the protection of the environment, Canada's FTAs  include provisions similar to GATT Article XX, 
including the requirement that such measures must not be applied in a manner that would 
constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, where the same conditions prevail, or a 
disguised restriction on international trade.  With respect to third parties, Canada and its FTA partners must continue to respect their WTO obligations. 
 WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 269 - 
 
  Page 30, paragraph 5.3 
[Thailand Question 19]: Thailand would like to inquire whether Canada intends to adopt more stringent measures than those outlined in the Food and Agriculture Organization's Port State Measures Agreement. For instance, would market access of fish/seafood products from other 
countries be restricted, like in the case of meas ures currently employed by the European Union? 
 Canada's Response:  It is not Canada's intent to adopt more stringent measures than those 
outlined in the FAO's Port State Measures Agreement. 
  OTHER QUESTIONS 
[Thailand Question 20]: Public Private Partnership (PPP) is an important mechanism for 
government agencies to strengthen economic and social development through the binding of private sector expertise, sharing of risks and prov ision of additional sources of funding. Does the 
government has any policies or strategic measures to support PPP projects at both the national 
and regional levels, especially the use of PPP for key infrastructure projects of the country?  
Canada's Response: Public investments in infrastructure are an efficient means of promoting 
economic development, especially in emerging  and developing economies. Public-private 
partnerships (P3s) can be an efficient tool to deliver public infrastructure projects, generate value for money through effective risk transfer, and us e private sector capital to finance projects. 
Generally, P3 procurement is chosen over traditional procurement because it ensures timely 
completion, provides budget certainty, allows scope for private sector innovation. It is important to bear in mind that not all projects can make good P3s. Governments should only 
enter into such partnerships when it makes sense, which is when they provide better value for 
taxpayers than a more traditional procurement approach. This is mainly achieved by sharing risks with the private sector related to design, construction, operation and/or maintenance, as opposed 
to governments retaining most or all project risks.  However, risks should not be transferred to the 
private sector at any cost, or for accounting reasons. There are risks that the private sector is better placed to manage, for example, construction delays or design flaws. There are also many necessary conditions to ensure a well-functioning P3 market, including competitive bidding 
processes for infrastructure procurement, enforceable contracts in a context of rule of law, and 
efficient capital markets. Canada has made significant efforts to advance P3s where this procurement approach provides 
better value for money.  
The Canadian experience has shown that having a dedicated unit where P3 expertise is concentrated allows for easier access to P3 resources by procuring organizations. British Columbia 
led the way in that regard when it established Partnerships BC in 2002. Other sub-national 
governments have followed a similar approach, such as Quebec in 2005 and Ontario in 2006. At the federal level, the Government of Canada has established in 2008 its own dedicated P3 unit, PPP Canada Inc., charged with delivering the Gove rnment's P3 initiatives. PPP Canada Inc. has 
been collaborating with its provincial counterparts to further develop the Canadian P3 market. This 
includes work toward more standardized procurement documentation, value for money 
methodology, and P3 contracts. These are important steps to make it easier for potential P3 firms 
to enter the market, and less costly for governments to undertake P3 procurement. 
The Government of Canada also established the $2.5 billion P3 Canada Fund, through which it 
provides financial contributions toward public infrastructure projects of sub-national governments 
that are delivered through a P3 procurement approach.  
Canada has also learned it is important to ensure that all procurement projects that could make a 
good P3 are assessed for their P3 potential. To lead by example, the federal government announced in 2011 that all major capital projects proposed by federal organizations will be 
assessed for their P3 suitability. More specifically, all federal projects costing more than $100 
million creating physical assets that will last more than 20 years have to undergo a pre-test to determine if they could be procured as a P3. If this pre-test finds P3 potential, a P3 option must be 
developed by the sponsoring Minister as part of  the procurement process. The final decision is 
made based on what option provides the most value for taxpayers. In Budget 2013, the Government announced that a similar P3 Screen would be applied to projects submitted by sub-
national governments for funding under the new $ 14 billion Building Canada Fund. Establishing a 
P3 test is a best practice adopted by many leading P3 jurisdictions.  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 270 - 
 
  [Thailand Question 21]: Has Canada established any sanction related to trade-related dispute on 
labour chapter with FTAs (LCFTAs) when signing FTA with certain countries? Is there any case where such sanction has been imposed? If yes, please elaborate on the case in detail.  
Canada's Response:  Canada's Labour Cooperation Agreements (LCAs) and Labour Chapters of 
FTAs (LCFTAs) include labour-specific dispute settlement mechanisms. As such labour provisions are not subject to the Dispute Settlement Chapters  of the FTA. Labour-related dispute settlement 
mechanisms include a variety of steps: consultations, third-party review, and the possibility of 
financial penalties.  Thus far, no issue has moved past the level of Ministerial Consultations and therefore no sanctions have been imposed. 
 
[Thailand Question 22]: Is there any relation between the Canadian Broadcasting laws and 
intellectual property laws? If so, please elaborate on how they are related. 
 
Canada's Response: The Copyright Act  contains 13 instances where specific reference is made to 
the Broadcasting Act  (see s. 2.4(c)(i); 30.5(d) ; 30.8(9) & (11); 30.9(7); s. 31(1) & (2); 32.1(1) & 
(3); 68(2)(a)(ii)). 
 The references in the Copyright Act  to the Broadcasting Act  serve to incorporate definitions (of 
network, broadcasting undertaking, epheme ral recordings, etc.) from the latter. 
 
In at least two cases the Supreme Court of Cana da (SCC) dealt with the relationship between 
broadcasting law and copyright law. 
 
In Reference re Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-167 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 
2010-168 , 2012 SCC 68, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 489, the SCC ruled that the Broadcasting Act  cannot be 
relied upon to modify the copyright regime for broadcasting signals or for retransmission of 
programming carried in local signals.  In Reference re Broadcasting Act  , 2012 SCC 4, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 142, the SCC ruled that Internet 
Service Providers (ISPs) are not broadcasting undertakings subject to regulation under the 
Broadcasting Act  when they provide access through the Inte rnet to broadcasting requested by end 
users. ISPs remain therefore regulated under the Copyright Act . 
[Thailand Question 23]: Please provide the scope of definition for "Broadcasting Service" and 
"Audio Visual Service", please indicate the diffe rences between the two definitions as both terms 
tend to be used in Canada's Free Trade Agreements. 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's commitments in the GATS are based on the WTO Services 
Sectoral Classification List (W/120). Under the W/120, "Broadcasting Services" are classified as radio and television transmission services (CPC  7524), which is a sub-sector of the broader 
"Audiovisual Services" sector. Canada considers these broadcasting services to include the 
transmission of audio and television signals for re ception by the public. Other Audiovisual services 
classified under the W/120 include: motion pict ure and video tape production and distribution 
services (CPC 9611); motion picture projection se rvices (CPC 9612); Radio and television services 
(CPC 9613); sound recordings; and other services.  
 
[Thailand Question 24]: Please provide the defini tion for "Computer and Information Service", and 
whether the term is different to the definition  of "Information Communication Technology". 
 Canada's Response: The Secretariat Report refers to Computer and Information Services when 
reporting on Canada's trade in services statistics. These statistics are based on Statistics Canada 
surveys (CANSIM Tables 376-0108 and 376-0033). Fo r computer services, this survey covers the 
design, engineering and management of computer systems (exclusive of the value of hardware); 
the development and production of original software (including operating software); computer 
processing services; equipment maintenance and repair; and, consulting and training related to the provision of computer services. For information services, the survey covers online information 
retrieval services, including database services (the development of subject matter through to 
storage and dissemination) and computer-assisted document searches and retrievals and news agency services (such as syndicated reporting serv ices to the media); and operations of internet 
service providers and other services which directly enable or support the provision of internet WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 271 - 
 
  services. Also, if database charges are separable from related telecommunications charges, they 
are reported in the information services category.  From a services trade policy perspective, Canada generally defines information and communications technology services to constitu te telecommunications services (CPC 752) and 
computer and related services (CPC 84).  WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 
 
- 272 - 
 
  UNITED STATES 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/314) 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.1 Agriculture and fisheries 
4.1.5 Evolution of support and protection 
Page 117, table 4.3  
[United-States Question 1]: Calculating eligible production for Market Support of dairy under the 
evolution of support and protection, the Secretariat notes that a majority of Canada's total Aggregate Measurement of Support is provided in  the form of market price support for dairy 
products. Table 4.3, Canada's domestic support, 2009-11, provides a list of market price support 
from 2009 through 2011. 1. Please explain if and why this calculation does/does not include 
quantities of butter and skimmed milk powder for further processing and for export.  
Canada's Response : Sales of butter and skim milk powder for further processing, total exports of 
butter and skim milk powder and skim milk powder for animal feed are not included in the calculation of market price support since sales of these products for these uses are not eligible to 
receive the support price. 
 
__________