WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE  
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO 
WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
3 August 2011 
 (11-3939) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
20 and 22 June 2011 Original: English/French 
 anglais/français 
 inglés/francés 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
CANADA 
Record of the Meeting 
Addendum 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Mario Matus (Chile) 
 This document contains the advance written questions, and replies provided by Canada.1 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
20 et 22 juin 2011  
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
CANADA 
Compte rendu de la réunion 
Addendum 
Président:  S.E. M. Mario Matus (Chile) 
 
 Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance et les réponses 
fournies par le Canada.
1 
__________________________________________________________________________________  
Órgano de Examen de la s Políticas Comerciales 
20 y 22 de junio de 2011 
 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
CANADÁ 
Acta de la reunión 
Addendum 
Presidente:  Excmo. Sr. Mario Matus (Chile) 
 
 En el presente documento figuran las pre guntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito, 
junto con las respuestas facilitadas por el Canadá.1 
                                                      
1 In English and French only./En anglais et français seulement./En inglés y francés solamente.   
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 REPLIES PROVIDED BY CANADA TO ADVANCE 
WRITTEN QUESTIONS RECEIVED  PRIOR TO 6 JUNE 2011 
 
BY COUNTRY 
 
AUSTRALIA 
 First Set 
 
[[AAuussttrraalliiaa  QQuueessttiioonn  11  ((ffiirrsstt  sseett))]]::  Canada has a very active pr ogram of bilateral free trade 
negotiations.  How does Canada ensure that all province-level CBTS nonconforming measures are 
accurately reflected in its Annex I and II reservations?  Canada's Response:  Canada's approach with provincia l/territorial measures under free trade 
agreements containing services chap ters has been to bind "all existi ng non-conforming measures of all 
provinces and territories" for all obligations of th e cross-border trade in services chapters of the 
Agreement.  As well, all non-conforming measures at  the sub-national level are subject to the ratchet 
mechanism that binds autonomous liberalization.
 
 
[Australia Question 2 (first set)]:   Canada has signed FTAs which contain domestic regulation (eg 
licensing and certification) elements under the Cro ss-Border Trade in Serv ices.  How does Canada 
manage domestic regulation, which is th e responsibility of provincial governments? 
 Canada's Response:  Provincial and territorial measures, including those relating to domestic 
regulation issues, are made subject to the obliga tions taken under Canada's FTAs through an "Extent 
of Obligations" Article typically located in  an Initial Provisions Chapter of the FTA.  
 
[Australia Question 3 (first set)]:  The report states that Canada has no legal restrictions (in the 
GATS context) on ground handling services and is al ready open to foreign service suppliers.  Given 
Canada's position in maritime transport that Memb ers' commitments should reflect current market 
openness;  can Canada elaborate on why they have been reluctant to include a commitment on ground 
handling services in the GATS given offers in these se rvices by a number of other Members, including 
Australia? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's position in maritime transport is  based on the fact that the entire 
maritime transport sector is covered by the GATS.  Canada, like many other WTO Members, is of the 
opinion that ground handling is not currently in cluded under the scope and coverage of the GATS. 
The GATS Annex on Air Transport Services states that the Agreement shall apply to measures 
affecting ARM, selling and marketing, etc.  Australia, as a member of the Friends of Air Transport, is aware that Canada and the United States are worki ng with the Friends on their proposal to expand the 
scope of GATS coverage in the air transport sector in a legally certain manne r through the addition of 
ground handling services and airpor t operation services to paragraph 3 of the GATS Air Annex. 
Discussions with the Friends are well-advanced.  Until all WTO Members agree to the inclusion of 
these two sectors, Canada is not in a position to  consider making a commitment on either ground 
handling or airport operation services.  
 
[Australia Question 4 (first set)]:  It is clear from the report that market access for professional 
service suppliers varies markedly from province to provi nce.  What steps is the Canadian Government 
taking to promote a more uniform approach to a llowing foreign professional service suppliers to not 
only enter the Canadian market but also facilitate  the mobility of foreign service suppliers within 
Canada?   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
 Canada's Response:  As mentioned previously, the regulation of professional services is a 
provincial/territorial competency.  The federal gove rnment has a formal mechanism in place for 
consultations on trade policy issues with sub-federal entities.  On a regular basis, Foreign Affairs and 
International Trade Canada will update  provincial and territorial authorities on the status of our trade 
negotiations (both multilateral and b ilateral).  In turn, provinces and territories will convey to Foreign 
Affairs and International Trade Canada their vi ews and positions on the specific aspects of these 
negotiations relating to matters  under their own competency.  Throughout the Doha Round of 
negotiations, the federal government has been c onsulting with provincial authorities to discuss 
possible avenues to further liberalize tr ade in services in particular sectors.  
 
[Australia Question 5 (first set)]:  How does the Canadian Government work with non-government 
professional bodies responsible for the regulation of professional services either at a federal or 
provincial level to facilitate mutual recognition agreements? 
 Canada's Response:  In Canada, self-regulating professional bodies are responsible for negotiating 
mutual recognition agreements.  The Federal Govern ment does not authorize, negotiate, or sign these 
itself.  Nonetheless, Canada encourages the nego tiation of mutual recognition agreements and may 
facilitate the negotiation of such agreements for these professional bodies with such support as 
providing key contacts, informing about best  practices, and genera l diplomatic support.  
 
[Australia Question 6 (first set)]:   What effort has the Canadian  Government made to encourage 
provincial law societies (beyond Québec and British Co lumbia) to permit foreign lawyers to provide 
consultancy services on international law?  Canada's Response:  The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade consults with the 
national association of Canada's law societies on a regular  basis to be apprised of the latest status of 
their provincial/territorial situation in terms of which ones may have adopted or are now working 
toward adopting a temporary licensing regime for foreign legal consultant s advising on foreign law 
and international public law.  
 
[Australia Question 7 (first set)]:  Would Canada be willing to exte nd the period of stay for legal 
consultants beyond the current 90 days?  If not, w ould Canada be willing to  include lawyers/legal 
consultants on the list of eligible occupations for contractual service suppliers, independent 
professionals or intra-corporate transferees?  Canada's Response:  Canada takes notes of these two requests from Australia and will consider them 
in the context of the Doha Agenda.  Second Set  
[Australia Question 1 (second set)]:   How has the onus been reversed onto Government to show that 
an investment is contrary to the national interest  before disallowance and is the Government's view 
subject to review? 
 
Canada's Response:  Under the Investment Canada Act  (ICA), which guides the foreign investment 
review process, the responsible Minister of the Gove rnment has to consider six factors, enumerated in 
Section 20 of the ICA, in determining whether an inv estment is of likely "net benefit" to Canada.  An 
investor is encouraged to address all factors and provide supporting documenta tion and financial data 
when submitting an application for review.  Base d on the submitted information, the Minister then 
proceeds to determine the likely "net benefit".  
In response to the Competition Policy Review Panel recommendations, in 2009 the government 
brought a number of amendments to the ICA.  To specifically respond to the recommendation of  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
 reversing the onus on government, the ICA now requires the Minister to provide reasons for a 
disallowance.  The ICA does not allow for any appeal on the decision of the Minister.  However, a party affected by 
the decision could apply to the Federal Court under the Federal Courts Act  for judicial review of the 
process involved in reaching the Minister's decision. 
 
[Australia Question 2 (second set)]:  What is the timeframe for the method for calculating enterprise 
value to be confirmed and the sub sequent raising of the foreign inv estment review threshold to come 
into force? 
 Canada's Response:  Concerning the move to enterprise valu e for determining foreign investment 
review threshold, the draft regulations were pre-published in the Canada Gazette Part I for comment 
in 2009.  The Government is currently working to finalize the regulations.  
 
[Australia Question 3 (second set)]:   Are there situations when a proposed investment will be subject 
to both ‘net benefit' test and a national security review?  
Canada's Response:  Proposed  investment that undergo a national security review may also be 
subject to the net-benefit test.  National security  reviews will be administered separately from net 
benefit reviews since the basis for review, app licable process and consultations required differ. 
 
[Australia Question 4 (second set)]:  On what basis did the general th reshold for direct acquisitions 
of WTO members decrease from Can$312 milli on in 2009 to Can$29 9 million in 2010? 
 
Canada's Response:   The Investment Canada Act  stipulates an annual updating of thresholds for 
direct acquisitions by WTO member investors, or where a Canadian business is ultimately controlled by a WTO member investor prior to its acquisition.   According to the Act, the threshold must be 
determined prior to and be effective on January 1 of every year. 
 
The calculation of the threshold amount is based on tw o factors: last year's threshold amount and the 
growth rate of Nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as published by Statistics Canada.  The new 
threshold amount is equivalent to the growth in nominal GDP (i.e., GDP at market prices) for the 
specified period, multiplied by the threshold amount determined for the previous year. 
 
For year 2009 the threshold amount, which was published in the Canada Gazette Part I  on February 
14, 2009, was determined to be  CAD$312 million.  The growth rate of nominal GDP in 2009 was 
approximately -4.5 percent.  Accordingly, applyi ng the rules of updating threshold values led to a 
lower threshold amount of CAD$299 million for review in 2010.  With a nominal GDP growth rate of 
approx. 4.3 percent in 2010, the threshold valu e for 2011 has been updated to CAD$312 million, 
which was published in the Canada Gazette Part I  on February 12, 2011. 
 
[Questions 5 to 10] 
 The Canadian Government announced in November 2010 that it would not approve a proposal for the 
acquisition of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan  (PCS) by BHP Billiton.  At that time, the then 
Minister of Industry made a number of public rema rks in which he foreshadowed changes to the 
future operation of the foreign investment regulatory regime, including measures to provide greater clarity on the review process.  Recognising that a new Minister of Industry has subsequently been 
appointed, Australia seeks information on the polic y substance and timetable for the changes to 
Canada's foreign investment review regime.  Australia's specific questions are as follows:  
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
 [Australia Question 5 (second set)]:  What specific measures are envisaged in order to give effect to 
the goal of providing greater clarity on the review process?   Canada's Response:  Currently, the Minister of Industry is looking at how best to provide more 
information while assuring investors that confidentia l information will receive the same protection in 
Canada as it does elsewhere.  An important aspect of  this review will be to develop guidance on the 
kinds of investments that will be accepted or reject ed.  Specifically, it is hoped that more information 
about the parameters of the Government's decision-making process on foreign investment reviews will be made available.  
[Australia Question 6 (second set)]:  As indicated publicly by the former Minister of Industry, does 
the Canadian Government plan to announce a set of general principles for future foreign investment in 
Canada?  How would these principles be implemen ted?  What would be the relationship between 
these principles and the factors identif ied in the relevant legislation that underpin the existing ‘net 
benefits test' that is applied to  foreign investment proposals? 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada recognizes the beneficial effect  of increased capital and technology on 
the economy that is often realized through international investment.  The Investment Canada Act , 
which guides review of foreign investment into Canada, encourages investment that contributes to 
Canada's economic growth and employment opport unities, while providing for the review of 
significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians to  ensure realization of such benefit to Canada. 
 
Section 20 of the Act provides six factors that the re sponsible Minister of the Government considers in 
determining whether an investment is of likel y "net benefit" to Canada.  These include:  
 
- the effect on the level of economic activ ity in Canada, on employment; on resource 
processing;  on the utilization of parts and ser vices produced in Canada and on exports from 
Canada; 
- the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new 
Canadian business and in any indus try or industries in Canada; 
- the effect of the investment on productivity, in dustrial efficiency, technological development, 
product innovation and product variety in Canada;  
- the effect of the investment on competition within any industry in Canada; 
- the compatibility of the investment with nati onal industrial, economic and cultural policies; 
and 
- the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets. 
 
When submitting an application for review, the inv estor is required to address each of these factors 
and provide supporting documentation and financial data.  Greater clarity in terms of investor's 
specific plans and/or undertakings in addressing th e above factors facilitates the review process. 
 The Canadian government is examining options for the liberalization of foreign investment 
restrictions in the telecommunications sector.  A dditionally, a parliamentary review committee has 
accepted amendments to the Act to implement a more  liberalized threshold for foreign investment 
reviews.   
[Australia Question 7 (second set)]:  Does the Canadian Government intend to formally propose - or 
to support proposals for - a parliamentary review of the foreign investment regime?  If so, what would 
be the terms of reference for such a review and its timeframe?   
 
Canada's Response:  In early 2011, a parliamentary committe e began to examine Canada's foreign 
investment regime to increase the transparency and enforceability of investor undertakings.  However,  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
 because of Canada's recent elections, it is current ly unknown how the newly composed committee will 
address the matter.  The terms of reference for the previous review were to assess whether restrictions on the public 
disclosure of the rationale behind decisions to appr ove or reject an application under the Act serve 
Canada's interests and what form that disclosure might take;  whether the Act provides for effective 
enforcement mechanisms, and how they could be improved;  and whether consultations with the 
province affected by a decision would serve Canada 's interest and what form those consultations 
might take.  
[Australia Question 8 (second set)]:  What process would the Government follow in considering the 
results of any such review?   Canada's Response:   In the case of such a review , the government will examine the 
recommendations of the parliamentary committee a nd respond accordingly to any related concerns. 
 
[Australia Question 9 (second set)]:  What provision will be made for foreign governments and other 
interested parties to make input to any of the pro cesses that are underway that  may lead to changes in 
the operation of Canada's forei gn investment regulatory regime? 
 Canada's Response: Consideration is given to the foreign in vestment regimes of trade partners and 
the exchange of ideas through international fo ra.  During the parliamentary review process, 
consultations are held with expert witnesses, academ ics, practitioners, and othe r relevant stakeholders. 
 
[Australia Question 10 (second set)]:  How is Canada going to place emphasis on attracting foreign 
investment in greenfield, as opposed to acquis itions and brownfield investment opportunities? 
 
Canada's Response:  Invest in Canada, part of the Departme nt of Foreign Affair s and International 
Trade (DFAIT), is responsible for overseeing the fede ral government's foreign direct investment (FDI) 
promotion efforts.  FDI plays a significant and posit ive role in Canada's economic development.  It 
attracts new management expertise, stimulates  innovation, assists human  capital formation, 
encourages investment in machinery and equipment,  strengthens international trade integration and 
stimulates competition in local markets.  These benefits contribute directly to Canada's 
competitiveness and enhance the prosper ity and well-being of Canadians. 
 DFAIT's FDI Attraction Program 
Given the benefits of FDI, DFAIT works with othe r federal, provincial and territorial investment 
partners to: 
 
 Market Canada as the location of choice for international businesses interested in making 
greenfield investments; 
 Implement proactive prospecting activities and service potential foreign investors;   and 
 Encourage reinvestment and business expans ion by existing foreign investors;  
 
DFAIT delivers a targeted and proactive FDI attr action program which is focussed on greenfield and 
expansion projects.  The program directly co mmunicates to foreign investors Canada's value 
proposition and key advantages in priority sectors.  The program currently targets foreign investment 
from source markets in sectors where Canada has clear competitive advantages and where proactive 
promotion efforts can make a difference. 
 Invest in Canada leverages major global ev ents such as the Vancouver Olympics in 2010 and 
Shanghai Expo to implement a series of customi zed investor engagement and outreach events. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
 Invest in Canada also administers the Invest Canada-Community Initiatives (ICCI) program which is 
intended to help Canadian commun ities attract, retain and expand foreign direct investment.  ICCI 
supports non-profit and public-private partnerships at  the local community level to build and maintain 
an organization's FDI readiness.  
 
For further information, pl ease consult investincanada.com 
 
[Australia Question 11 (second set)]:  We note that Canada is updating procedures within the 
framework of the Food and Consumer Safety Ac tion Plan as well as modernising its food safety 
legislation.  We would welcome an explanation of  the rationale for expandi ng SPS related licensing to 
a range of food products and ingredients. 
 Canada's Response:  Canada is developing a regulatory propo sal for the licensing of importers that 
will enhance import controls of fo od products and ingredients that are regulated solely under the Food 
and Drug Act.   The purpose of this proposal is to stre ngthen the accountability of importers for the 
safety of the products they import, better iden tify and engage regulated parties importing food 
products and ingredients, enhance verification of  compliance with food safety requirements, and 
minimize the risk of unsafe products entering the Canadian marketplace.   
[Questions 12 to 16] 
 We note that Canada's consultation, notification processes, appeal mechanisms and timeframes for 
import risk analyses are not publicly available.  Could Canada please explain its: 
 
[Australia Question 12(second set)]:  Consultation processes used in the import risk analysis 
process. 
 
Canada's Response: 
Plant:  
Canada's approach to the development of a plant pest  risk analysis is in line with ISPM #2, ISPM#11 
and ISPM#21.  Once a pest risk assessment is comp leted, the CFIA develops a Risk Management 
Document (RMD) - this document identifies and incl udes an analysis of potential mitigation measures 
which may be applied to reduce the identified pest risk to acceptable levels and conveys a decision by 
the CFIA on their selected mitigation measures.  Wher e required, the CFIA will consult with external 
experts during the risk assessment and the development of the RMD.  When completed, the RMD will be used to consult affected stakeholders, such as industry members, non-governmental organizations, 
members of the public, provincial/territorial/m unicipal governments and trading partners, as 
appropriate, on the proposed phytosanitary import measures.  Once consultation is complete and, 
where appropriate, modifications are done to the RM D, stakeholders and trading partners are notified 
of the new phytosanitary import requirements. 
 
Animal 
During the development of the formal risk analysis (RA), the CFIA consults within and outside of the 
CFIA for the appropriate expertise.  This consu ltation occurs within the Government of Canada, 
provincial departments of Health or Agriculture and Canadian Academic Institutions (Veterinary 
Colleges, Medical or Research Institutes or ot hers) as warranted by the commodity under review. 
 Desk- top reviews are much less formal but will in clude the same CFIA consultations listed above, as 
well as published peer reviewed literature review a nd references to international standards (OIE). 
 All import documents within CFIA, including RA's , are considered living documents and will be 
reviewed when new information or requests are r eceived.  Depending on the length of time since last  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
 worked upon, new scientific knowledge or requests to revisit conclusions, may initiate a new RA 
(affiliated) project entirely.  
[Australia Question 13 (second set)]:  Processes for advising stakeholde rs and trading partners of 
progress on specific import risk analyses.  Canada's Response:  Plant 
Where requested, Canada can provide a status update on a pest risk analysis to stakeholders, including 
trading partners. 
 
Animal 
Canadian Importers wishing to initiate the pro cess by which new import protocols may be developed 
should follow the process outlined on the website  here:  http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ 
anima/heasan/pol/ie-2003-3e.shtml. 
 Individual initiators of RA's are advised at the beginning of the process of the estimated time frame 
for completion of the initial drafts.  Those not dir ectly involved in the RA  request are not advised. 
Stakeholders may at any time contact the TAHD vete rinarian responsible for the file to obtain an 
update on the progress of the file. 
 
When conclusions of scientific risk analysis requi re major import policy or procedural changes, 
consultations take place with CFIA Programs and Op erations staff, affected industry sectors, other 
Canadian stakeholders and trading partners.  This process occurs prior to and during the 
policy/procedure development, but after completion of a RA.  
[Australia Questions 14 and 15 (second set)]:  Appeal mechanisms for speci fic import risk analyses 
and timeframes which apply to the appeals pr ocess in individual import risk analyses. 
 
Canada's Response: 
 
Plant Canada's pest risk analyses and subsequent import requirements are based on the most recent scientific 
and technical information available at the time of th eir development.  When new relevant information 
becomes available, it is reviewed in the context of the completed pest risk assessment/analysis and 
import requirements may be amended, where appropr iate.  Where an importer or trading partner 
disagrees with the outcome of a pest risk analys is (and related import requi rements), it may provide 
Canada with scientific and/or technical information to support their position.  Canada will review this 
new information in the context of the completed pest risk analysis. 
 
Animal 
Individuals or countries that have initiated RA's re ceive the conclusions once they are reached. Should 
the initiator disagree with those conclusions they  are encouraged to submit supporting evidence for 
their position to the senior veterinary officer respon sible for the file.  Senior veterinary staff will 
subsequently review this new information.  Indi viduals or countries may also address their concerns 
regarding the conclusion of the RA to the Director of TAHD.  
[Australia Question 16 (second set)]:  Whether Canada intends to make import risk analysis 
documents public.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
 Canada's Response:  
Plant: 
Where requested, Canada can provide a copy of a PRA and/or RMD to stakeholders and trading 
partners. 
 
Animal: RA's are not routinely made public as many of them  contain proprietary info rmation that falls under 
Canada's privacy legislation.  Sharing of RA's with trading partners is only done with the written 
authorization of the Director of TAHD.  This sharin g of RA's with trading pa rtners is done with all 
proprietary information redacted.  
 
Unredacted RA's are shared only after receipt by  CFIA of written permission from the owner of the 
information to allow either the transmission of th e entire document or certain specified proprietary 
parts thereof.  The amount of proprietary informati on to be released remains at the discretion of the 
owner of the information. 
 
Occasionally, RA's are submitted for peer review  and publication, provided they contain no 
proprietary information.  
[Australia Question 17 (second set)]:  We appreciate that Canada has published documentation on 
the general conduct of risk assessments for animal s and plants Does Canada intend to publish a 
consolidated handbook that provides a detailed desc ription of the processes used to undertake risk 
assessments for all its SPS measures?  Canada's Response:   Not at this time. 
 
[Australia Questions 18 and 19 (second set)]:  Canada has not yet formally expressed its appropriate 
level of protection in any publicly available documen t.  Could Canada state its appropriate level of 
protection?  As Canada has not yet stated its a ppropriate level of protec tion, could please Canada 
explain how trading partners can ascertain whether measures are c onsistently applied by Canada 
against an unstated appropriate level of protection?  
Canada's Response:  Canada establishes its appropriate leve l of protection in a manner consistent 
with our rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement. 
 
[Australia Question 20 (second set)]:  We note that import licences are issued by DFAIT (Trade 
Controls and Technical Barriers Bureau) for a fee of Can$15 to Can$31, depending on the value of the 
product.  Could Canada please explain how a fee dete rmined by the value of the product at issue is 
consistent with Article VIII:1(a) of GATT 1994. 
 Canada's Response:   In accordance with Article VIII:1(a) of GATT 1994, the permit fees charged 
are limited to the approximate cost of the service rendered to the importers.  Low value shipments are 
charged less owing to the disproportional impact such a fee would have on these shipments  
[Australia Question 21 (second set)]:  In addition, a dairy product import fee applies to cover the 
cost of monitoring and inspection of consignments  (Can$44 to Can$110, plus a variable fee).  Could 
Canada please explain how a fee, the rate of which is  variable depending on the weight of a shipment, 
is consistent with Artic le VIII:1(a) of GATT 1994. 
 
Canada's Response:  The fee covers the costs associated with verification of the import declaration.  
The fees were determined by taking estimated cost s of delivering the program of monitoring imported 
products and distributing 50% of these costs across a ll import shipments in Canada for the previous 
year.  The fees have not increased since 1998.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
 [Australia Question 22 (second set)]:  Paragraph 92 states that Canada 's SPS regime requires federal 
regulatory authorities to use relevant internationa l standards, guidelines, and recommendations where 
those standards achieve the policy objective sought by Canada.  Accordingly, could Canada provide 
advice on how many measures it has that do not meet  international food safety, animal health and 
plant health standards where they exist; what is th e rationale for the difference between Canadian and 
international standards; and what are Canada's intentions towards harmonisation of these measures 
with international standards? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is an advocate of  the  harmonization of SPS measures with relevant 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations  where they are appropriate and adequate to 
meet the necessary level of protection.  When  developing SPS measures, Canada takes into 
consideration the relevant international sta ndards, guidelines and recommendations.  When the 
international standard, recommendation or guideline  is deemed sufficient to meet the level of 
protection required to mitigate the risks, as determin ed by an assessment of the risks appropriate to the 
circumstances, Canada will base its SPS measure on that standard, guideline or recommendation.  
Should the assessment of risks appropriate to the ci rcumstance require a measure that achieves a level 
of protection that is different from the one achie ved by the international standard, guideline or 
recommendation.  Canada consults with domestic and international tr ading partners, as required, and 
takes into account comments received. 
 
[Australia Question 23 (second set)]:   When will the consultations on FDI restrictions on facilities-
based telecom carriers be completed and what  is the process following the completion of 
consultations?   
 
Canada's Response:  The government of Canada is examining this issue.  No announcement has been 
made regarding any further process or the timing of a decision.  
 
[Australia Question 24 (second set)]:  Given legislative amendments ha ve been made, when will the 
change in the maximum foreign ownership cap in  Canadian airlines from 25% to 49% come into 
force?  
Canada's Response:  These amendments are not yet in force, as regulations to be issued by the 
Canadian Transportation Agency are needed to impl ement the change.  Regulations to implement the 
policy change remain under development.  
[Australia Question 25 (second set)]:   We note Canada grants preferential access under free trade 
agreements to the same in-quota vo lumes specified in its WTO tariff quota commitments.  It therefore 
appears that Canada could be counting preferentia l imports under free trade agreements against WTO 
MFN tariff quotas.  Could Canada clarify if prefer ential imports under free trad e agreements are being 
counted against WTO MFN tariff quotas?  If so, does Canada believe this is  consistent with GATT 
1994? 
 
Canada's Response:   According to Canada's Schedule, in -quota imports incl ude imports from all 
countries except in the case of beef and veal, wh ere Canada does not count imports from the U.S., and 
Mexico.  The count of imports within a tariff quota is consistent with the count of imports used to 
calculate the size of the tariff quota.  Canada's practice is consistent with its WTO obligations. 
 
[Australia Question 26 (second set)]:   The report states that most tariff quotas in relation to milk 
protein concentrates were 100% filled or almost f illed in 2008 and 2009.  We also note under GATT 
Article XXVIII, Canada established new tariff quot as for milk protein concentrates in September 
2009.  Could Canada explain how long it proposes to  maintain the supply management system and 
whether it is considering further Article XXVI II proceedings to protect supply management 
effectiveness? WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
 Canada's Response:   The supply management system has serv ed Canada well for many years, and is 
the marketing choice of Canadian producers of da iry, poultry and egg pr oducts.  Canada is not 
currently considering further Article XXVIII proceedings.  
[Australia Questions 27 and 28 (second set)]:  We note that AgriStability has been introduced to 
replace the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program. AgriStability is just one of many 
agricultural based risk management programs avai lable under Canada's new Growing Forward policy 
framework. We would appreciate clarification as to:  
 How Canada intends on reporting Growing Fo rward payments to the WTO given the 
complexities involved in payments made through the AgriStability, AgriInvest, 
AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery programs. 
 If there are any parts of the Growing Forward program administered by the provinces, 
including additional programs such as Quebec's Programme d'assuran ce stabilisation des 
revenues agricoles , and if so; 
 
a. Can Canada outline any differences be tween the province-based and federal-
based Growing Forward programs. 
b. Are there differences between province-based implementation and 
administration of Growing Forward programs? 
c. Are provinces that administer the Growing Forward program independently 
from the federal government, or have a dditional programs such as Quebec and 
Ontario, allowed to supplement add itional funds to the Growing Forward 
program and, if so, how is this reported to the WTO? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada is currently preparing notifications in which measures under the 
Growing Forward Framework Agreement will be clas sified in accordance with the criteria of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Growing Forward is a federal-provincial-territori al agreement covering a range of agricultural 
policies, including business risk management.  There are only four business risk management 
programs: AgriInvest, AgriStability, AgriInsuran ce, and AgriRecovery.  Any "province-based" 
programs operate outside of Growing Forward and without any involvement of the federal 
government.  Any such additional programs, whic h may or may not supplement Growing Forward 
programs, will be reported and properly classified in accordance with the criteria of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  Each of the four business risk management progr ams under Growing Forward is administered by a 
combination of federal and provincial administrati ons, depending on the program.  All administrations 
endeavour to deliver each program to their produ cers with consistency across all jurisdictions.  
Federal-provincial working groups operate, in part, to help ensure that the terms of the Growing 
Forward agreement are adhered to across all administrations.  AgriInvest is delivered by the federal administration in all provinces, excep t in Quebec where the 
provincial administration delivers the program. 
 AgriStability  is delivered by the federal administrati on to producers in Manitoba, New Brunswick, 
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and La brador, and the Yukon.  Provincial administrations deliver 
AgriStability to their producers in each of British Co lumbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, 
and Prince Edward Island. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
 AgriInsurance  is delivered by provincial administrati ons; the federal government contributes to 
AgriInsurance contracts offered to producers by provi nces or territories, works with provinces to help 
ensure national consistency, monito rs adherence to requirements for federal cost-sharing, and provides 
expertise and advice.  
AgriRecovery  initiatives are developed on a case-by-case basi s, but are generally delivered by the 
province(s) involved.  However, there have been instances where the federal government has 
delivered an initiative. 
 
[Questions 29 to 31] 
 The report notes that Canada's domestic agricultura l prices are 11 per cent higher than world prices 
due to domestic insulation from world markets.  Would Canadian consumer s benefit from lower 
prices, and Canadian producers be more globa lly competitive, if Canada undertook further 
liberalisation of the most heavily-protected sector s?  We note Canada provides significant assistance 
to supply-managed products (dairy products, chicke n, turkey, eggs) including through the use of high 
out-of-quota tariffs (para. 11, pg. 96).  We would welcome an explanation as to:  
[Australia Question 29 (second set)]:  The necessity of these high out-of-quota tariffs averaging 
237.3% for dairy in comparison to Canada's simple  average applied agricultural MFN tariff of 22.5%. 
 
Canada's Response:  Supply management is based on matc hing domestic production to domestic 
demand.  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 commitment in its 
Uruguay Round schedule of tariff concessions. 
 
[Australia Question 30 (second set)]:  Why tariff escalation in these i ndustries is still occurring. 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada has implemented and continues to abide by its commitments in its 
Uruguay Round Schedule of tariff concessions.  
[Australia Question 31 (second set)]:  What plans, if any, Canada has to reduce these out-of-quota 
tariffs. 
 
Canada's Response:  In line with its current WTO obligatio ns, Canada has no intention to reduce 
over-quota tariffs.  
 
[Questions 32 to 36] 
 
Australia notes that the Class 4(m) milk price heavily  subsidises the sale of Canadian origin milk 
protein at a level substantially below both the intern ational price and Canada's support price, the latter 
embodied in skim milk powder.  Australia's specific question is as follows:  
[Australia Question 32 (second set)]:  What is the policy rationale behind the Canadian 
Government's decision to introduce this program, noting administration of the program by the Crown Corporation, the Canadian Dairy Commission and d ecisions taken on this program by the Canadian 
Milk Supply Management Committee?  
Canada's Response:  The modifications to Class 4(m) seek to grow the market by stimulating 
demand for milk protein concentrates (MPCs) by Canadian dairy processors and further processors.  
 
[Australia Question 33 (second set)]:  Who is bearing the cost of selling the milk components at less 
than the cost of the international commodity and Canada's support price? WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
 Canada's Response:  The price paid for Milk Protein Concentrates under Class 4(m) generates 
revenues for producers which are pooled and shared amongst Canadian dairy farmers. 
 
[Australia Question 34 (second set)]:  How is this cost being borne? 
 
Canada's Response:  The price paid for Milk Protein Concentrates under Class 4(m) generates 
revenues for producers which are pooled and shared amongst Canadian dairy farmers.  
 
[Australia Question 35 (second set)]:  What is the difference between the price of milk components 
sold through the program and the normal cost of domestically produced milk components? 
 
Canada's Response:  The cost of domestically produced m ilk components is information of a 
commercial nature.  It is not possible for Canadian  authorities to establish the difference between the 
price of milk components sold through the program and the cost of other domestically produced milk components.  The former are subject to market realit ies such as the size of the players, the ability to 
control costs for processing milk components and their negotiating abilities.  
 
[Australia Question 36 (second set)]:  What is the difference between the price of milk components 
sold through the program and the price of other m ilk components available within the domestic market 
(including imports)?  
Canada's Response:   As for all domestic milk classes, milk components sold through Class 4(m) are 
based on their final usage in the domestic market.  Fo r that reason, it is not possible to establish the 
differences in milk component prices among these cl asses. Prices for imported milk components are 
not known since the information is of a commercial nature.  
[Questions 37 to 40] 
 
Australia has previously expressed its view th at revisions to cheese compositional standards 
introduced by the Canadian Government in Dece mber 2008 are not in accordance with the widely 
accepted international standard, Codex Alimentarius , of which Canada is a member.  Australia's 
specific questions are: 
 
[Australia Question 37 (second set)]:  What was the policy rationale fo r the Canadian Government's 
action in making revisions to compositional cheese sta ndards that are more restrictive than the Codex 
Alimentarius in terms of permitted ingredient usage? 
 
Canada's Response:  The purpose of the regulatory amendments was to harmonize two sets of 
regulations that previously governed the compos ition of cheese – the Food and Drug regulations and 
the Dairy Products Regulations.  When developi ng these regulations, Canada took international 
standards into account, as well as the comments received during the World Trade Organization notification period.  
These regulatory amendments result in the further harmonization of the rele vant federal regulatory 
instruments, clarify the ingredients which may be used to manufacture cheese, and provide for 
consumer interest and choice in the market pl ace, while allowing for industry innovation.   
 The amendments permit both the flexibility in th e technology used to manufacture cheese and the 
preservation of the essential characteristics or basic nature of the cheese. 
 
[Australia Question 38 (second set)]:  What has been the impact of the revised standards on 
Canada's dairy product imports? 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  There is no evidence that the revisions to the cheese compositional standards 
constrain Canada's imports of cheeses or ingred ients used in cheese manufacturing.  Since the 
implementation of the revised cheese standards, impo rts of cheeses have been in compliance with the 
regulation and Canada has not had to return any shipments.  
 
[Australia Question 39 (second set)]:  Does the Canadian Government plan to adhere to Codex 
Alimentarius standards when making decisions on other dairy standards, such as the yogurt 
regulations that have been advocated by elements of the dairy industry in Canada? 
 Canada's Response:   The Government of Canada has not initiated any regulatory process for 
establishing compositional standards for other dair y products.  Should Canada  consider establishing 
compositional standards for other products, Canada would take into account international standards 
such as Codex Alimentarius, as well as Canada's  trade obligations in their development. 
 
[Australia Question 40 (second set)]:  Australia notes that, in relation to imports, Classes 3(a) and 
3(b) provide competitive milk to Canadian cheese ma kers.  Australia's specific question is:  To what 
extent does the Canadian Government monitor u sage under these programs, for example to quantify 
the nature and extent of re-export of cheese as an i ngredient in further processed foods such as pizza 
toppings? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada has put in place a number of measures to ensure that products imported 
under the Import for Re-Export (IREP) program are s ubsequently exported.  There are stringent 
application criteria, including reporting on import quantities sought; information concerning products 
to be manufactured, including ingredient specificati ons, HS code, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
product code (or the company product code for non- U.S. destinations);  and other information. 
 
All companies authorized to participate under IR EP must submit, electronically, monthly export 
summary reports for all IREP product exports (incl uding a nil report if applicable) to the Foreign 
Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT) by the end of the following month.  A company has 
30 days following the end of the month to send in the monthly summary export report, providing 
detailed information on shipment date;  U.S. Cust oms Entry Number or the Bill of Lading number; 
finished product name and HS code;  quantity; valu e; destination country;  HS  code; name of imported 
dairy ingredient(s) contained in the exported pr oduct;  proportion (%) of total product weight 
comprised by (each) imported dairy ingredient; an d amount (kg) of total export shipment weight 
comprised by (each) imported dairy ingredient. 
 
Participating companies must send a letter fro m their Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for each 
authorization year of participation in IREP, no la ter than November 30 each year, confirming that all 
imported product was exported in accordance with program conditions. 
 
Under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act , IREP companies are subject to verification 
by inspectors.  They are required to retain, for a period of seven years, and provide to DFAIT on 
demand, copies of purchase documents for the impor ted product, import documents, export documents 
and documents concerning domestic processing of  imported products.  In addition, DFAIT may 
request additional information, including that an independent public accountant (or an accountant 
named by DFAIT) certify information provided to it. 
 
Participants are advised that failure to comply with program conditions may result in suspension from 
participation in IREP, cancellation of associated import permits, reduction of a company's TRQ 
allocation(s) and prosecution for offences against th e Export and Import Permits Act.  A company that 
is suspended from participation in IREP is not eligible to receive IREP import permits. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
 [Questions 41 to 47]  
 
Australia notes that the rebate provided to Canadi an ice cream manufacturer s when utilising domestic 
origin cream and butter (milk) fat appears to constitute  a subsidy.  Australia's specific questions are as 
follows:  
 
[Australia Question 41 (second set)]:  why has the Canadian Government not made more 
information on this measure in respect of ice cream publicly available, including data on the dollar per 
tonne rebate?  
Canada's Response:   The Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a private contractual agreement between 
the Dairy Farmers of Canada, a non-governmental or ganisation, and individual ice cream processors. 
Government authorities do not know the details of these commercial transactions. 
 
[Australia Question 42 (second set)]:  what are the eligibility criteria for the rebate? 
 
Canada's Response:  Eligibility criteria for the Ice Cream Pr omotion Initiative have been developed 
by private industry.  Government authorities do not kn ow the details of this private industry initiative. 
 
[Australia Question 43 (second set)]:  who determines the eligibility criteria for the rebate, and 
where are the criteria set out (i.e. is this set out in legislation?)?  
Canada's Response:   Eligibility criteria for the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative have been developed 
by Canadian dairy farmers.  Government authorities do not know the details of this private industry 
initiative.  There is no legislation pertaining to this initiative.  
[Australia Question 44 (second set)]:  who provides the rebate? 
 
Canada's Response:   The Ice Cream Promotion Initiative promotion costs are funded by Canadian 
dairy farmers.  
[Australia Question 45 (second set)]:  what has been the impact of the rebate on imports of butteroil 
blends for use in ice cream manufacture? 
 Canada's Response:   Since the Ice Cream Promotion Initiativ e is a measure initiated and managed by 
private industry, it is not possibl e for Canadian officials to assess its impact on Canadian imports of 
butteroil blends for use in ice cream manufactures.  Over the past few years, ice cream manufacturers 
have reduced their use of butteroil blends by substit uting for vegetable oils such as palm oil.  Such 
changes may have been due to a number of f actors, including commercial decisions to reduce 
processing costs, modifications to processing techni ques and ingredient availability and changes in 
consumer demand.   
[Australia Question 46 (second set)]:  do Canadian ice cream manufacturers receive a rebate as part 
of the "Buy 100% Canadian milk" ice cream (Blue Cow) promotion program?  If so, what are the 
eligibility criteria for the rebate, who determines th e criteria, where are the criteria set out, and who 
provides the rebate? 
 
Canada's Response:   The "Buy 100% Canadian milk" pr omotion program is a dairy farmers' 
initiative.  Canadian authorities do not k now the details of this initiative. 
 
[Australia Question 47 (second set)]:  Does Canada plan to notify this measure to the Committee on 
Agriculture?  
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   The Ice Cream Promotion Initiative do es not constitute a market price support 
or a subsidy as per the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures and there are no governmental contributions related to this initiative.  Canada does not see 
this purely private initiative as being in consistent with its WTO obligations. 
 
[Australia Question 48 (second set)]:  The Canadian Government is currently engaged in free trade 
negotiations with a number of partners.  Australia understands that one of the issues being considered 
in these negotiations are measures relevant to the current operation of the provincial liquor control 
boards.  Australia's specific question is:  
Will the Canadian Government automatically extend to all WTO members any market access 
concessions in respect of alcoholic beverages or other measures that could impact on access to the 
alcoholic beverage market, including changes relevant to the operation of its provincial liquor boards, 
agreed by Canada as part of any of its future bilateral free trade agreements? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada will continue to abide by its WT O obligations with respect to bilateral 
trade concessions and their relation to the multilateral context.  
 
[Australia Question 49 (second set)]:   When will the review of the Non Resident Ownership Policy 
in the Uranium Mining Sector be complete d and what is the process that follows? 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada is a leading producer and expor ter of uranium for nuclear energy and is 
well positioned to supply the world market.  In add ition, the Government of Canada permits foreign 
direct investment under the Non-Resident Ownership Policy (NROP) in the uranium mining sector. The basic NROP policy ensures a minimum level of resident ownership in individual mining properties of 51 percent, at the stage of first co mmercial production, though r esident ownership levels 
for individual production projects of less than 51 percent will be permitted, if it can be clearly 
established that the project is in fact Canadian-cont rolled.  Exemptions to the policy will be granted 
only in cases where it can be demonstrated clearly that Canadian partners cannot be found.  
 The increasing demand for uranium worldwide (particul arly in Asia and to a lesser extent in the 
Middle Eastern countries) has focused internationa l attention on the NROP and resulted in calls 
requesting its further liberalization.  In its Speech  from the Throne, the Government highlighted the 
importance of attracting foreign investment to Ca nada's economy, and theref ore it will continue to 
welcome foreign investment that benefits Canada.  
 
[Australia Question 50 (second set)]:   What is the timeframe for a decision to be made following 
Industry Canada's public consultati ons on three options for further opening the telecoms industry to 
foreign investment? 
 
Canada's Response:  The government of Canada is examining this issue.  No announcement has been 
made regarding the timing of a decision.  
 
[Australia Question 51 (second set)]:   Will there be changes to foreign ownership restrictions in 
direct-to-home satellite broadcasting distribution services?  Canada's Response:   Under current rules, non-Canadians can own up to 20% of voting shares of a 
broadcasting programming and distri bution undertaking (maximum 33 1/3% in the case of a parent 
corporation).  Direct-to-home satellite broadcasti ng distribution services are considered broadcasting 
distribution undertakings, and thus are subj ect to the foreign ownership restrictions. 
 There are no plans for policy change in the broadcasti ng sector at this time, with respect to ownership 
rules. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
 [Australia Question 52 (second set)]:   Will there be changes to foreign ownership restrictions in 
direct-to-home satellite broadcasting distribution services?  Canada's Response:   Under current rules, non-Canadians can own up to 20% of voting shares of a 
broadcasting programming and distri bution undertaking (maximum 33 1/3% in the case of a parent 
corporation).  Direct-to-home satellite broadcasti ng distribution services are considered broadcasting 
distribution undertakings, and thus are subj ect to the foreign ownership restrictions. 
 There are no plans for policy change in the broadcasti ng sector at this time, with respect to ownership 
rules. 
 
[Australia Question 53 (second set)]:  As per the Competition Policy Review Panel suggestion, does 
the Minister for Transport intend to issue a policy statement on whether foreign investors should be permitted to establish separate Canadian-incorporated  domestic air carriers using Canadian facilities 
and labour and if so, by when?  
 
Canada's Response:   Budget 2009 incorporated the governme nt's response to the results of the 
Competition Review Panel chaired by Mr. Wilson.  There are no further plans with respect to the 
recommendations from that Panel.  
BRAZIL 
 
First Set  
[Brazil Question 1 (first set)]:  The report by the Secretariat states  that Canada's "federal authorities 
must give positive consideration to requests for re cognition of foreign technical regulations, to the 
extent that these fulfill the objectives of Canadian  technical regulations." Could Canada provide 
information on the specific procedures other WTO Members should follow to request recognition of their regulations and on the criteria adopted by Ca nada's authorities to assess those requests and grant 
recognition?  Canada's Response:  Should Members wish to propose that Canadian authorities recognize one of 
their regulations, we would suggest getting in to uch with our National Enquiry Point.  Such a 
communication could helpfully be preceded by discussi ons with Canadian officials responsible for the 
WTO TBT Committee.  There are no central guidelines or criteria for recognizing foreign regulations. 
Individual regulatory authorities will assess each re quest for equivalence on a case-by-case basis and 
will expect the requestor to demonstrate its case for equivalence. 
 
Second Set 
 
[Brazil Question 1 (second set)]:  The general liberal trade profile of Canada contrasts with highly 
protective policies regarding some agricultural s ubsectors, such as dairy and poultry, which are 
protected by tariff quotas and other measures that constitu tes an effective barrier to trade.  How long is 
Canada planning to maintain these barriers for? 
 Canada's Response:  Supply management is a system that en sures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food i ndustry.  It also promotes stable farm incomes. 
The supply management system has served Canada well for many years, and Canada has no plans to 
alter the system. 
 
[Brazil Question 2 (second set)]:  The Report by the Secretariat states that the federal excise duties 
do not apply equally to certain domestic products as to similar imported goods (e.g. beer and wine). 
Brazil would like to ask for further information about  the different rates of excise duties applied to  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
 domestic and imported products.  Does Canada consider this differen ce consistent with the national 
treatment principle?  Canada's Response:  The federal excise measures related to beer and wine are modelled after similar 
programs in other countries.  For example, the redu ced excise duty rates available for beer produced 
domestically are limited to beer production up to 75 ,000 hectolitres per year.  Beyond this annual 
production threshold, the same excise duty rates a pply for beer products of the same alcohol by 
volume (ABV) content, whether manufact ured in or imported into Canada. 
 These measures have not had the effect of curtailing gr owth in imports of beer or wine into Canada.  
Indeed, imports of beer (HS 2203) and wine (HS 2204) into Canada have increased 32% and 34% 
respectively during the review period. 
 
[Brazil Question 3 (second set)]:  Could Canada provide a list of Cr own corporations which, albeit 
their mainly commercial activities, are exempted fro m federal and/or provincial taxes and charges? 
 
Canada's Response:  Agent Crown corporations are free from provincial and municipal tax statutes 
and charges.  However, the federal government, including Crown corporations, compensates other 
levels of government in the form of Payments in Lieu of Taxes2, which approximate the taxes that 
would apply to the organization.  As of June 2011,  29 federal Crown corporations are "agent" Crown 
corporations.  Two federal Crown corporations are partial agents (only some of their activities are 
covered by this status). 
 The "agent" Crown corporations are: 
 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 
 Business Development Bank of Canada 
 Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation 
 Canada Development Investment Corporation 
 Canada Lands Company Limited 
 Canada Post Corporation 
 Canadian Air Transport Security Authority 
 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 
 Canadian Commercial Corporation 
 Canadian Dairy Commission 
 Canadian Museum of Civilization Corp. 
 Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 (new) 
 Canadian Museum of Human Rights  
 Canadian Museum of Nature 
 Canadian Tourism Commission 
 Cape Breton Development Corporation 
 Defence Construction (1951) Limited 
 Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation 
 Export Development Canada 
 Farm Credit Canada 
 Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, The 
 Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation 
 National Capital Commission 
 National Gallery of Canada 
                                                      
2 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act :   http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-13/index.html : WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
  National Museum of Science and Technology Corp. 
 Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc. 
 Parc Downsview Park 
 Royal Canadian Mint 
 Telefilm Canada 
 
The partial "agent" Crown corporations are: 
 Bank of Canada 
 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 
 
[Brazil Question 4 (second set)]:   As stated in the Report by the Secretariat, Canada maintains non-
ad valorem tariffs in resp ect to 282 lines.  Known that this type  of tariff – whether specific, compound 
or mixed – is not as transparent as ad valorem tariff s and that they are mostly applied to agricultural 
products, Brazil would like to ask if Canada intends to apply a more transparent tariff policy to these 
goods in the near future. 
 
Canada's Response:  There are no plans at this time to modi fy non-ad valorem tariffs to ad-valorem 
tariffs.  
[Brazil Question 5 (second set)]:   Although Canada's simple average applied MFN tariff has 
decreased over the past years, th ere is still high tariff dispersion.  While the average applied MFN 
tariff to non-agricultural goods has fallen from 3.8% to 2.5%, the average for agriculture remained 10 
times higher – around 22.5%.  In this sense, Brazil w ould like to ask if Canada plans to extend its 
tariff liberalization policy to include  agriculture in the near future. 
 Canada's Response:  Canada plans on continuing its longsta nding policy of tariff relief to assist 
Canadian manufacturers.  As such, the Government  will continue to entertain tariff relief requests 
from Canadian manufacturers, including food-pro cessers, and will assess these  requests on their own 
merit with a view of enhancing competitiveness and economic growth. 
 
[Brazil Question 6 (second set)]:   As a result from the Canadian unilateral liberalization, positive 
tariff escalation has increased in sp ecific industries, affording effective protection to fully-processed 
goods.  Does Canada consider harm onizing its tariffs to avoid this distortive effect to trade? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's tariff relief measures were unde rtaken in the spirit of free trade and 
open markets.  These measures are broad in scope ; covering tariffs applied on a wide range of 
products and will liberalize 43% of MFN applied dutiable tariff items covering C$7 billion in trade.  
Canada would also note that a large number of indus tries benefiting from unilateral tariff liberalization 
efforts are, in fact, already operating in a dut y-free environment for their end products.   
 
[Brazil Question 7 (second set)]:  Please clarify the conditions in which parallel importation is 
permitted in Canada and what is  the exhaustion regime adopted by Canada for each class of 
intellectual property rights, particularly  patents, trademarks and copyright. 
 
Canada's Response:  In general, Canada adopts the principle of  international exhaustion in relation to 
intellectual property rights (e.g. patent, trade-marks, and copyright).  For trade-marks, however, exceptions  may apply in certain circumstan ces, such as when the identity 
of the owner of the Canadian trade-mark is different  than the owner of the trade-mark in the foreign 
country (the Canadian trade-mark owner does not own the trade-mark in the exporting country) and 
where it can be shown that the mark used on the im ported good is likely to cause consumer confusion  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
 as to source, due to appreciable differences betwee n the goods distributed in Canada and the imported 
good.  During the period of review there have not been  any court cases on parallel importation regarding 
patents in Canada. 
 
For copyright, there are two types of rules with re spect to parallel imports; one for works and related 
rights, and the other for books in print form.  For works and related rights in general, a product cannot be imported if the person who produced it in 
the foreign country could not have made it in Canada  if that person had been located in Canada (see 
section 27(2) of the Copyright Act ).  If the initial copyright owner is  the person who produced it in the 
foreign country, then in most cases it can be impor ted into Canada, subject to licensing arrangements 
with licensees in Canada.  
For books in print form, the licensee or exclusive di stributor in Canada has a stronger ability to keep 
out parallel imports.  Generally speaking, the licensee or exclusive distributor in Canada has a complete right to prevent the parallel importation of  books in print form, subject to meeting certain 
performance requirements related to the cost differen tial and timing of the delivery of the book.  These 
performance requirements are set out in section 27.1 of the Copyright Act . 
 
For all types of parallel importation there are exceptions set out in section 45(1) of the Copyright Act .  
This means that notwithstanding any other prohibition in the Act, certain types of parallel imports are 
allowed.  
[Brazil Question 8 (second set)]:   Regarding the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, please 
explain: which enforcement mechanisms are available where a particular patented medicine's price is 
declared excessive by the Board;  and what ar e the procedures available if an alleged infringer 
disagrees with the decision by the Board.  Canada's Response:  In the event that the Board finds, after a public hearing, that a price is or was 
excessive in any market, it may order the patentee to  reduce the price and take measures to offset any 
excess revenues it may have received.  A drug company who disagrees with the Board's decision may 
commence a proceeding in the Federal Court.  
[Brazil Question 9 (second set)]:  Brazil makes reference to the current reform process of the 
Canadian Copyright Law.  In that regard, please e xplain if: the current Copyright Law reform process 
is foreseeing any modification on the exceptions a nd limitations to copyright infringement already 
provided under the Canadian legislation;  and if ther e is any specific measure to be adopted in order to 
guarantee that the ratification of WIPO Internet Tr eaties and their implementation will not affect the 
legitimate exercise of those li mitations and exceptions alread y provided under the Canadian 
legislation.  
Canada's Response:  In June 2010, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-32, the Copyright 
Modernization Act , legislation that was aimed at moderniz ing Canada's copyright laws in a manner 
that would balance the interests of creators and ri ghts holders in the digital age as well as implement 
the two World Intellectual Property Organization (W IPO) Treaties dealing with digital copyright 
issues. 
 
Bill C-32 died on the Order Paper when an election was called in March 2011.  In June 2011, in the Speech from the Throne, the G overnment of Canada committed to "introduce and 
seek swift passage of copyright legislation that  balances the needs of creators and users." WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
 Bill C-32 proposed new and expanded exceptions such as: 
 
 Individuals would have been permitted to ti me-shift, and format-shift legally acquired 
material.  Persons would have been permitte d to back-up legally acquired materials. 
 The Bill would have added parody, satire, a nd education as new purposes for which fair 
dealing can apply. 
 Existing exceptions for educational institutions w ould have been amended to make them more 
technologically neutral, and to permit lessons to  be carried on by non-traditional means, such 
as on the Internet. 
 New exceptions would have increased the range  of material permitted to be used in 
educational institutions without payment of roya lties to include performance of audio-visual 
works, recording and classroom use of broadcast programs and use of publicly available material on the Internet. 
 For libraries and archives, inter-library loans w ould have been permitted in digital format, and 
collections could have been archived in altern ate formats even before their existing formats 
become obsolete. 
 In addition, the Bill would have clarified an  existing exception to help the perceptually 
disabled gain access to adapted works.  It would also have allowed export of certain 
accessible material for the print disabled. 
 The Bill would have updated exceptions dealing with computer software to permit reverse 
engineering, security testing and encryption research, and would have allowed temporary 
reproductions to be made as part of a technological process.  
 
Canada's Copyright Modernization Act  (Bill C-32), proposed a number of new rights and protections 
to benefit copyright owners, including those require d by the WIPO Internet Treaties.  The Bill also 
included a number of new exceptions that would ha ve permitted Canadians to  legally undertake many 
activities that are currently not allowed, and also  proposed to update many existing exceptions to 
enable users to benefit from new technologies.  In this way, the Bill sought to achieve a balance 
between enabling uses and respecting the legitimate interests of copyright owners.  Balance between the interests of creators and users was also demonstrated in the proposed legal 
protection for technological protection measures (TPM s).  The proposed legal protection would have 
recognized that TPMs can be an important tool that creators and copyright owners may use to protect 
their work.  However, the protections would not ha ve been unlimited.  The Bill included a number of 
specific instances where circumventing TPMs would have been permitted, for the following purposes: 
law enforcement and national security activities;  reverse engineering for software compatibility; 
security testing of systems; encryption research;  personal information protection; temporary recordings made by broadcast undertakings;  acces s for persons with perceptual disabilities; and 
unlocking a wireless device.  
 The Government would have also retained the ab ility, through regulatory power, to provide new 
exceptions to the digital lock prohibition to ensure  access where the public interest might be served or 
where anti-competitive behaviour arises in after-market components. 
 
[Brazil Question 10 (second set)]:  Regarding "Canada's Access to Medicines Regime", please 
provide more details concerning its reform, esp ecially on those provisions intended to reduce 
bureaucracy, e.g., clauses allowing for a single and open-ended compulsory license without limiting the quantity to be produced thereunder.  
Canada's Response:   In May 2009, Bill (C-393) was introdu ced in Canada's House of Commons.  
Bill C-393 was debated and passed by the House of Commons with some amendments in 2011, but did not pass the Senate before Parliament was di ssolved.  Amendments were proposed to allow any  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
 quantity of drugs to be exported to  any country listed in the legisla tion, to amend definitions, and to 
allow for a compulsory license without first seeking the consent of the patentee in cases of national 
emergency. (IC)  CHILE  
 
[Chile Question 1]:  Unilateral trade liberalization initiatives.  It is mentioned that, "in its 2010 
federal budget, the Government of  Canada announced unilateral tari ff liberalization measures that 
eliminate the MFN applied rates of customs duty on 1,541 tariff items [...] with a simple average MFN 
applied rate of 7.2 percent."  These tariff items ar e mainly in the manufacturing sector, as a measure to 
support Canadian industry.  Given the above, is ther e a possibility that items in other more protected 
sectors such as agriculture and food could also be  unilaterally liberalized?  This would reaffirm 
Canada's guidelines regarding support for the deve lopment of less advanced countries through the 
reduction of protectionist measures in these sectors. 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada plans on continuing its longs tanding policy of tariff relief to assist 
Canadian manufacturers.  As such, the Government  will continue to entertain tariff relief requests 
from Canadian manufacturers, including food-processers;  and will assess these requests on their own merit with a view of enhancing competitiveness and economic growth. 
 
[Chile Question 2]:  The Secretariat's report mentions the implementation of a series of risk 
management programs in the framework of the "Gro wing Forward" policy in effect since April 1, 
2008, indicating that they correspond to "a set of new or modified measures".  The text indicates that the AgriStability and AgriInsurance programs correspond to modifications of 
previously existing programs:  CAIS and Productio n Insurance program, respectively.  As a result, 
these measures would not be exempt from Canada's reduction commitments and should be included in 
the corresponding AMS calculation when Canada updat es its commitments to notify domestic support.  
Is this interpretation correct?  Canada's Response:  Canada is currently preparing notifications in which measures under the 
Growing Forward Framework Agreement, including the AgriStability and AgriInsurance programs, 
will be classified in accordance with the criteria of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
[Chile Question 3]:  AgriInvest and AgriRecovery appear to be new programs.  If so, could Canada 
indicate whether these programs meet the criteria established in Appendix 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, or are exempt from Canada's reductions commitments by virtue of another provisions of 
the Agreement – or whether, on the contrary, they  correspond to measures not exempt from Canada's 
reduction commitments.  
 Canada's Response:   Canada is currently preparing notifications in which measures under the 
Growing Forward Framework Agreement, including th e AgriInvest and AgriRecovery programs, will 
be classified in accordance with the cr iteria of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
[Chile Question 4]:  Paragraph 26 of the Secretariat's repor t states that: "the Government remains 
committed to the supply management system" and that "supply management has been explicitly 
recognized as a business risk  management programme". 
 
In light of interventions of this kind, their magn itude and the consequences of the support provided to 
dairy producers – which is part of the system for regulating the milk supply – could Canada specify or 
provide more details on the scope of the statements made in paragraph 26 rega rding the dairy sector in 
particular. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
 Canada's Response:   Supply management is a system that ensures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food i ndustry.  It also promotes stable farm incomes. 
The supply management system has served Canada well for many years and Canada has no plans to 
alter the system.   
[Chile Question 5]:  Paragraph 72 states that  "Various federal and provi ncial authorities develop 
regulations, including technical regulations, as part of their mandate.  Federal authorities must carry 
out "open, meaningful, and balan ced" consultations with interested parties at all stages of the 
regulatory process when developing regulations.  The extent of the consultations should be 
proportional to each regulation's impact.  Federal au thorities must publish draft technical regulations 
that affect trade in Part I of the Canada Gazette a nd provide an opportunity for comment.  This stage is 
referred to as "pre-publication".  For technical regulat ions that affect international trade, the comment 
period should be at least 75 days, except in urgent circumstances.  The Canadian authorities note that 
it would be unusual for a technical regulation with in ternational trade implications to be exempt from 
the 75-day notice period.  They also indicate th at urgent circumstances would be defined in 
accordance with the TBT Agreement.  Draft regulat ions must be accompanied by a regulatory impact 
analysis statement (RIAS) describing their anticip ated benefits and costs, and the results of 
consultations with stakeholders."   Does Canada publish the consulta tions on technical regulations 
presented by WTO members, along with the correspondi ng answers, for the information of interested 
parties (both for Canadian nationals and for other WTO members)?  
 
Canada's Response:  The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) that accompanies 
regulations contains a summary, prepared by the regulatory agency, of comments received from 
interested parties as well as changes that were made  to the regulation as a result of these comments.  
In addition, some regulatory agencies, such as I ndustry Canada in the case of Radio Communications 
and Telecommunications, publish comments online from interested parties. 
 
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/h_sf01845.html (English). http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.n sf/fra/h_sf01845. html (French). 
 
[Chile Question 6]:  Paragraph 84 states that some 30 Members, amongst them many developing 
countries, have expressed concern about Canada's "Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at 
Youth Act" (Bill C 32 amendment to the Tobacco Act), which became law on 8 October 2009.  The 
Act is aimed at protecting youth from industry marke ting practices that encourage smoking.  To this 
end, the measure prohibits, inter alia, the manufact ure and sale of cigarettes, little cigars and blunt 
wraps, containing certain additives, including flavouri ngs, that are considered to make these products 
more appealing.  While Members have generally supported the Bill's objectives, some have argued 
that it is more trade restrictive th an necessary to achieve its objective.  In light of experiences in this 
area, is Canada looking into establishing any notific ation procedure for when the technical regulation 
is legally established?  
 Canada's Response:   The Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act  (the former Bill 
C-32) became Canadian law on October 8, 2009. 
 
At the March 2010 TBT Committee meeting, Cana da assured Members that if any technical 
regulations were to be considered to implement the Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at 
Youth Act  (former Bill C-32), they would be notified by Canada to the WTO at an early stage. 
 
[Chile Question 7]:  Canada refers to a bilateral agreem ent with the United States to allow US 
suppliers to participate for the first time in pr ocurement opportunities at the sub-federal level in 
Canada.  We would like to have the list of s ub-federal entities that Canada provided to the 
United States in their negotiations.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   The list of sub-federal entities subject to the Canada-U.S. Agreement on 
Government Procurement  is found in Annex II of Appendix A of the Agreement, which can be found 
here:  http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-ag reements-accords-commerciaux/fo/agreement_accord. 
aspx?lang=eng.  
[Chile Question 8]:  The report on Canada states that: "Canada's approach for the incorporation of 
environmental considerations in b ilateral and regional free trade negotiations continues to evolve."  It 
points out that "Canada's focus is to ensure that th e parties will maintain high levels of environmental 
protection and effectively enforce their environment laws.  Canada's model also aims at strengthening 
the capacity, the integrity and the transparency of  national environmental systems [...] and providing 
opportunity [for the public] to engage strategically on key environmental issues."  Could the Canadian 
delegation provide more bac kground on the most relevant aspects of the evolution of its approach with 
regard to the inclusion of environmental provisi ons in free trade agreements since the signing of 
NAFTA? Could the FTA signed with Peru be  an example of this new approach? 
 
Canada's Response:   The most relevant aspects of the evolu tion of Canada's approach with regards to 
the inclusion of environmental provisions in free tr ade agreements include the incorporation within 
free trade agreements of a principles-based environm ent chapter, which is negotiated in addition to 
Canada's traditional parallel envir onment agreements.  The Chapter helps to strengthen the linkages 
between the FTA and the parallel agreement.  Cana da's most recent parallel environment agreements 
also include a number of new provisions, such as those dealing with non-derogation and Corporate 
Social Responsibility (CSR). 
 In addition, Canada's most recent parallel envir onment agreements provide for a simplified, yet 
efficient, three-step process to resolve possible differences between Parties.  The process encourages 
the Parties to first address the ma tter through consultations at the officials' level.  Should the matter 
not be resolved, Parties can then request Ministeria l consultations.  Finally, if the matter concerns 
certain key obligations, the Parties may ultimately call for the establishment of an independent panel 
of experts that will review the matter, prepar e a report and make recommendations.  The three 
aforementioned aspects can be f ound in Canada's most recent signe d agreement, i.e. the Canada-
Panama Free Trade Agreement. 
 
[Questions 9 to 10] 
 
Chile recognizes the excellent relationship that has ex isted with Canada with regard to the Canada-
Chile Agreement on Labour Cooperation (CCALC) signed along with the FTA between the two 
parties, based on cooperation and sharing of best prac tices, and inspired by the desire to promote the 
development and welfare of both countries.  In the context of this recognition, we ask the following 
questions:  
[Chile Question 9]:  In conjunction with labour agreements linked to free trade agreements, has 
Canada developed a policy of c ooperation, and especially capacity-building, with its commercial 
partners in developing nations?  And can Canada provide more details and examples about such 
initiatives? 
 Canada's Response:   Canada's Labour Cooperation Agre ements (LCAs) contain cooperation 
commitments and Canada meets those commitme nts by providing technical assistance funding to 
partner countries to help them meet their obliga tions under LCAs.  In addition, Canada provides 
funding to upcoming LCA partners to develop and implement capacity-building projects in order to 
strengthen governance in the labour area.  However, pr iority for distribution of funds is given to LCA 
partners, particularly those who have undertaken  or have committed to undertaking, through the 
negotiation process, a higher level of labour obligations as outlined in Canada's recent LCAs. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
 Canada provides this funding through the Intern ational Trade and Labour Program (ITLP) and the 
International Program for Professional Labour Administration (IPPLA).  The projects under these programs have focused on the modernization of labou r policy and administration, the enforcement of 
national labour laws, the strengthe ning of labour inspectorates, the promotion of social dialogue, and 
improvements to occupational health and safety sta ndards.  For more specific information regarding 
Canada's funded projects in the labour area pl ease visit: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/labour_ 
globalization/IPPLA/index.shtml.  
[Chile Question 10]:  Has Canada developed an active policy on the issue of social responsibility 
(especially labour issues) with regard to its multin ationals operating in other countries?  And can you 
provide more details and examples about such a policy? 
 
Canada's Response:   Yes, Canada has developed an active policy on the issue of social responsibility 
with regard to its multinationals operating abroad.  On March 26, 2009, the Government of Canada 
adopted a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy  for the Canadian International Extractive 
Sector .  The Strategy includes new measures to impr ove the competitive advantage of Canadian 
extractive companies by enhancing their ability to  manage social and environmental risks and 
responsibilities when operating abroad.  Funded through existing resources of the department s of Foreign Affairs and International Trade 
Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and the Canadi an International Development Agency (CIDA), 
some of these measures are: 
 
 Creating an Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor to assist in resolving social and 
environmental issues relating to Canadian extr active sector companies operating abroad and to 
advise stakeholders on the implementation of performance guidelines. 
 
 In October 2009, the Minister of Trade announced the appointment of Dr. Marketa 
Evans as the first CSR Counsellor. 
 For more information on The Office of th e Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor, please 
visit the following link: 
 http://www.international.gc.ca/csr_coun sellor-conseiller_rse/index.aspx?menu_id=1 
 
 Supporting a new Centre for Excellence in CSR as a one-stop shop where companies and 
other stakeholders can find tools, information and best practices on how to meet and exceed 
their social and environmental r esponsibilities when operating abroad. 
 
 On January 13, 2010, the Minister of Trade announced the launch of the virtual 
phase of the Centre which comprises of a website providing support to companies 
to enhance their CSR capacity and performance.  The Centre and website are housed within the Canadian Institute of  Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) 
in Montreal. 
 For more information on the Canadian Cent re for Excellence in CSR, please visit 
the following link: http://www.cim.org/csr 
 
 Continuing CIDA assistance for foreign governme nts to develop their capacity to manage 
natural resource development in a su stainable and responsible manner. 
 
 Promoting internationally-recognized voluntary guidelines for CSR performance and 
reporting. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
 Further information on Canada's CSR Strategy, " Building the Canadian Advantage:  A Corporate 
Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for th e Canadian International Extractive Sector ", can be found 
at: http://www.international.gc.ca/tr ade-agreements-accords-commercia ux/ds/csr-strategy-rse-stategie. 
aspx?lang=eng.  
[Chile Question 11]:  Does the complete elimination of tariffs  in 2008, referred to in paragraph 45, 
refer only to the relationship between Canada a nd the United States? Or does it involve the three 
parties to the agreement?  Canada's Response:  The tariff elimination refers to all tari ffs subject to elimination under the terms 
of the agreement for the three signatories. 
 
[Chile Question 12]:  With regard to the elimination of th e remaining tariffs:  Will this future 
liberalization depend on some provision of NAFTA or  is it something that the parties will have to 
come to a special agreement on?  In other words,  does the NAFTA system allow the parties to have 
lists of exceptions or will it lead to the liberalization of 100% of tariff lines? 
 Canada's Response:  Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), virtually all 
tariffs on originating goods have been eliminated, w ith the exception of tariffs on certain imports of 
agricultural goods which are exempt from tariff elimina tion.  In Canada's case, the tariffs on certain 
dairy, poultry and egg products imported above Canada's global tariff quotas for these products are 
maintained.  The U.S. and Mexico also maintain  tariffs on certain agricultural goods.  Canada 
eliminated tariffs on all other or iginating goods from Mexico and from the United States on January 1, 
2003, and on January 1, 1998, respectively.  At this  time there are no discussions to eliminate the 
remaining tariffs which were excluded from tariff elimination under the NAFTA. 
 
CHINA  
[China Question 1]:  According to the data from the National Bureau of Statistics of Canada, 
Canada's GDP increased by 3.1% in 2010 while d eclined by 2.5% in 2009.  At present, Canadian 
economy is experiencing a strong growth which is fa r beyond the market expectation.  Meanwhile, 
Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose from 1.6% in the firs t quarter to 2.3% in the fourth in 2010.  Thus, 
the Bank of Canada is expected to face increasing pressure on raising interest rate in the next few 
months.  Could Canada please share the views on the prospects of its economy, the commodity price and its monetary policy in 2011?  
 Canada's Response:  Economic Developments and Prospects 
The economic recovery in Canada is underway, with the Canadian economy having expanded for 
seven consecutive quarters since the third quarter of 2009.  Real GDP growth increased to 3.9 per cent 
in the first quarter of 2011, led by strong growth  in investment and exports.  However, recent 
indicators suggest that growth will weaken in the second quarter, in part reflecting the supply 
disruptions in the auto sector due to th e recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. 
 The Minister of Finance met with leading priv ate sector economists on May 31 to discuss economic 
developments since March and their implication fo r the outlook.  Private sector economists continue 
to expect moderate growth in Ca nada going forward.  Overall, priv ate sector economists continue to 
expect real GDP growth of 2.9 per cent in 2011 as a whole.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
 This is in line with the latest IMF outlook for Canada of 2.8 per cent real GDP growth in 2011 and 
2.6 per cent in 2012.  Overall, the IMF expects Canada to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2011, along with the United States, and the sec ond-fastest growing G-7 economy in 2012, behind only 
the U.S.  
Private sector economists continue to see the risks to the Canadian outlook as balanced.  Economists 
see sovereign debt issues in Europe as well as the pote ntial for slower-than-expected growth dynamics 
in the U.S. as key downside risks to the outlook.  However, they view the prospects for stronger global growth and the net benefits of higher-than-assu med commodity prices for the Canadian economy as 
key factors that could lead to a better-than-expected outcome.  Commodity Prices 
World prices for the major commodities produced in Canada have risen strongly over the past year, 
while exhibiting considerable vola tility over the period.  More recently, crude oil prices crested at a 
recent peak near US$114 in late April, reflecting ong oing uncertainty in oil-pr oducing regions, before 
dropping to the US$100 range more recently due to  increased investor uncertainty over the global 
outlook.  Average futures contracts over the two w eeks ending June 10 suggest that financial markets 
expect WTI crude oil prices to average US$100.28 per barrel in 2011. 
 
Monetary Policy 
On May 31, 2011 (one of the eight pre-set dates on which it announces its key interest rate during the 
year), the Bank of Canada maintained its target for th e overnight rate at 1 per cent, stating that "To the 
extent that the expansion continues and the current material excess supply in the economy is gradually 
absorbed, some of the considerable monetary polic y stimulus currently in place will be eventually 
withdrawn, consistent with achieving the 2 per cent in flation target.  Such reduction would need to be 
carefully considered." 
 
The Bank also indicated that "While underlying infl ation is relatively subdued, the Bank expects that 
high energy prices and changes in provincial indi rect taxes will keep total CPI inflation above 
3 per cent in the short term.  Total CPI inflation is expected to converge with core inflation at 2 per 
cent by the middle of 2012 as excess supply in the economy is gradually absorbed, labour compensation growth stays modest, productivity rec overs and inflation expectations remain well-
anchored." 
 Additional information can be f ound in the April Monetary Policy Report and the press release on the 
May 31 monetary policy decision (see links below).  
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/mprapr11.pdf. 
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2011/05/press-releases/fad-press-release-2011-05-31/.  
[China Question 2(a)]:   What are the changes and effects on in dustrial policies, investment policies, 
regulations and plans of Canadian  industrial and communications sectors since the global financial 
crisis?  
 
Canada's Response:  There have been no changes to Canada's industrial or investment policies since 
the global financial crisis.  Cana da's approach remains to build  on the sustainable, low-tax 
environment and growth-friendly policies in place since 2006.   
[China Question 2(b)]:   Please provide the latest policy directions in sectors such as new energy, new 
materials and low carbon economy.   Canada's Response:   The 2011 Speech from the Throne stated  that "the Canadian Government is 
committed to developing Canada's extraordinar y resource wealth in a way that protects the  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
 environment.  It will support major new clean ener gy projects of national or regional significance, 
such as the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectricity project in Atlantic Canada.  It will engage the 
provinces, territories and industry on ways to impr ove the regulatory and environmental assessment 
process for resource projects, while ensuring meani ngful consultation with affected communities, 
including Aboriginal communities." 
 
The Next Phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan advances Canadian leadership in the development 
and promotion of clean energy technologies, w ith new budget measures included in Budget 2011.  
This includes:  
 Providing renewed funding of almost $100 million over two years for research, 
development and demonstrations of cl ean energy and energy efficiency. 
  
 Expanding eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy 
generation equipment. 
  
 Providing $8 million over two years to promote the deployment of clean energy 
technologies in Aboriginal and Northern communities. 
 
 Aligning deduction rates for intangible capital e xpenses in oil sands projects with rates in 
the conventional oil and gas sector. 
 
Speech from the throne:  http://www. speech.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1390. 
Budget 2011:  http://www.budget.gc. ca/2011/plan/Budget2011-eng.pdf. 
 
[China Question 3]:  Please introduce the progress in formulating the National Digital Economy 
Strategy.  Canada's Response:  During his speech in May 2011 at the Canadian Telecom Summit in Toronto, 
Canada's federal Industry Minister  reaffirmed the Government's commitment to a digital economy 
strategy.  He also indicated that one of his first pr iorities is to sustain the momentum achieved to date 
and that, in addition to increasing the adoption of technology, our national digital strategy needs a 
strong content component.  On June 6, 2011, the Minister of Finance released the 2011 budget.  Budget 2011 sets the stage for the 
release of Canada's Digital Economy Strategy by  introducing new measures focused on accelerating 
the adoption of information and communications technologies at small and medium-sized businesses, 
preparing students for careers in the digital econom y, and building Canada's digital content through 
the Canada Media Fund.  The Budget investments include:  $80 million in new funding over three years for a pilot initiative, 
delivered through the Industrial Research Assi stance Program to support collaborative projects 
between colleges and small and medium-sized busin esses to accelerate their adoption of information 
and communications technologies, $7 million per year to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to support world-leadin g research in the social sciences and humanities, 
such as partnership activities in priority areas including the digital economy, and securing the $100 
million annually on an ongoing basis to the Canada  Media Fund for creation of digital content across 
multiple platforms. 
 
[China Question 4]:  Could Canada please introduce relative requirements/regulatory measures and 
approval procedures for foreign investment in the Cana dian natural resource sector or foreign merger 
and acquisition of Canadian natural resources ente rprises?  What is the latest policy direction 
concerning aforementioned activities by relevant Ca nadian legislative and regulatory authorities. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
 Canada's Response:  The complete answer to this question can be found on the Investment Canada 
Act (Industry Canada) website:  http://www.ic.gc.ca/ eic/site/ica-lic.nsf/e ng/h_lk00007.html #benefit. 
This being said, Canada does not have any other sp ecific regulations, requirements or measures, other 
than on uranium, for the acquisition or merger by or with foreign investors of Canadian natural 
resources enterprises. 
 
The only exception to the Investment Canada Act is  Canada's Non-Resident Ownership Policy in the 
Uranium Sector which set an ownership threshold fo r foreign investors.  This Canadian policy is 
aligned to meet Canada's obligations under the UN treaty on Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. 
 
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/source s/uranuc/uranium/respol-eng.php. 
 On the Investment Canada Act:  In 2010, foreign investment above a $299 million threshold is subject 
to the Investment Canada Act.  The Act provides fo r the review of significant investments in Canada 
by non-Canadians in order to en sure net benefit to Canada.  
 
An investment to acquire control of a Canadian bu siness by a foreign investor is subject to review 
under the Act if it meets the threshold of review of $312 million for WTO investors in 2011. 
 
(There is no question 5 to be answered)  
[China Question 6]:   What factors will Canada take into  consideration when screening foreign 
investment, including investment by foreign state- owned enterprises?  How to understand "net benefit 
to Canada"?  Canada's Response:   To determine whether a reviewable ac quisition of control by a non-Canadian 
entity, that is a state-owned enterprise (SOE), is  of likely net benefit to Canada, the Minister 
responsible for the foreign investment review proc ess applies the factors listed in Section 20 of the 
Investment Canada Act  (ICA). 
 As part of the assessment of the factors, the Mi nister examines the corporate governance and reporting 
structure of the SOE investor.  This examinati on includes whether the non-Canadian adheres to 
Canadian standards of corporate governance (includi ng, for example, commitments to transparency 
and disclosure, independent members of the board  of directors, independent audit committees and 
equitable treatment of shareholders), and to Cana dian laws and practices.  The examination also 
covers how and the extent to which the non-Ca nadian is owned or controlled by a state. 
 
Furthermore, the Minister assesses whether a Canadian business to be acquired by a non-Canadian 
SOE will continue to have the ability to operate on a commercial basis regarding: 
 
 where to export;  
 
 where to process;  
 
 the participation of Canadians in its operations in Canada and elsewhere;  
 
 support of on-going innovation,  research and development; and 
 
 the appropriate level of capital expenditures to  maintain the Canadian business in a globally 
competitive position. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
 To ensure that such acquisitions of control are of likely net benefit to Canada, non-Canadians are 
encouraged to support their plans for the Cana dian business by submitting specific undertakings.  
Examples of undertakings that have been used in th e past and could be used in the future, include, 
among other undertakings, the appointment of Cana dians as independent directors on the board of 
directors, the employment of Canadians in senio r management positions, the incorporation of the 
business in Canada, and the listing of shares of the acquiring company or the Canadian business being 
acquired on a Canadian stock exchange.  Appropria te monitoring is conducted in accordance with the 
ICA.  
[China Question 7]:  Could Canada please provide the latest progress on the reform of Canadian 
official credit insurance institutions, as well as the information on the policy support for the official 
export credit insurance institutions since the global financial crisis?  Canada's Response:   A legislative review of Export Deve lopment Canada (EDC ), Canada's export 
credit agency, was undertaken in 2008.  The fo llowing sections in the WTO Secretariat Report 
describe the outcome of this review as well as m easures taken during the financial crisis: Part III. 
Trade Policies and Practices by Measu re:  (3) Measures Directly Affecting Exports; (iv) paragraphs 
126 and 129 (pages 60-61). Further information can also be found on EDC's website at 
http://www.edc.ca/english/corporate_14248.htm (Legislative review) and http://www.edc.ca/ 
publications/ 2010/csr/english/4-2.ht m (financial crisis measures). 
 
[China Question 8]:  What are the preferential policies on supporting the development of SMEs by 
Canadian government?  What are the emphasis of these policies, and the rationale behind this?  Canada's Response:  Two principles have generally guided fe deral policies for SMEs in Canada: 
 
 Ensure a business environment conducive to sma ll business success and growth (e.g., low tax 
rates and removing unnecessary barriers let markets function freely, intervene when market gaps exist), consistent w ith the role of government. 
 
 No single department or institution has "o wnership" of SME policy.  Success requires 
collaboration across the federal government, a nd with other orders of government and 
businesses. 
 For the most part, programs are of general use and do not  target any particular sector or type of SME. 
 Recent government initiatives include the following:  
 
 Lowered the small business tax income rate to  11 percent, effective as of January 1, 2008 
(between 2002 and 2007, this tax rate was 12 percent).  
 
 Increased the amount of small business income el igible for the reduced federal rate from 
$400,000 to $500,000 as of January 1, 2009.  
 
 Increased the maximum loan amount allowed under the Canada Small Business Financing 
Program to $350,000 from $250,000 that can be used to finance the purchase or improvement 
of equipment and the purchase of leasehold improve ments, or up to $500,000 for the purchase 
of real property.  
 
 Created the Business Credit Availability Progr am, which has so far allowed the Business 
Development Bank (BDC) and Export Deve lopment Canada (EDC) to provide over 
$10 billion in additional loans and other forms of credit – more than double the goal of WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
 $5 billion – to viable businesses experiencing rest ricted access to financing.  This program 
was announced in Budget 2009.  
 
 Launched the Red Tape Reduction Commission to find further ways to reduce the burden on 
small businesses. 
 
 Created the Advisory Committee for Small Busi ness and Entrepreneurship to provide advice 
on how to improve business access to federal programs and services. 
 
 Provided $15 million annually for the Canada Business Network to help small businesses get 
the reliable, up-to-date, relevant informa tion they need (announced in Budget 2009).  
 
 Offering the Small Business Internship Program, which gives small and medium-sized 
enterprises financing to hire qualified student interns to help with e-business projects.  
 
 Offering BizPaL which provides online "one-s top shopping" for information on all permits 
and licences that may be required by the three levels of government. 
 
 Supported the Canada Youth Business Founda tion (CYBF) loan program, where young 
entrepreneurs can obtain up to $15,000 in st art-up capital (and up to an additional $10,000 for 
expansion financing). Loan recipients must agree to work with an  experienced business 
volunteer drawn from a pool of mentors assembled by the CYBF. 
 
 SMEs are defined as firms that have fewer than 500 employees. 
 
[China Question 9]:  Please provide information on policies or measures concerning government 
procurement of IT products and services.  What are the policies and regulations for outsourcing 
contracting from Canada by branches or joint ventures of foreign enterprises in Canada? 
 Canada's Response:   The main Federal policy with regard to contracting is the Treasury Board 
Contracting Policy.  There is no Treasury Board po licy that is unique to the procurement of IT 
products and services.  For further informati on please see:  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-
eng.aspx?id=14494&section=text.  The conditions of th e contract will define the terms applicable to 
outsourcing or subcontracting, whic h may vary depending on the particular requirements of a contract.  
 
[China Question 10]:  Canada is a signatory to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement 
(GPA).  However, its central government entities offer covers only 82 federal agencies among its 248 
in total, the degree of market openness is 33.1%.  Besides, Canada is the only member that has not 
opened its Provincial market and SOEs government procurement. Could Canada please explain the 
reason behind this?  Canada's Response:   Canada's Annex 1 coverage  of its federal entities captures the vast majority of 
the total government procurement expenditures at the federal level.  Entities that are not covered are 
generally small, e.g. "micro-agenc ies", and often do not do their own procurement.  In February 2010, 
Canada added to its market access Annexes to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement provincial and territorial commitments.  These comm itments are offered to all current GPA Parties 
subject to the negotiation of a balance of concessions.  
[China Question 11]:   Canada has the regulation that th e Government could grant government 
procurement contracts without competitive bidding when government procurement programs are not 
in compliance with public interests.  Please elaborate on the aforementioned regulation and provide relevant performance report.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  It is up to individual departmental contracting authorities to document when 
they use a Government Contracts Regulations  exception.  (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-
87-402/latest/sor-87-402.html). Canada does not have a performance report of the uses of these exceptions, but does produce a 
Purchasing Activity Report that indicates the number of sole-source and competitive contracts 
awarded by department (http://www.tbs-sct.gc. ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/con_data/siglist-eng.asp ). 
 
(There is no question 12 to be answered) 
 
[China Question 13]:  Amendments to Canada's Competition Ac t, 2009:  "Civil review procedures, 
including assessment of any harm to competition, apply to all other forms of potentially anti-
competitive agreements."  "Repealed criminal provisions dealing with price discrimination, predatory pricing, geographic price discrimin ation and promotional allowances;  these types of conduct will still 
be addressed, as civil offences, under abuse of dominance provisions.  Decriminalization of resale price maintenance;  a new civil provision applies to such practices if they have an adverse effect on 
competition."  Please explain the reason of such  amendments to Canada's Competition Act. 
 Canada's Response:   Amendments to Canada's Competiti on Act in 2010 decriminalized certain 
criminal pricing provisions.  These types of conduc t are not always harmful to consumers and are now 
addressed under a civil regime, allowing for an assessment of the pricing practice's impact on competition. 
 
The current non-criminal abuse of dominance provisi on continues to apply to the pricing practices in 
question.  The combination of administrative mone tary penalties and the lower burden of proof to 
establish abuse of dominance will deter those pricing practices that are anti-competitive. 
 
[China Question 14]:  Please elaborate more on the guidelines or memorandums of understanding 
that govern the working relationships between the Competition Bureau and the various industry 
regulators.  Canada's Response:  Canada does have in place various instruments that govern the working 
relationship between the Competition Bureau (the "B ureau") and various industry regulators at the 
federal and provincial levels. 
 While the Bureau is not a party to formal MOUs or guidelines with industry regulators, the Bureau works closely and cooperatively as appropriate with  a range of provincial and federal regulators 
whose mandates and/or expertise overlap or touch upon the Bureau's work. 
 
The following is an exampl e of such instruments: 
 Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commi ssion ("CRTC")/Competition Bureau Interface 
The two agencies that are active in policing te lecommunications markets are the CRTC and the 
Bureau.  The Bureau administers the Competition Act , which is framework legislation of general 
application, while the CRTC regulates telecommuni cations companies/markets by virtue of its 
jurisdiction under the Telecommunications Act .  There is no exemption under the Competition Act  for 
telecommunication firms, and thus, there is a level of jurisdictional overlap between the Bureau and 
the CRTC with respect to reviewing anticompe titive conduct in the Canadian telecommunication 
sector. 
 
In 2001, the CRTC and the Bureau issued an in terface document that outlines where the CRTC has 
authority (to forbear or exempt telecommunications firms from regulation), where the CRTC and the Bureau both have authority, where the CRTC exer cises exclusive authority and where the Bureau WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
 exercises exclusive authority.  The CRTC/ Bureau In terface is available on the Bureau's Website at 
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/ site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/01598.html. 
 
[China Question 15]:   Please provide the policies on the import of Communication Products.  
Canada's Response:   Telecommunications equipment imported into Canada must comply with the 
applicable technical regulations and labelling requirements. Please visit the following web page and 
other related pages at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/ eic/site/mra-arm.nsf/eng/h_nj00055.html. 
 
[China Question 16]:   Please provide the latest information and recent changes of the structure of 
Canada's Telecommunications market, including the market of mobile phone, fixed line and 
broadband network. 
 Canada's Response:  A comprehensive report including the most recently available statistics on the 
Canadian telecommunications industry is availabl e at:  Communications Monitoring Report, July 
2010:  http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/r eports/ policymonitori ng/2010/cmr2010.pdf. 
 
The report includes descriptions and statistical  information for mobile phone, fixed line and 
broadband markets.  
[China Question 17]:   Could Canada please introduce the administration system and details of 
relevant policies of its broadcasting regime?  Please also indicate policies and practices on market 
access, requirements of program and supervision in the scope of the new audio-visual media such as, 
web radio and TV, IPTV, mobile TV, etc. 
 
Canada's Response:  Canadian broadcasting policy is set out in the Broadcasting Act . The 
Broadcasting Act  seeks to enhance Canada's national identit y and cultural soverei gnty.  It provides 
that the Canadian broadcasting system shall be e ffectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and 
that programming must be predominantly and dis tinctively Canadian and be of high standard, 
respectful of equality rights, and reflective of Ca nadian values.  The Act also states that the 
broadcasting system should contribute to Ca nada's social, economic and cultural fabric. 
 The Broadcasting Act sets out the mandate and powers of the Canadian Radio-television and 
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).  The CRTC is  an independent public authority responsible 
for the licensing, regulation and supervision of all asp ects of the Canadian br oadcasting system, with a 
view to implementing the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act . 
 The Broadcasting Act  provides that all persons who are licen sed to carry on broadcasting undertakings 
have a responsibility for the programs or advertising they air.  Therefore, neither the CRTC nor the 
Government of Canada becomes involved in the c hoice of individual programs that are broadcast.  
 The CRTC has exempted "new media broadcasting undertakings" ( Exemption Order for New Media 
Broadcasting Undertakings , Appendix A to Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009-660, October 22, 2009) 
from being regulated or licensed under the Broadcast ing Act. "New media broadcasting undertakings" 
are defined as undertakings that provide broadcas ting services delivered and accessed over the Internet 
or delivered using point-to-point technology an d received by way of mobile devices operating in 
whole or in part in Canada.  
[China Question 18]:   Please indicate whether there is any re gulatory authority or  regulations on TV 
advertising and shopping in Canada. 
 
Canada's Response:  The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), 
described in Canada's reply to China's question num ber 17, does not regulate the content of television 
and radio advertising.  However, the broadcasti ng industry has developed specific industry standards  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
 and codes of broadcast conduct rela ting to advertising.  These codes are administered by Advertising 
Standards Canada, a national not-fo r-profit self-regulatory industry body.  
 
[China Question 19]:   Please provide information on the protection of intellectual property rights of 
digital television.  
Canada's Response:   In Canada, the Copyright Act  provides protection for every original literary, 
dramatic, musical and artistic work, whether in dig ital format or otherwise.  Therefore, television 
series and films played on digital television are wo rks that receive copyright protection in Canada. 
The Copyright Act  also provides for related rights to broadcasters' wireless communication signals, 
which includes the sole right to fix their communicat ion signal, and to reproduce any fixation of it that 
was made without that broadcaster's consent. 
 
[China Question 20]:  Please introduce development of TV programming industry, including policies 
in this sector, such as policies on importing foreign programs.  
Canada's Response:  Pursuant to the Broadcasting Act , the Canadian Radio-television and 
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), described in  Canada's reply to China's question number 
17, has established a regulatory scheme where each of the different components of Canadian broadcasting system must contribute to the development of Canadian programming.  For example, effective September 1, 2011, English-language co rporate TV broadcast groups with more than 
$100 million in revenues must spend a minimum of 30%  of their aggregate gross revenues to support 
the development of Canadian TV programming.  Th ese groups are also required to devote no less than 
55% of the broadcast year to exhibit Canadian TV  programs on all their over-the-air TV stations.  
Broadcasting distribution undertakings, such as cable  distributors or direct-to-home satellite services, 
must contribute 6.5% of their broadcasting revenue s to support the development and exhibition of 
Canadian TV programming. 
 The Government of Canada focuses on ensuring th e creation and availability of compelling, high-
quality Canadian choices for Canadian consumers.   Created by the Government of Canada and 
Canada's broadcasting distribution companies, the Canada Media Fund is a not-for-profit corporation, 
which supports content creation for television and dig ital platforms.  The Canada Media Fund receives 
funding from the Government of Canada and Canada 's broadcasting distribution companies, with a 
total budget of over $3 50 million in 2010-2011. 
 Access to the Canadian television market is de termined by the CRTC in a general policy through 
which the CRTC creates a list of foreign services elig ible for distribution in Canada.  Under this 
approach, the CRTC assesses requests for addition to  this list on a case-by-case basis, considering, 
among other things, whether the concerned service would be competitive totally or partially to 
Canadian programming services.  A large number of foreign television programming services have 
been authorized by the CRTC for di stribution in Canada.  (The complete list is available on the CRTC 
website at:  http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/satlist.htm.).  
[China Question 21]:   Please elaborate on the definition of the Express Service in Canada.  Please 
also provide the information on approval proce dures, qualification requirements, commercial presence 
for foreign invested enterprises operating e xpress service and international deliveries. 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's commitments in its GATS schedule are limited to Courier Services 
provided by private companies, express delivery ser vices are not explicitly covered.  Courier services 
in Canada are unregulated and are subject only to meeting certain licensing requirements (e.g., 
common carrier license, TDG/Firearms carrier licenses, etc) and obeying laws of general application (e.g., HTA or Bills of Lading Act or the reserved area provisions (and its exceptions) of the CPCA), WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
 anyone can provide these services. Competition in the se ctor is fully open and there are no restrictions 
on foreign participation. 
 
[China Question 22]:   Could Canada please introduce the aviation laws or regulations on the use of 
air transportation by express service enterprises.  Please also indicate the actual usage of Canadian 
aviation resources by foreign invested Express Service enterprises. 
 Canada's Response:   "Courier service" is defined in the Ai r Transportation Regulations (ATR) as "an 
enterprise engaged in door-to-door transportation of consignments for overnight or earlier delivery."  
While there is no definition of "express service" th e ATRs provide the regulatory framework by which 
carriers are licensed to operate services to and fro m Canada, including courier services.  As such, an 
airline licensed to serve Canada ma y carry any type of cargo – small 
package/express/courier/overnight etc.  Any rest riction on foreign activity would stem from these 
regulations.   
Non-airline cargo operators such as freight forwar ders and consolidators are not licensed by the 
Canadian Transportation Agency under the ATRs and may be subject to provincial regulations 
regarding the sale of services or the operation of trucking companies.  Although courier services and other freight forwarders are not licensed airlines, these companies are able to charter aircraft from a 
licensee for the transportation of their goods.  
Bilateral air transport agreements provide the fra mework for the governments of the two countries to 
authorize air carriers to operate air services.  The flexibility available under the agreement is what is 
negotiated between the countries to be available to any designated airline(s).  As such, cargo rights 
would have to be negotiated into the bilateral ai r transport agreement.  Air carriers operating the 
services permitted under a bilateral air transport agre ement may carry any variety of cargo, including 
cargo carried for courier services. 
 
[China Question 23]:   What measures have relevant regulat ory authorities adopted to facilitate 
reforms and improvements of the OTC derivatives mark et since the global financial crisis?  Have any 
concrete progress and subsequent arrangements been  made especially in centralized clearance, 
electronic trading platform and trading database report?  
Canada's Response:  The official sector created an inte r-agency OTC derivatives working group 
(OTCD WG) comprised of securities and prudential re gulators, the finance ministry and the central 
bank, to determine how best to  implement the G-20 commitments. 
 
Key policy issues have been outlined in  the OTCD WG's Discussion paper: 
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/notices_fmd/2010/notice261010.html.  The industry has organized itself under the Canadian  Market Infrastructure Committee (CMIC) and is 
devoting considerable resources to assessing, from an industry perspective, how best to implement the 
G-20 commitments.  The CMIC has created a number of committees devoted to specific aspects of the 
G-20 commitments, including standardization, central clearing and trade repositories.  Given the 
challenges involved and the complexity of the issu es, the efforts of both the CMIC and the OTCD 
WG, to date, have been focused on determining a so lution for Canadian market participants to access 
central clearing.  
The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), a national coordinating body for the provincial 
securities regulators, issued a consultation doc ument in November 2010 containing high-level 
proposals regarding the regulation of OTC deri vatives:  http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/ 
Securities-Category9/csa_20101102_91-401_cp-on-derivatives.pdf.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
 The CSA is currently working on a series of consu ltation papers covering a number of aspects related 
to the G-20 commitment.  These pape rs are expected to be published within the next three months:  
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/SecuritiesLaw_proposed_index.htm#expected. The Government of Canada is working with the majority of provinces and territories to establish a 
national Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorit y (CSRA) by July 2012, which will replace 
provincial and territorial regulators.  Under the proposed Canadian  Securities Act , released on May 26, 
2010, the CSRA would have a statutory mandate to contribute, as part of the Canadian financial 
regulatory framework, to the integrity and stability of the financial system.  The CSRA would have 
the power to oversee and regulate a wide range of instruments including OTC derivatives.  Its broad 
regulation-making authority would allow it to establish specific requirements for different classes of 
derivatives including, but not limited to, clearing, electronic trading, trade repository and margin 
requirements.  Regulations will build on domestic and international work on OTC derivatives and 
reflect best practices.  
[China Question 24]:  The latest Basle III Accord approved by the BCBS (the Basle Committee on 
Banking Supervision) has further enhanced the regul atory requirements for bank capital adequacy and 
liquidity.  What is the impact of Basle III on Ca nadian banking industry?  Could Canada please 
provide its consideration on the implementation of  Basle III Accord by Canadian domestic banks?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada has been a key proponent for enhancing the quality and quantity of 
capital held by financial institutions and will impl ement the Basel III capital and liquidity standards. 
We expect minimum requirements to follow the Ba sel III transition plan.  Capital adequacy is 
regularly assessed and subject to change as circumstances dictate.  Canadian banks are well positioned to meet the strengthened capital and li quidity requirements. 
Canadian banks were required to hold higher leve ls of common equity (effectively 5.25% of risk 
weighted assets) and Tier 1 capital (7% of risk  weighted assets) than required under Basel II 
standards.  The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions also imposed standards for the 
quality of Tier 1 capital including a number of deductions of assets who se value or ability to generate 
income would be questionable during periods of  stress in determining regulatory capital. 
 Therefore, we expect that through a combinati on of sound capital manageme nt and prudent earnings 
retention, Canadian banks will meet the 2019 B asel III capital requirements early in the transition 
period.  Canada also applied a cap on leverage (Assets- to-Capital Multiple) as part of Capital Adequacy 
Requirements and guidance on liquidity management (see: http://www.osfi-
bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/guidelines/prude ntial/guidelines/b6_e.pdf).  Implementation of 
Basel III will require some amendments to existing guidelines on leverage and liquidity once the Basel 
III proposals are finalized.  In February 2011, the Office of the Superintende nt of Financial Institu tions provided detailed 
guidance to Canadian banks on the implementation of Basel III (see: http://www.osfi-
bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/guid elines/capital/advisories/cptlq_e.pdf). 
 
Second Set  
 
[China Question 1 (second set)]:   Please provide the basic information on Canada's resources tax, 
including the basic resources tax category (taxation, re ntal, fee) in the production, sales, export, etc. of 
mining sector, coverage of main resources tax, rati onale for taxation and tax rate. Please also explain 
the development of resources tax reform.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
 Canada's Response:  Recent developments regarding this asp ect of Canada's taxation are described 
in Chapter IV of the Report – see paragraph 66.  For an overview of federal and provincial mining ta x regimes, see NRCan online information, "Tables 
on the Structure and Rates of Main Taxes", av ailable at:  http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms-smm/busi-
indu/mtr-rdm/tsr-tsp-eng.htm. 
 
[China Question 2 (second set)]:  The 2009 amendments introduced a national security review 
process through a new Part IV.1 on "Investments Injuri ous to National Security", but the concept of 
national security is not defined.  In addition, ma ny foreign investments including Chinese investments 
have been increasingly encountering barriers, so what improvements will Canada make to further 
stabilize the investor's expectation?  Canada's Response:   Threats to national security are consta ntly evolving.  The legislation and the 
regulations do not define national security since it would limit flexibility to respond to future threats, 
as is the practice of most other countries.  Canada will ensure that the application of the new national 
security mechanism is consistent with its internationa l trade obligations and the best practices of other 
industrialized economies.  The government understands the need for investor ce rtainty.  The window for the government to order 
a national security review of a transaction is limited.  The vast majority of investors will be unaffected 
by this proposal and their investments will proceed as usual. 
 
[China Question 3 (second set)]:  Please indicate if Canada adopts the external benchmark outside 
the investigated country to calculate subsidy bene fits.  If so, please provide relevant legal grounds. 
Please also indicate how Canada ensures the selected  external benchmark can reflect the dominancy of 
domestic market of investigated counties.  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada has used an external benchm ark to determine whether inputs were 
provided for less-than-adequate remuneration in certa in countervailing duty investigations related to 
steel products from China.  The practice of Canada's  investigating authorities is consistent with 
China's Protocol of Accession, which stipulates that importing WTO Members may use 
methodologies for identifying and measuring the s ubsidy benefit which take into account the 
possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate 
benchmarks. 
 
[China Question 4 (second set)]:   Please indicate the relationship be tween the Statutory Instruments 
Act and the Statutory Instruments Regulation, as well as the relationship between the two laws and 
Canada's technical regulations.  Canada's Response:   The Statutory Instruments Act  (SI Act) and the Statutory Instruments 
Regulations  (SI Regulations) set out three basic legal requirements for making regulations.  These are: 
legal examination, registration, and publication in the Canada Gazette. 
 
The Statutory Instruments Act  governs the approval process for regula tions.  It defines a regulation as 
a statutory instrument made in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an Act of 
Parliament, or for the contravention of which a pe nalty, fine or imprisonment is prescribed by or under 
an Act of Parliament. 
 
This definition of a regulation includes a rule, or der, or regulation governi ng proceedings before a 
judicial or quasi-judicial body established by an Ac t of Parliament, and any instrument described as a 
regulation in any other Act of Parliament.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
 The regulatory process applies to proposals for re gulations as defined in subsection 2(1) of the 
Statutory Instruments Act  and to proposals for other statutory in struments that are registered under the 
statutory orders and regulations (SOR) designation and published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.  
 The regulatory process is mandatory for all proposals that fit these definitions and that are made or 
approved by the Governor in Council or by a Minister, though there are differences in the process for 
Ministerial Regulations compared to Governor in Council or Treasury Board Regulations, as the 
former receive final approval from the designated Minister instead of the Governor in Council. 
 Some regulations are not subject to the regulatory pr ocess.  They are wholly or partially exempted by 
their enabling Act or by the Statutory Instruments Regulations .  These types of regulations affect or 
are likely to affect only a limited number of pers ons and with respect to which the Governor in 
Council is satisfied that reasonable steps have been  or will be taken for the purpose of bringing their 
purport to the notice of those persons affected or likely to be affected by them.  
For more information, please see the following documents available online: 
 A Guide to the Regulatory Process : 
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/process guideprocessus-eng.asp (English). 
 
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/process guideprocessus-fra.asp (French). 
 Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations :  Part 3 – Making Regulations: 
 http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=e ng&page=information&s ub=publications&doc= 
legislation/part3-eng.htm (English). 
 http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=fra &page=information&sub=publications&doc= 
legislation/part3-fra.htm (French).  Statutory Instruments Regulations : 
 
http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulati ons/C.R.C.,_c._1509/page-5.html (English). 
 http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/reglements/ C.R.C.%2C_ch._1509/page-5.html (French). 
 
[China Question 5 (second set)]:  Please indicate the relationship between the Cabinet Directive on 
Streamlining Regulation and the two laws (Statuto ry Instruments Act and Statutory Instruments 
Regulation).  
 Canada's Response:   Canada's federal regulatory process is defined both by specific legal 
requirements set out in the Statutory Instruments Act  and by policy requirements that are articulated in 
the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  (CDSR). 
 The regulatory process applies to mo st regulations, as defined in the Statutory Instruments Act .  Some 
regulations are not subject to the regulatory process.  They are wholly or partially exempted by their 
enabling Act or by the Statutory Instruments Regulations . 
 
[China Question 6 (second set)]:  How many government authorities ar e responsible for formulating 
technical regulations?  Where are these technical re gulations published?  How to gain access to these 
technical regulations?  
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
 Canada's Response:  While a number of Canadian government  departments and agencies are charged 
with developing and enforcing regula tions, the majority of technical re gulations are developed by:  the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Environment Canada, Health Canada , Industry Canada and 
Transport Canada. For a listing of Canadian depa rtments and agencies please consult the schedules of 
the Financial Administration Act . 
 
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11/index.html (English). http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/F-11/index.html (French). Paragraph 74 of the Secretariat report su mmarizes the availability of regulations. 
 
[China Question 7 (second set)]:  Are there any relevant legal provi sions in Canada which encourage 
the government to adopt voluntary standards when formulating technical regulations?  Are these 
adopted voluntary standards mandatory or voluntary?  Canada's Response:   Canada's Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  (CDSR) applies to all 
federal government departments and agencies.  The CDSR directs departments and agencies to follow 
Canada's international obligations when designing and implementing technical regulations, including 
requirements to use available international standard s as the basis for technical regulations.  In the 
Canadian system, standards are considered volunta ry by definition.  When  voluntary standards are 
referenced in a technical regulation, they become  a part of the regulation through incorporation by 
reference. 
 
[China Question 8 (second set)]:  According to the Secretariat Report, four organizations are 
accredited by the SCC to develop standards. Are the standards formulated by the four organizations 
national or professional standards?  What is the re lationship between SCC and the four organizations?  
 
Canada's Response:   SCC accredits the four standards- development organizations, but does not 
develop standards itself.  Each of the four Cana dian standards development organization may choose 
to submit a standard it has developed to the Standa rds Council of Canada (SCC) for consideration as a 
National Standard of Canada. 
 
[China Question 9 (second set)]:  Please clarify whether the conformity assessment which ensures 
the implementation of technical regulations is assumed by the government agencies or non-
government standardization bodies.  
 Canada's Response:   The responsibility for the enforcement of technical regulations lies with the 
relevant regulatory authority.  However, there ar e instances where Canadian regulators will require 
that conformity assessment bodies that have been  accredited by the SCC conduct the testing that 
ensures technical regulations are being followed.  
[China Question 10 (second set)]:  Please indicate the relationship between the government agencies 
and the non-government bodies in Canada.  Have  any government employees participated in 
standardization works?  
 
Canada's Response:   Standards-development in Canada is  a voluntary process.  However, both the 
federal and provincial/territorial  governments may choose to reference voluntary standards and 
conformity assessment procedures in their technical regulations.  The standards-development process 
involves a balanced matrix of public and private stakeholders, including government officials and 
regulators. 
 
[China Question 11 (second set)]:  Since 2009, China has commented on 6 SPS notifications of 
Canada (G/TBT/N/CAN/275, G/SPS/N/CAN/442, G/SPS/N/CAN/455, G/SPS/N/CAN/475, G/SPS/N/CAN/478, G/SPS/N/CAN/508) and requested fo r explanation or scientific rationale for some  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
 items.  However, we have not received any res ponses till now.  Please respond to our inquiries on 
those six notifications. 
 
Canada's Response:   G/TBT/N/CAN/275:  Health Canada's records indicate that no comments have 
been received from China on this TBT notification through the WTO Canadian Enquiry Point.  Any 
specific questions on this regulatory amendment can be submitted to the Canadian Enquiry Point who 
will direct your questions to the relevant experts.  G/SPS/N/CAN/442 (PMRL2010-24 (Pyraclostrobin / Crop Group 20A)): Neither the Canadian Enquiry Point nor Health Canada's Pest Manageme nt Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has any record of 
comments being received as a result of this notification. 
 G/SPS/N/CAN/455 (PMRL2010-33 (Setting MRLs for chemicals/commodities previously covered under the 0.1 ppm General Maximum Residue Limi t):  Comments from China were received and 
considered by the PMRA.  The comments were included and responded to in Appendix 1 of the 
corresponding Established MRL document, EMRL 2011-13, published on 18 March 2011, which 
established the MRLs notified under SPS-CAN-455-10.  The EMRL is available on the Health Canada 
website at:  http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/a lt_formats/pdf/pubs/pest/decisions/emrl2011-13/emrl 
2011-13-eng.pdf.  G/SPS/N/CAN/475 (PMRL2010-41 (Imazamox / Crop Group 6C dry beans)):  A direct response to 
the Chinese SPS Enquiry Point was provided via e-mail on 4 March 2011. 
 G/SPS/N/CAN/478 (PMRL2010-46 (Acetamiprid / Crop Group 13-07G)):  A direct response to the Chinese SPS Enquiry Point was provi ded via e-mail on 4 March 2011. 
 
G/SPS/N/CAN/508 (PMRL2010-76 (Deltamethrin / Vari ous commodities)):  Neither the Canadian 
Enquiry Point nor the PMRA has any record of comments being received as a result of this notification.  
[China Question 12 (second set)]:   According to the Annotation 254,  page 91, could Canada please 
provide the classification of generic names which has been amended? 
 
Canada's Response:  Pursuant to the 2004 Canada - European Community Wine and Spirits 
Agreement , Canada agreed to phase out the use of certain terms.  Part of that phase-out was to remove 
terms from a list of generic names for wines and two terms from a similar list for spirits.  Ten of those 
names were removed as of the coming into force of the Agreement, six more were removed on 
December 31, 2008, and the remaining five will be removed from the list on December 31, 2013.  
Once names are removed from the list,  a competent responsible authority may make an application to 
seek protection of the geographical indication.  Although the Trade-marks Act  does not deem these 
terms to be generic, s. 11.18(2) of that Act con tinues to apply, allowing the adoption and use of any 
term found to be a term customary in common langua ge in Canada as the common name for the wine 
or spirit, as the case may be.  
[China Question 13 (second set)]:  Could Canada please elaborate more on the customary names? 
 Canada's Response:  Section 11.18(2) of the Trade-marks Act  gives an exception to the prohibition 
of a protected geographical indication in that it allo ws the adoption or use of any term found to be a 
term customary in common language in Canada as th e common name for the wine  or spirit, as the case 
may be.  This determination would most likely be made by the Canadian courts. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
 [China Question 14 (second set)]:  Could Canada please introduce the system for protecting 
Geographical Indications?  Please also provide th e legal remedies for GI and related laws and 
regulations. 
 
Canada's Response:  The system for protection of geographical indications (GIs) for wines and 
spirits is found in sections 11.1-11.2 of Canada's Trade-marks Act . Under this system a request can be 
submitted to the Canadian authorities (section 11.11 of the Trade-marks Act ), and if the Minister of 
Industry is satisfied that a GI meets the requireme nts, the GI is published in the Canada Gazette, 
Canada's official publication for federal legislativ e and regulatory developmen ts.  This triggers a 
three-month objection period in which any interested person may object to the protection of the GI on 
the grounds that it does not meet the definition of a GI.  If there is no objection, or if an objection is 
unsuccessful, the GI is entered in the list of protected GIs and protection begins.    It is prohibited to adopt or use in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, a protected GI (or a translation of the GI) identifying a wine in respect of a wine not originating in the territory 
indicated by the protected GI.  A trade-mark is not regi strable if it is in whole or in part a protected GI 
where the wine is associated with a wine not originat ing in the territory indicated by the GI.  The same 
prohibition applies to spirits.  GIs for other goods ma y be protected using trade-marks or certification 
marks registered under the Trade-marks Act , or unregistered using common law.  There are also unfair 
competition laws that may apply. 
 
[China Question 15 (second set)]:   Please indicate the authorities where a foreign registered GI apply 
for registration in order to be protected in Canada.  Please also indicate the detailed procedures for those applications.  Canada's Response:  As set out in the Trade-marks Act , decisions in respect of geographical 
indication requests for wines and spirits fall under th e purview of the Minister of Industry, and are 
handled the same way whether the requestor is fo reign or domestic.  Please see the response for Q14 
above.  For non-wine/spirit geographical indications, the trade-mark (or certification mark) can be 
subject of an application under the Trade-marks Act  and regular trade-mark rules apply. 
 
[China Question 16 (second set)]:   "The supply management system s for dairy and poultry products 
and the Canadian Wheat Board's "single desk" selli ng system remain unchanged."  Please provide the 
background of the supply management system s, including the reason and objective of its 
establishment, its operation situation and whether th is management system has achieved its expected 
results.  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's supply management schemes fo r the dairy, poultry and egg sectors 
were introduced more than 30 years ago in res ponse to market instability in inter-provincial and 
international trade, and resulting producer income  instability and insufficiency.  Supply management 
contributes to market stability by limiting domestic  supplies, and using pr oduction or marketing 
quotas applied at the individual producer level.  Im ports of the products concerned are subject to 
tariffs and tariff rate quotas administered in accordan ce with Canada's international trade obligations.  
The supply management system has served Canada well for many years. 
 
[China Question 17 (second set)]:  Please provide the comments on the role of this supply 
management system in guaranteeing the supply of  agricultural commodities and competitiveness in 
agricultural sector with the challenges from the global fi nancial crisis and food crisis in recent years.  
 
Canada's Response:  Supply management is a system that en sures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food i ndustry.  It also promotes stable farm incomes. 
The supply management system has served Canada  well for many years, notwithstanding challenges 
from the global financial crisis and food crisis in recent years.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
 [China Question 18 (second set)]:  How does Canada resolve the problems during the 
implementation of this supply management system when non-traditional factors play an intensified 
role in the agricultu ral commodities market? 
 
Canada's Response:  The supply management system continues to provide supply, price and income 
stability, notwithstanding changes in the agricultural commodities market. 
 
[China Question 19 (second set)]:  Could Canada please provide regulations and scientific basis on 
restrictions of heavy metal contaminant (lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic) in food and pathogenic microbes? 
 
Canada's Response:  All foods and food ingredients sold in Canada, whether domestic or imported, 
are subject to the  Food and Drugs Act  and Regulations.  This legisla tion establishes general, outcome 
based prohibitions on the sale of adultera ted or contaminated food. Under the Food and Drugs Act , 
Health Canada establishes regulations, policies and standards for the safety and nutritional quality of 
all food sold in Canada. 
 With regard to chemical contaminants, Health Canada's Food Directorate is responsible for the 
assessment of risk to human health from exposure to food-borne chemical contaminants.  When an 
unacceptable risk is identified, appropriate risk mana gement measures must be taken to reduce the risk 
of adverse health effects from exposure to the chemical. One risk management measure is the 
establishment of maximum levels for chemical cont aminants in retail foods .  Maximum levels are 
established by Health Canada and are enforceab le by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 
 Maximum levels for some metals (i.e. lead, arsenic  and tin) in certain foods appear in Division 15, 
Table 1 the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations  where they are referred to as "tolerances".  Table 1 
of Division 15 can be viewed on the following webpage:  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ 
regulations/C.R.C.%2C_c._870/ page-216.html.  Note that at the time of writing this text (June 2011), 
all of the tolerances in Table 1 of Division 15 ar e in the process of being updated. Health Canada 
anticipates that the regulatory updates to Division 15, Table 1 of the Food and Drug Regulations  will 
be completed in 2012 or 2013.  These updates are aimed, amongst other objectives, to align these 
tolerances with Codex maximum levels. 
 
There are also a number of maximum levels that do not appear in the Food and Drug Regulations ; 
these are referred to as "standards" or maximum levels  and can be found on H ealth Canada's website:  
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/chem-chim/contam inants-guidelines-directives-eng.php.  As for 
tolerances, standards are established using the best  available scientific information and may be 
modified when new scientific information becomes available, if doing so will help ensure that 
Canadians are not exposed to levels of chemical contaminants in their diet that may be a safety 
concern http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/contac t/fn-an/hpfb-dgpsa/bcs-bipc-eng.php). 
 The only metal standards listed on Health Canada's we bsite are for total mercury in fish.  There is a 
0.5 ppm total mercury standard for the edible porti on of retail fish, with the exception of fresh and 
frozen tuna, shark, swordfish, marlin, escolar and or ange roughy, which are subject to a 1.0 ppm total 
mercury standard as well as a consumption advi sory:  http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/chem-
chim/environ/mercur/cons-a dv-etud-eng.php.  The scientific basis for the total mercury standards in 
fish and the consumption advisory for specific types of large, predatory fish is provided in detail in 
two Health Canada publications: 
 
1) Human Health Risk Assessment for Mercury in  Fish and Benefits of Fish Consumption 
(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/mercur/merc_fish_poisson-eng.php 
2) Updating the Existing Risk Management Strate gy for Mercury in Retail Fish (http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/mercur/risk-risque_strat-eng.php). WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 44  
 
 Maximum levels (i.e., tolerances a nd standards) are established in an effort to reduce exposure to a 
particular contaminant.  Exposure is affected by the concentration of the chemical in food and the 
amount of the food consumed.  Therefore, both th e concentration and the amount of food normally 
consumed by an individual must be considered when establishing a maximum level.  As a result, 
maximum levels for a particular chemical may differ depending on the food.  They may also differ 
from country to country depending on differenc es in dietary habits of the population. 
 The toxicity of the chemical in question must al so be considered in the establishment of maximum 
levels for contaminants in food, because different chemicals can affect human health in different 
ways.  For example, a certain level of exposure to  one food contaminant may not have an adverse 
impact on human health, whereas similar exposure to a different contaminant may be very harmful.  
When establishing maximum levels for contaminants in food in Canada, consideration must also be 
given to the availability of the food, the nutritional va lue of the food, and if the food is a staple in the 
Canadian diet.  
There are a limited number of retail foods for which maximum contaminant levels have been 
developed.  There are several reasons for this .  The finding of a chemical in food does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that there is  an unacceptable health risk to humans.  Most 
chemicals are found in food at such low levels that they do not pose a safety concern and therefore the 
establishment of maximum levels is not required.  Nonetheless, levels of chemicals in food are 
monitored through continued surveillance activ ities by both Health Canada (http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/fn-an/res-rech/res-prog/food-aliment/inde x-eng.php) and the Canadian Food Inspection 
Agency (http://www.inspection.gc. ca/english/fssa/microchem/chemchime.shtml).  Data from this 
surveillance are used to help iden tify potential contamination issues and, when warranted, appropriate 
risk management strategies.  
Even if a health risk is identified and risk ma nagement action is required, the establishment of a 
maximum level may not necessarily be considered th e best approach to reducing the risk associated 
with the food-borne chemical.  For example, the presence of a contaminant in a food may be the result 
of an incident that was isolated (either in terms of time or in geographical location) and that could 
have been avoided.  In this case, appropriate  risk management may involve removal of the 
contaminated food from retail shelves and/or correctiv e action at the food manufacturer or farm level 
to ensure that such contamination does not occur ag ain.  Short-term monitoring to ensure that the 
corrective action was successful would be required, but the establishment of a maximum level may not be considered necessary.  The absence of a maximum level for a particular chemical contaminant does not mean that it is 
exempt from the Food and Drugs Act and Food and Drug Regulations .  Part I, Section 4 of the Food 
and Drugs Act  (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowTdm/cs/f-27///e n) states that no person shall sell an 
article of food that has in or on it any poiso nous or harmful substance, is unfit for human 
consumption, or is adulterated.  If a chemical is  found in a food, regardless of whether or not there 
exists a maximum level, Health Canada may conduct a human health risk assessment to determine if 
there is a potential risk to human health and whether risk management measures are required. 
 
With regard to microbial hazards, Health Canada develops standards and guidelines to minimize the 
public health risks related to consumption of f oods contaminated with pathogenic microorganisms. 
These are elaborated based on health risk assessment s according to international principles.  Every 
effort is made to align Canadian guidance docum ents with the recommendations of international 
organisations such as Codex Alimentarius.  A detailed summary of microbiological standards and 
guidelines in Canada is available in  English and French on Health Ca nada's web site at http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/fn-an/res-rech/analy-meth/microbio/vol ume1/intsum-somexp-eng.php and http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/fn-an/res-rech/analy-meth/mi crobio/volume1/intsum-somexp-fra.php. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
 [China Question 20 (second set)]:  Have measures under The Growing Forward Framework 
Agreement been notified to the WTO?  
 Canada's Response:  Canada is currently preparing notifications in which measures under the 
Growing Forward Framework Agreement will be clas sified in accordance with the criteria of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
[China Question 21 (second set)]:  How will Canada notify "business risk management" measures, 
the core of the Growing Forward policy framework  in accordance with the classification of WTO?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is currently preparing notifi cations in which the Business Risk 
Management measures under the Growing Forward po licy framework, will be classified in accordance 
with the criteria of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
[China Question 22 (second set)]:  In order to ensure that the financial support provided to the 
agricultural sector is in compliance with WTO commi tments, will the federal government coordinate 
with provincial governments?  If yes, how to coordinate?  Canada's Response:  Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials work closely with their 
provincial/territorial counterparts to ensure that a ll support to the agriculture sector is reported and 
properly notified.  This is accomplished throug h data sharing on programs, as well as regular 
collaboration (e.g., meetings, conference calls). 
 
[China Question 23 (second set)]:   Please indicate the rationale for the failure of the legislative 
changes.  Will Canada maintain the sales mechanism of CWB?  
Canada's Response:  The Canadian Government introduced Bill C-46, An Act to amend the CWB 
Act and Chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998, March 3, 2008, which would have allowed the 
Government to remove barley from the CWB monopoly by regulation.  The Canadian Parliament was 
dissolved September 7, 2008 for an electi on and Bill C-46 died on the order paper. 
 
The Canadian Government recently stated in the Ju ne 2011 Speech from the Throne that it intends to 
introduce legislation to ensure that western farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the 
open market, effectively removing the CWB monopoly.  
[China Question 24 (second set)]:  Please introduce the management system of inter-provincial trade 
of agricultural products. Is there any regu latory measure for inter-provincial trade? 
 
Canada's Response:  Inter-provincial trade in Ca nada is regulated under vari ous legislative measures, 
both at the federal and the provincial gover nment levels, including, but not limited to: 
 Canada Agricultural Products Act (CAPA) 
At the federal government level, is an Act to regul ate the marketing of agricultural products in import, 
export and interprovincial trade and is b ased upon the trade and commerce power of the Constitution 
Act, 1867.  CAPA provides authorities for establishing national standards and grades for both raw and 
processed agricultural products (e.g., dairy products , fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, shell 
and processed eggs, honey, and mapl e products), for their inspection and grading, for the registration 
of establishments and for licensing of dealers of  agricultural products;  creation of labelling and 
packaging requirements for regulated products;  for quality and compositional standards for 
agricultural products;  the registration of establis hments;  standards governing the construction, 
maintenance and operation of estab lishments; and, mechanisms to settle disputes over transactions 
between dealers of fresh fruit and vegetables.  The broad legislative and regulatory mandate WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 46  
 
 essentially apply to any act necessary to prepare a dvertise or sell agricultural products to domestic, 
interprovincial or foreign markets.  
Agricultural Products Marketing Act 
Also at the federal government level, the Agricu ltural Products Marketing Act enables the federal 
government to issue Marketing Orders in a commodity-based fashion (e.g. Ontario Apple Order, 
British Columbia Hog Order).  A great proportion of Marketing Orders de legates to provincial 
marketing boards the authority to regula te inter-provincial trade and exports.  
 
Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act 
The federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act re quires that all alcohol beverages imported, sent 
or transported into or between provinces occur th rough the authority of delegated agents, identified 
under provincial law (e.g., boards, commissions, officers or other governmental agencies).  
 
Meat Inspection Act 
Authority for federal meat inspection programs derives from the Canadian Meat Inspection Act .  The 
Act requires that all meat entering into interprovi ncial trade or exported out of Canada come from a 
federally registered establishment.  All activities oc curring in the establishment must comply with the 
provisions of the Meat Inspection Regulations.  Regulations may be made under this Act by the 
Governor in Council, which requi res publication of the amendment in the Canada Gazette after 
passing the necessary Order in Council. 
 
Provincial Regulations 
Each provincial government has the authority to set  out regulations, norms and standards governing 
agriculture within its territory, which can differ.  This means that an agricultural product produced in 
one province and sold in another has to comply with federal regulations, the regulations of the 
province where it is produced and those of the province where it is sold. 
 
Agreement on Internal Trade 
Federal, provincial, and territorial governments si gned the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) which 
came into effect in 1995.  It seek s to reduce and eliminate, to the ex tent possible, barriers to the free 
movement of persons, goods, services, and investme nt within Canada and to establish an open, 
efficient, and stable domestic market.  Chapte r Nine (Agricultural and Food Goods) of the AIT 
contains non-discriminatory provisions for all technical measures (e.g. those dealing with 
terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or la belling requirements) affecting agricultural and food 
goods and specifically excludes the core functions of supply-management systems (e.g., provincial 
marketing boards and production quotas). 
 
[China Question 25 (second set)]:  Could Canada please indicate policies on power marketization 
and power market access?  Canada's Response:  Electricity pricing varies by province or territory according to the volume and 
type of available generation and whether prices are market-based or regulated.  With the exception of 
Alberta and Ontario, prices are regulated by a quasi-j udicial board or commission.  At the retail level, 
the price of electricity is not only affected by the cost of production but as well by the cost of transmission and local distribution, which may vary depending on factors such as geography and population density.  In Quebec, Nova Scotia, Pr ince Edward Island and Ne wfoundland and Labrador, 
electricity rates are regulated on a cost-of-service basi s.  In Alberta and Ontario, prices are set through 
the market, although households and smaller commerc ial consumers have the option of subscribing to 
a regulated rate.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
 [China Question 26 (second set)]:  Could Canada please provide la ws and regulations on power 
market access?  Please also provide policies on in ternational bid for government procurement in 
power sector in the past two years.  The management of energy resources, including transmission networks, falls under provincial 
jurisdiction.  Canadian provinces must provide reciprocal open transmission access to sell electricity 
directly to customers in the U.S. at market-bas ed rates.  As such, many Canadian transmission 
providers have now filed Open Access Transmissi on Tariffs (OATT) consistent with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission's Order 888.  Three provinces have transmission providers that do not have FERC-compatible tariffs:  Ne wfoundland and Labrador, Ontario,  and Alberta.  The regulated 
transmission owner in Ontario, Hydro One, filed its  own tariff for approval with the Ontario Energy 
Board.  FERC has ruled that the Ontario system pr ovides transmission access equivalent to that in an 
OATT.  Alberta opened a fully competitive whol esale market, while Newfoundland and Labrador 
does not sell directly to the United States at this time.  
In jurisdictions with an OATT and without a co mpetitive wholesale market, prospective transmission 
system users can reserve transmission capacity.  Wh en a new facility becomes available or when the 
OATT is first implemented, the transmission owner holds an open season, where all requests are treated as being received at the same time.  After the initial allocation, all requests are treated on a first 
come, first serve basis.  In allocating transmissi on, requests for firm service have priority over 
requests for non-firm service, and requests for long-term rights have priority over requests for short-
term rights. 
 The Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) defines the rates terms and conditions associated with 
network transmission service.  The Tariff and the Sc hedules of fees are usually posted on the website 
of the Independent System Operator (ISO) or the Open Access Same-Time Information System 
(OASIS) site. 
 The existing Canadian transmission network extends  over 160,000 km. It is characterized by north-
south backbones, in part due to the location of mo st major load centres near the Canada-U.S. border 
and major hydro projects in the northern regions of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. 
 
Since electricity markets are the purview of the provincial governments, the details of electricity 
market regulation varies from province to province.  
BRITISH COLUMBIA 
The crown corporation BC Hydro dominates the elect ricity market in British Columbia (BC).  From 
2003 to June 2010, transmission was the responsibility of the crown corporation BC Transmission 
Corporation (BCTC).  BC's Clean Energy Act re -integrated the BC Transmission Corporation with 
BC Hydro, effective July 5, 2010.  BC Hydro owns and operates the majority of the pr ovince's electricity generation, transmission and 
distribution assets, and is the supplier for most residential and commercial customers.  Wholesale 
access is available to large industr ial users, allowing them to choose their own electricity supplier. 
Smaller consumers are restricted to the local distributor, which in most cases is BC Hydro.  The south-central portion of BC is served by FortisBC, which provides wholesale electricity to municipal distributors.  
The BC Utilities Commission is responsible for regula ting the BC electricity sector to ensure that 
energy legislation is respected.  This includes the regulation of rates, and new generation and 
transmission developments.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 48  
 
 ALBERTA  
Alberta's wholesale and retail electricity markets are deregulated – i.e. prices paid by consumers are 
set by the market, not by a regulator.  New generating facilities are built based purely on economics.  The Alberta Electric System Operator manages the market, or "power pool", and ensures that the 
electric system operates smoothly and efficiently. 
Transmission is regulated by the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC).  The AUC also regulates the 
sitting of new power plants, but does not regulate the price at which the new facility would sell its 
power.  
SASKATCHEWAN 
SaskPower, a crown corporation, ow ns and operates the large majority  of generation, transmission and 
distribution infrastructure in the province.  SaskPowe r submits rate applications to the Saskatchewan 
Rate Review Panel, which provides a recommendation to  Cabinet.  Final decisions regarding rates lie 
with Cabinet.  MANITOBA  
Manitoba Hydro, a crown corporation, is the dominan t player in Manitoba's electric system.  It owns 
and operates all transmission and distribution assets and nearly all generation assets in the province.  It 
is also responsible for natural gas distribution.  The Public Utilities Board regulates electricity ra tes in Manitoba on a cost-of-service basis. 
 
ONTARIO  
Ontario's electricity system is very complex, with many different players, due to an attempt at 
deregulation that was partially reversed a few years later.  Ontario has a competitive wholesale 
electricity market;  however, the level of competiti on is fairly limited.  Ontario Power Generation, a 
dominant crown corporation, is subject to wholesale price regulation for many of its assets to prevent 
abuse of market power.   The Ontario Power Authority is responsible for system planning, and issues long-term contracts for new generating facilities (primarily natural gas and renewable sources).  These facilities sell their 
electricity on the wholesale market, and are comp ensated for any difference between what they 
receive via the market and their contract price.  
 HydroOne, another provincial crown corporation, is  responsible for the transmission system for the 
entire province and the distribution system of some communities.  There are also many local 
distribution companies, often owned by the munici pal governments, that provide distribution services. 
 
The Ontario Energy Board regulates retail prices, which are a function of the wholesale market price, the additional compensation provided  through long-term contracts, a nd the costs of transmission and 
distribution.  
QUEBEC  
Hydro-Québec (HQ) is a fully integrated crown corporation divided into three main divisions: 
Production, TransÉnergie, and Distribution.  Genera tion is not regulated in Quebec;  however, HQ 
Production has sole responsibility for developing hydro facilities larger than 50 MW.  Additionally, by law, HQ Production is required to supply HQ Distribution a maximum of 
165,000,000 MWh/year (the "heritage pool") for customers in Québec at a set price of $2.79/kWh. 
Competition exists in the wholesale market for a ll HQ Distribution needs in excess of the heritage 
pool.  The wholesale market has been open to compe tition since May 1997;  however, to date, none of 
the municipal distributors have exercised the option to date, given the low cost of power offered by 
HQ Production.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
 Transmission and distribution are regulated by the Régie de l'énergie.  HQ TransÉnergie and HQ 
Distribution are regulated on a return-on-equity basis, at 3.66% and 3.40% above the long-term GoC bond rate, respectively.  The Régie also regulates the natural gas industry.  
NEW  BRUNSWICK  
Almost all the residential and industrial power  consumers in the province are serviced by 
New Brunswick Power, a company that has a single shareholder, the Government of New Brunswick.  
NB Power is divided into four corporations:  NB Power Generation, NB Power Nuclear, NB Power 
Transmission, and NB Power Distribution.  Electricity rates charged by NB Power Distribution are regulated on a cost-of-service basis by the Energy and Utilities Board. 
 
The electric system is operated by the New Brunswick System Operator, a not-for-profit independent corporation.  
NOVA SCOTIA  
Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSP) is a fully inte grated regulated electric utility that provides 
approximately 97% of electricity generation, 99%  of transmission and distribution to 95% of 
electricity customers in Nova Scotia.  NSP was priv atized in 1992, and is now  a subsidiary of Emera 
Inc.  The remaining share of the system is owned and operated by six municipal utilities:  Canso, Antigonish, Berwick, Riverport, Mahone Bay, and Lunenburg.  
Electricity rates are regulated by the NS Utility and Review Board (UARB). 
 
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 
Maritime Electric Ltd is a private, vertically integrated utility owned by Fortis and provides 
transmission, distribution and a small amount of ge neration service to Islanders.  The remainder of 
electricity customers are serviced by the municipa lly-owned utility Summerside Electric.  Most 
electricity consumed in PEI is imported from New Brunswick.   Both Maritime and Summerside Electric are regul ated by the all-purpose Island Regulatory and 
Appeals Commission.  The utilities are regul ated on a cost-of-service basis.  
 NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR 
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH) dominates the generation and transmission services in the 
province.  It also provides distribution services in rural areas of the island and throughout Labrador, 
and to some of the province's large heavy industria l customers.  NLH is owned by Nalcor Energy, 
which is a crown corporation. 
 
NLH sells electricity wholesale to Newfoundland Power Inc. (NP), a regulated private subsidiary of 
Fortis Inc. for distribution to customers in ur ban areas.  NP serves 85% of all residential and 
commercial distribution customers, and also ow ns some generation and transmission facilities. 
 Both NLH and NP are regulated by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, NLH on a rate-of-
return basis and NP on a cost-o f-service/return-on-rate-base basis. 
 
YUKON  
Yukon Energy Corporation (Yukon Energy), a subs idiary of the crown-owned Yukon Development 
Corporation, is the dominant power generator with  almost 90% of capacity, including all the major 
hydro facilities.  It also owns and operates two sep arate transmission systems that serve loads in the 
vicinity of Whitehorse-Aishinik-Faro and Dawson City-Mayo.  Yukon Electric Company Limited (YECL), a subsidia ry of ATCO Electric, owns and operates the 
remaining generation capacity in most of the Yuk on's other rural communities.  Outside the Dawson WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 50  
 
 City area, YECL handles most of the distribution in the Yukon and in some places, including the 
capital city Whitehorse, distributes power as a wholesale customer of Yukon Energy.  
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 
The Northwest Territories Power Corporation (NTPC), a Crown corporation of the Government of the 
NWT, is the main producer of electric power. 
 Power distribution is handled by Northland Utilities Ltd. (a subsidiary of ATCO Electric) in Hay 
River, Yellowknife, and four other isolated communities.  NTPC looks after distribution in the remainder of the NWT. 
 
NUNAVUT  
The Nunvaut Power Corporation, a subsidiary of th e crown corporation Qulliq Energy, is responsible 
for generation and distribution services in Nunavut.  The Nunavut electrical system consists of 
isolated diesel generators with no interconnections  with neighbouring provinces.  All aspects of QEC 
are regulated by the Ministry of Energy;  however a Utility Rates Review Council has been 
established to provide independent advisory services in review of utility applications, major capital 
projects, and electricity rates.  
[China Question 27 (second set)]:  "The Government of Canada is working with the majority of 
provinces and territories to establish a single Canadian  Securities Regulator."  Please notify the latest 
progress of establishing the single Canadian Securities Regulator. 
 Canada's Response:  The federal government is working w ith the majority of provinces and 
territories towards establishing a single national secu rities regulator to replace the provincial and 
territorial securities regulators in participating juri sdictions.  While participation in the Canadian 
securities regulator initiative is voluntary, the Govern ment continues to encourage all jurisdictions to 
partner and help shape the future of this new Canadian institution. 
 In May 2010, the federal government tabled for information in Parliament a proposed Canadian 
Securities Act, which proposes significant improve ments in terms of governance, adjudication, 
financial stability, and regulatory and criminal enfo rcement, and provides a wide scope of authority to 
regulate financial instruments and participants in capital markets.  At the same time, the federal 
government referred the proposed Act to the Supr eme Court of Canada for a ruling on whether 
Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation.  The proposed regime 
would lead to significant improvements in terms of governance, adjudication, financial stability, 
investor protection, and regulatory and criminal enforcement. 
 
In July 2010, the Canadian Securities Transition O ffice, which is leading the transition, released a 
Transition Plan, which sets out a roadmap for the est ablishment of a national securities regulator and a 
vision for its regulatory approach, as well as reco mmendations regarding the governance structure, 
organization design and implementa tion.  Implementation of a Canadian securities regulator is 
targeted for 2012. 
 
Hearings on the constitutional refere nce were held at the Supreme Court of Canada in April 2011 on 
whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the proposed Canadian Securities Act.  
The Supreme Court's decision on the matter is pending and is expected sometime in the fall of 2011.   
 
Should a favourable ruling be received from the S upreme Court of Canada, the federal government 
intends to introduce for adoption in Parliament a Securities Act, which would then go through the 
normal parliamentary legislative process.  The fe deral government will take the necessary steps to 
support a transition that minimizes disruption and uncertainty.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
 [China Question 28 (second set)]:  Please provide information on approved foreign-invested medical 
institutions in Canada.  Canada's Response:  Since 1985, four applications for review  under the Investment Canada Act have 
been approved in the medical and social services sector. 
 
[China Question 29 (second set)]:  What are the regulations for foreign medical staff to work in 
Canada? 
 
Canada's Response:  Many health professions are regulated in Canada, including registered nurses, 
licensed practical nurses, physicians, pharmacists, ph ysiotherapists, occupationa l therapists and, in 
many but not all provinces, medical laboratory technicians and medical radiation technicians. 
 Through legislation, provincial and territorial (P/T) governments delegate the authority for self-
regulation in the public interest to health professi on groups within their jurisdiction.  These regulatory 
bodies set the standards for competency assessment (examinations and/or supervised practicum), 
determine fee coverage for examinations and licenses, and issue licences to those who meet 
established qualification standards.  Labour Mobility  legislation requires that if an individual is 
licensed in one province, then it must  be recognized across all provinces. 
 Licensure requirements for foreign medical staff ma y vary from province-to-province and often vary 
from profession-to-profession.  However, they may in clude an assessment of:  language proficiency in 
one or both official languages of Canada, academic credentials equivalency, competency equivalency 
(knowledge and skills/experience), and sometimes proof of recent practice or required internships, to 
name a few.  Some health professions have national exams or other assessment/certification processes, while others have jurisdiction-specific assessments. 
 
As an example, foreign trained physicians must  prove they have a valid medical degree from a 
medical education institution listed in the Foundatio n for the Advancement of International Medical 
Education and Research International Medical E ducation's Directory (FAIMER-IMED directory). 
They must prove they have proficiency in either English or French (language benchmarks vary by 
P/T).  The foreign trained physician must be eligib le to be licensed in a P/T.  To be licensed, the 
physician must be certified by either the College of  Family Physicians of Canada –CFPC (for family 
physicians) or the Royal College of  Physicians and Surgeons of Cana da- RCPSC (for specialists).  At 
a minimum, to be eligible for such certification, th e physician must demonstrate that they have passed 
the three required exams set out by the Medical Council of Canada (MCC) as well as demonstrate that they have had acceptable postgraduate medical residenc y training (in either Canada or the U.S. or 
other acceptable country as deemed appropriate by the P/T) or sufficient years of independent practice 
in their country of origin.  In addition to MCC exams, the physician must sit the CFPC or RCPSC 
exams (or be from a country recognized to be exempt  from sitting the exams).  There are other criteria 
specific to each P/T regulatory authority wh ich would also need to be considered. 
 
[China Question 30 (second set)]:  Please indicate the requirements (qualification, residency, etc.) 
for a foreigner to establish an accounting firm in Canada. 
 Canada's Response:  There is a broad set of legal requireme nts (related to tax laws, employment 
laws, etc.) for a foreigner to establish an accounting fi rm in Canada, which vari es by province/territory 
and needs to be verified directly with each speci fic authority directly.  Canada's GATS scheduled 
commitment for a foreigner wanting to establish an accounting firm, with regards to market access, is: 
 "3) None, other than commercial presence must take the form of a sole proprietorship or partnership ". 
 With regards to national treatmen t, the scheduled commitment is: WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 52  
 
  "3)None, other than: Auditing (Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Québec, Prince 
Edward Island, Newfoundland and Alberta):  Office  must be under the management of a resident " 
 
[China Question 31 (second set)]:  If an accounting firm registered in foreign countries is allowed to 
be established in Canada, are there any restric tions on the scope of business for such kind of 
accounting firms operating in Canada?  If yes, what are those restrictions and regulatory measures 
adopted?  Canada's Response:  The answer to this question varies by province and territory, as each 
jurisdiction is responsible to dete rmine how and to what extent the field of accounting services is 
regulated in their territory.  Please contact the specific  jurisdictional authority of interest to receive the 
most up-to-date and accurate information on this matter.  
[China Question 32 (second set)]:  Will Canadian capital market acc ept audit reports conducted by 
foreign accounting firms for foreign companies listed in Canadian capital market?  If yes, are there 
any restrictions? 
 Canada's Response:  As per the previous response, the answer to this question depends on the 
existing requirements in place for public auditing ser vices in each Canadian jurisdiction.  These 
requirements vary by province and territory since e ach jurisdiction is responsible to determine how 
and to what extent the field of accounting services is  regulated in their territory.  Please contact the 
specific jurisdictional authority of interest to recei ve the most up-to-date and accurate information on 
this matter.  
[China Question 33 (second set)]:  What detailed measures and assistance has Canada adopted or 
made to help developing countries improve their environment and ability to tackle environmental 
problems? 
 
Canada's Response:  Increasing environmental sustainability is  one of CIDA's cross-cutting themes, 
and a Millennium Development Goal.  Canada asses ses all of its development assistance activities for 
potential risks and opportunities with respect to en vironmental sustainability and works with its 
partner countries to ensure that they have the capacity to do the same.  This includes enhancing 
partners' abilities to manage natural resources a nd address issues like desertification and climate 
change.  
 As part of Canada's 2009 commitmen t under the Copenhagen Accord on  climate change, the Canadian 
government provided $400 million in fast-start climate change financing for the 2010-2011 fiscal 
year.  The funding will support three key areas in  which Canada has considerable expertise: 
adaptation, clean energy, and forests.   CIDA recognizes that taking action to increase envir onmental sustainability, reduce greenhouse gases 
and adapt to a changing climate are important to achieving its international development goals.  For 
that reason, it supports projects that improve th e environment and tackle climate change while 
promoting its priority themes of:  Increasing food secu rity;  Securing the future of children and youth; 
and stimulating sustainable economic growth.  Canada, through CIDA, is Chair of the OECD DAC Task Team on Strategic Environmental 
Assessment (SEA), which has developed a number of capacity building tools and programs to assist 
developing countries in integrating environmental issu es into their respective policy, plan and program 
initiatives through their national SEA process. 
 
[China Question 34 (second set)]:   In the total funding of $7.5 million, how much will be used for 
the environmental protection in developing countries?  Please specify the detailed sectors.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 53 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  We are not certain what this amount refe rs to.  If it refers to the $7.5 million 
over five years (2010-2014) to the DDAGTF, and STDF, the question is best referred to the WTO Secretariat.  Canada may specify the environm ent as a cross-cutting issue in its contribution 
agreements, but we rely on our partner organizations to implement this consideration.  In the case of 
the $7.5 M, it is too early to say how this specification will be implemented. 
 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
 
[Chinese Taipei Questions 1 and 2]:   As indicated in the Report, th e Canadian Federal Government's 
trade and investment policy objectives are set out  in its Global Commerce Strategy (GCS) (2007), 
which builds on the Government's overarching objectiv es set out in Advantage Canada.  In the GCS 
the Government has identified priority markets.  What were the criteria adopted by the Canadian gove rnment to determine "priority markets" in 2007? 
Does the Canadian government plan to review th e "priority markets"?  If so, when and how? 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada's priority markets were dete rmined by extensive consultation with 
Canadian business, industry and academic representativ es in order to identify Canadian interests and 
opportunities for growth.  The market plans are ali gned with and incorporate elements of the Global 
Commerce Strategy, such as negotiating enhanced market access, investment and innovation, and 
business development/expansion of our network.  As the markets identified remain priority countries 
for Canada, there is no need to review them at this time. 
 As outlined by Seizing Global Advantage, the Government's strategy for improving Canada's 
competitiveness, Canada's priority markets were  determined by extensive consultation with 
government, academic and Canadian business and industr y representatives, in order to identify those 
areas where Canadian opportunities and interests have  the greatest potential for growth.  The market 
plans are aligned with and incorporate elements of  the Global Commerce Strategy, such as negotiating 
enhanced market access, investment and innova tion, and business develo pment/expansion of our 
network.  As the markets identified remain priority  countries for Canada, there is no need to review 
them at this time. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 3]:   The report mentions that, for high impact regulations, a Performance 
Measurement and Evaluation Plan (PMEP) must be  completed to ensure that regulatory activities 
continue to meet their initial policy objectives.  Could Canada please provide further details of the 
PMEP?  
 
Canada's Response:  The purpose of a PMEP is to ensure that  regulatory activities continue to meet 
their initial policy objectives and are accordingly re newed on an ongoing basis.  A PMEP provides a 
concise statement or road map to plan, monito r, evaluate, and report on results throughout the 
regulatory life cycle.  When implemented, it helps a regulator:  
 ensure a clear and logical design that ties resources and activities to expected results; 
 describe the roles and responsibilities of the main players involved in the regulatory proposal; 
 make sound judgments on how to impr ove performance on an ongoing basis; 
 demonstrate accountability and benefits to Canadians; 
 ensure reliable and timely information is ava ilable to decision makers in the regulatory 
organizations and central agencies as well as to Canadians;  and  
 ensure that the information gathered will effectively support an evaluation. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 54  
 
 Before submitting a regulatory proposal, departme nts and agencies are expected to conduct an 
assessment, which is performed in collaboration with  the Secretariat's Regulatory Affairs Sector, to 
determine the level of impact (Low, Medium , or High) of the proposed regulation.  
 For more information, please see the Handbook for Regulatory Proposals: Performance Measurement 
and Evaluation Plan available online at:  http://www.tbs-sct .gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/pmep-pmre/pmep-
pmre01-eng.asp (English) or http://www.tbs-sct. gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/pmep-pmre/pmep-pmre01-
fra.asp (French). 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 4]:   Canada still has foreign direct investment limitations in a number of 
different sectors, including fishing, mining and air transport.  Could Canada please elaborate further 
on the FDI restrictions on fishing, mining, and air transport?  
Canada's Response:   Provisions are included in all Canada's free trade agreements to maintain the 
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans discretionary auth ority over licensing of fishing activities, and state 
that companies having greater than 49% forei gn ownership are prevented from holding Canadian 
commercial fishing licenses.  
In order to be eligible to obtain fishing licenses, foreign ownership is limited to 49% of the voting 
shares of a Canadian corporation or jointly-owned Ca nadian subsidiary.  Beyond this ownership level, 
fishing licenses of those corporations will not norma lly be renewable upon expiry.  However, because 
these are licensing policies subject to the Minister's  discretionary authority, exception to the policy 
can be approved.  
Canada welcomes foreign investments including in the mining sector.  The Non-Resident ownership 
Policy in the Uranium Mining Sector , with regards to the Investment Canada Act , is the only policy 
setting an ownership threshold for foreign investors.   The Policy can be consulted using the following 
link.  http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/sou rces/uranuc/uranium/respol-eng.php. 
 
Canadian air carriers (both passenger and cargo) ar e currently subject to a restriction in the Canada 
Transportation Act  limiting foreign ownership of voting interests to 25 percent.  Pursuant to the 
Budget Implementation Act,  2009, the Canada Transportation Act  has been amended to enable an 
increase in the limit on foreign ownership of Canadian airlines, from 25 percent to 49 percent.  Regulations are being developed by the Canadian Tran sportation Agency to effect this policy change.  
The development of regulations requi res consultations with affected stakeholders, and this process is 
underway.  
[Chinese Taipei Question 5 ]:  Could Canada please provide us  with information on the amount of 
business, in terms of output value or trade volume, generated in the Canadian services sector by the 
liberalization commitments contained in those FTAs that  have already entered into force?  In addition, 
how much employment has been created in the services sectors as a result?  
Canada's Response:   Though the existing statistical information on trade in services is limited and 
does not fully encompass the type of information Chin ese Tapei is looking for in terms of correlation, 
Canada can confirm that the services sector cons tituted 73 percent of Canada's gross domestic product 
and 78 percent of Canadian jobs in  2009.  The number of jobs increased at an annual rate of 2.5% 
during the 2005-2008 period, and remain ed practically unchanged in 2009. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 6]:   Has the employment created in the services sector impacted on 
employment levels in the agricultural or manufact uring industries?  If so, has Canada provided any 
guidance or any assistance measures to help these industries? 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 55 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   The largest increases in the services sector employment during the past five 
years occurred in professional, scientific and technica l services, health care and social assistance, and 
finance, insurance, real estate and leasing.  
[Chinese Taipei Question 7]:   Which sensitive services sectors or sub-sectors has Canada not so far 
opened up under these FTAs, and what are the reasons for not doing so?  Does Canada plan to open up 
these sectors or sub-sectors in future FTAs? 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada's approach has always been  to preserve full policy flexibility with 
regard to health, public education, social services,  culture, environmental protection, and in certain 
sectors such as transportation and natural resources (including fisheries).  
[Chinese-Taipei Question 8]:   Why have the FTAs signed betwee n Canada and Colombia in 2008, 
Jordan in 2009 and Panama in 2010 not yet ente red into force?  Have any difficulties been 
encountered between Canada and the contracting pa rties or within their own individual territories? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is working towards ratification and/or bringing into force the following 
agreements and we look forward to the enhanced tr ade with each of these countries and the prosperity 
the agreements will bring about.  Panama :  Canada signed its Free Trade Agreement with Panama in May 2009, and with its signature, 
Canada approved the Agreement.  Legislation requi red to implement the Canada-Panama FTA, tabled 
in Parliament in March 2010, ceased to exist when  the 2011 Canadian nationa l election was called (all 
government legislation before Parliament ceases to exist at dissolution).  Once the government re-
introduces the implementing legislation, and it is pas sed by Parliament, officials will work with their 
Panamanian counterparts to promptly bring the Agre ement into force.  Canada has not encountered 
any difficulties with Panama or within its own territo ry regarding the entry in to force of the Canada- 
Panama Free Trade Agreement.  Jordan :  Canada signed its Free Trade Agreement with  Jordan in June 2009, and with its signature, 
Canada approved the Agreement.  Legislation required to implemen t the Canada-Jordan FTA, tabled 
in Parliament in March 2010, ceased to exist when  the 2011 Canadian nationa l election was called (all 
government legislation before Parliament ceases to exist at dissolution).  Once the government 
re-introduces the implementing legislation, and it is  passed by Parliament, officials will work with 
their Jordanian counterparts to promptly bring the Ag reement into force.  Canada has not encountered 
any difficulties with Jordan or within its own territo ry regarding the entry into force of the Canada-
Jordan Free Trade Agreement. 
 
Colombia :  On June 29, 2010, the implementing legi slation for the Canada-Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement and its related Agreements received Royal Assent in Canada.  On April 11, 2011, 
Colombia formally advised Canada that is has co mpleted all of the necessary steps in its domestic 
approval process.  Canada and Colombia are now proceeding as quickly as possible to complete the 
remaining technical steps required for implementati on.  Canada has not encountered any difficulties 
with Colombia nor within its own territory regardi ng the entry into force of the Canada-Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement.  
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 9]:  "As indicated, certain official su pport initiatives (measures) may be 
contingent upon local-content requirements.  For ex ample, the feed-in tariff programme for renewable 
energy, established by the province of Ontario in 2009, has prompted Japan to formally request, under 
the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, consulta tions with Canada relating to the programme's 
local-content and price-support components."  Coul d Canada please explain how the above-mentioned 
support measures are in compliance with Article 3.5 of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 56  
 
 Trade (GATT 1994), Article 3.1(b) of the Agreemen t on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and 
Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures?  Canada's Response:  Canada cannot comment on measures subject to a WTO panel proceeding. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 10]:  Could Canada please elaborate further on what is meant by the terms 
"Canadian-controlled" and "eligible small business" under this tax incentive programme?  
 Canada's Response:  Particular rules apply for active business income and investment income earned 
by Canadian-controlled private corporations (CCP Cs).  In general terms, a CCPC is a private 
corporation that resides and was incorporated in Canada, and that is not controlled, directly or 
indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or mo re non-resident persons, by one or more public 
corporations, or by any combination of them.  The Canadian income tax system provides a lower 11 -per-cent federal corporate income tax rate on up 
to $500,000 of active business income earned in a year  by a corporation that is a small business (the 
"small business income tax rate").  To be eligible , a corporation must be a CCPC, and its taxable 
capital (and the taxable capital of all corporati ons associated with the CCPC) must not exceed 
$15 million.  The small business limit of a CCPC (tha t is, the amount eligible for the small business 
income tax rate) begins to be phased-out as the tota l taxable capital of the CCPC and of all associated 
corporations exceeds $10 million.  It is fully phased -out when the total taxable capital of the CCPC 
and of all associated corporations reaches $15 million.  Furthermore, a CCPC that is eligible for the 
small business income tax rate must share the small business limit of $500,000 with all other CCPCs 
that are part of the same associated corporate group.  
In recent years, Canada has reduced the general fede ral corporate income tax rate and has made other 
significant tax changes to improve the compe titiveness of Canada's business tax system.  
 Notably, the general federal corporate income tax rate is being reduced in stages to 15 per cent by 
2012 for all resident corporations (including corpora tions controlled by non-resident persons).  The 
general federal corporate income tax rate applies on all of a corporation's taxable income (including 
active business income).  When corporations are not Canadian residents, the general federal corporate 
income tax rate essentially applies to inco me from a business carried out in Canada.   
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 11]:  According to Table III.27, Canada's  legislation on Plant Breeders' 
rights in terms of scope and selected limitations s tipulates that "Applicants may only be citizens of, 
residents of, or have a resident office in Canada or a UPOV member state."  Article 27.3(b) of the 
WTO/TRIPS Agreement, however, stipulates that "Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis  system or by any combination thereof.  In 
order to comply with the provisions of the TRIP S Agreement and to protect the rights of plant 
breeders of all WTO Members, and based on the principles of MFN and National Treatment of the GATT 1994, we ask if Canada would kindly amend its relevant laws accordingly? 
 
Canada's Response:   It is Canada's view that our domestic legislation for plant breeders' rights 
complies with the TRIPS Agreement. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 12]:  A new agency, the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO) was 
established in 2007 in order to improve the performan ce of the federal regulatory system for major 
resource projects.  We would appreciate knowing ho w the regulatory regime has performed since the 
MPMO was established. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 57 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   Through the MPMO Initiative, federal departments and agencies are working 
collaboratively to ensure a more effective, account able and transparent review process for major 
projects, to strengthen competitiveness and to improve environmental protection. 
 The MPMO is now managing the federal regulat ory review process for over 70 major resource 
projects that represent more than $100 billion in potential new investment opportunities.  Project 
reviews are occurring in all regions of Canada, with two thirds located in western Canada. 
 To ensure a more effective and efficient project review process, the MPMO has introduced a number of important project management tools and approaches, which include: 
 
 Monthly briefings to a committee of 12 De puty Heads to resolve process bottlenecks; 
 
 Serving as the single window into the federal review process for interested stakeholders; 
 
 Project agreements, signed by Deputy Ministers for all projects that the MPMO is managing, 
commit federal departments and agencies to mil estones and service standards that target a 
review process of no more than 2 years on average; 
 
 The initial building blocks, including improved governance, have been put in place for an 
integrated, whole-of-government approach  to Aboriginal consultations;  and, 
 
 Performance of federal reviews for project s under the MPMO initiative is being publicly 
tracked and monitored to ensure greater transparency and accountability (e.g., weekly 
reporting to Deputy Ministers on timelines). 
 
Federal departments and agencies ha ve performed well in meeting thei r service standards and target 
timelines for project reviews.  Currently, approxima tely 80% of active project reviews managed under 
the MPMO Initiative are meeting or exceeding the ta rget timeline established in their respective 
Project Agreements.  
The creation of the MPMO initiative has improved c oordination across federal regulatory departments 
and agencies and is helping stakeholders to navi gate the regulatory system.  To further support the 
responsible development of Canada 's energy and mining industries, the MPMO continues to lead 
collaborative research across federal regulatory depart ments and agencies to develop options to further 
improve the performance of the regulatory system. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 13]:  Why does the MPMO not apply to major projects in the northern 
areas of Canada? 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada's North is unique within the overall federal regulatory system.  In the 
Northwest Territories (NWT), Nunavut and the Yukon,  institutions of public government have been 
established, with responsibility shared amongst the fe deral and territorial gove rnments and Aboriginal 
organizations.  These co-management Boards ove rsee resource development activities on Crown, 
settlement and private lands.  This includes respons ibility for planning, EA, and regulation of land and 
water use.  
To address the unique regulatory issues in the North, the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs 
launched a separate but complementary initiative to  improve the certainty and predictability of 
northern regimes through legislative change and enha nced environmental monitoring programs.  This 
included the creation of the Northern Projects Ma nagement Office within the Canadian Northern WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 58  
 
 Economic Development Agency in 2009, based largel y on the MPMO, to coordinate participation of 
federal regulatory departments and agencies for northern projects. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 14]:  We note that under the "Non Resi dent Ownership Policy in the 
Uranium Mining Sector," foreign ownership of uranium mining property is limited to 49%.  This 
Policy is currently under review and it seems that the government is discussing possible changes to the 
regulation.  Are there any firm plans to loosen or remove the restriction?  
 
Canada's Response:   Canada is a leading producer and exporte r of uranium for nuclear energy and is 
well positioned to supply the world market.  In add ition, the Government of Canada permits foreign 
direct investment under the Non-Resident Ownership Policy (NROP) in the uranium mining sector. 
The basic NROP policy ensures a minimum level of resident ownership in individual mining properties of 51 percent, at the stage of first co mmercial production, though r esident ownership levels 
for individual production projects of less that 51 percent will be permitted, if it can be clearly 
established that the project is in fact Canadian-cont rolled.  Exemptions to the policy will be granted 
only in cases where it can be demonstrated clearly  that Canadian partne rs cannot be found. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 15]:  Would it be possible for Canada to provide all WTO Members with 
information on follow-up activities or changes in this regard?  Canada's Respons e:  The increasing demand for uranium worldwide (particularly in Asia and to a 
lesser extent in the Middle Eastern countries) has focused international attention on the NROP and 
resulted in calls requesting its furt her liberalization.  In its Speech from the Throne, the Government 
highlighted the importance of attracting foreign inv estment to Canada's economy, and therefore it will 
continue to welcome foreign inv estment that benefits Canada. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 16]:  As indicated in the Report, exports of natural gas, oil and electricity 
require the authorization of the National Energy Board (NEB), which may issue export licences valid 
either for short term orders (up to 2 years)  or for long term orders (up to 25 years).  What are the main 
points taken into account by the NEB in its process of consideration and deliberation?  (Energy 
Sector) 
 
Canada's Response:  First, it is important to note that the v ast majority of Canada's oil and natural 
gas exports occur via short-term orders, granted by  the National Energy Board (NEB).  Granting of 
these export orders is routine, and does not requi re public hearings or Government of Canada 
approval.  
 
Natural gas or crude oil exports can also be author ized under long term licence s, when the exporter or 
the exporter's customers desire this.  The issuan ce of an export licence by the NEB requires the 
approval of the Government of Ca nada before it can take effect. 
 Further details are given below, broken down into natural gas and oil sections. 
 Natural Gas 
 Licences 
In considering licence applications for the export of  natural gas out of Canada, the NEB must comply 
with section 118 of the NEB Act, which provides as follows: 
 
s. 118. On an application for a licence, the Board shall have regard to all considerations that appear 
to it to be relevant and shall   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 59 
 
 
 (a) satisfy itself that the quantity of oil or gas to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining 
after due allowance has been made for the rea sonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada 
having regard to the trends in the discovery of oil or gas in Canada; … 
 
In addition, there are National Energy Board Act Part VI (Oil and Gas) Regulations  respecting oil and 
natural gas exports. 
 In terms of considering licence applications to e xport natural gas, the NEB employs a well-established 
regulatory approach, known as the Market-Based  Procedure (MBP).  The MBP is founded on the 
premise that the marketplace operates in such a way that Canadian requirements for natural gas will be 
met at fair market prices.  The MBP is designed to  establish that the proposed export of natural gas is 
both surplus to reasonably foreseeable Canadian requi rements and is in the public interest.  The MBP 
consists of two components:  a public hearing as required by the Act and ongoing monitoring of 
Canadian energy markets.  
The public hearing comprises three parts:  the Comp laints Procedure, the Export Impact Assessment 
and the Other Public Interest Considerations. 
 
Complaints Procedure 
The Complaints Procedure seeks to ensure that ac tive Canadian buyers have access to gas supply on 
terms and conditions similar to those available to  export customers.  The NEB must consider any 
complaint from Canadian gas buyers who object to the proposed export on grounds that they have not 
had the opportunity to buy gas on terms and conditi ons, including price, similar to those of the 
proposed export. 
 
Export Impact Assessment (EIA) 
The focus of an EIA is to assist the NEB in its de termination of whether the Canadian energy market 
can adjust to incremental gas exports without cau sing Canadians difficulty in meeting their energy 
needs at prices determined in the market. 
 
Other Public Interest Considerations 
In addition to the Complaints Procedure and the EI A, the NEB has regard to other public interest 
considerations including, but not limited to: 
• assessing gas supply under contract; • assessing the likelihood that licensed volumes will be taken; • assessing the durability of gas sales contracts; • having regard to whether gas sales cont racts were negotiated at arm's length; 
• verifying that there is producer support for a gas export application; 
• verifying that there are provisi ons in the gas sales contract fo r the payment of the associated 
transportation charges on Canadian pipelines over the term of the gas sales contract; 
• determining the appropriate length of  term for an export licence; and  
• assessing potential environmental effects of facilities associated with the licence. 
 
Under the MBP, the NEB monitors Canadian energy  supply and demand to ensure that natural gas 
markets are functioning prope rly.  Monitoring assists the NEB in identifying situations where markets 
may not be functioning properly or cases where the evolution of supply and demand cast doubt on the 
ability of Canadians to meet their future energy requirements.  
Section 12 of the NEB Act Part VI (Oil and Gas) Regulations  describes the information that is 
necessary for applicants to furnish to th e NEB for licences to export natural gas. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 60  
 
 Orders 
The NEB authorizes natural gas exports by issuing shor t-term orders for periods less than two years or 
for a period between two and 20 years, in quantities not more than 30,000 m3 per day.  The majority of 
natural gas exports occur under short-term orders due to characteristics of the natural gas market. 
 
Where the NEB determines that an application for an  order for the exportation of natural gas contains 
all the information necessary to dispose of th e application, the NEB may issue an order. 
 
Crude Oil: 
 
Licences 
In considering licence applications for the export of oil out of Canada, the NEB must comply with 
section 118 of the NEB Act, subsection a) as indicated above.  In addition, there are National Energy 
Board Act Part VI (Oil and Gas) Regulations  respecting oil and natural gas exports. 
In terms of considering licence applications for the long-term export crude oil and equivalent, the 
NEB implemented the Fair Market Access (FMA) Pro cedure.  The FMA Procedure is premised on the 
belief that the crude oil market will normally operate to satisfy the requirements of Canadian buyers at 
fair market prices.  Any party wishing to export crude oil from Canada  on a long-term basis must demonstrate that it has 
provided fair market access to potentially-interested Canadian refiners and marketers (i.e. buyers). 
This places two obligations on an export licence applicant: 
 The applicant must inform potential Canadian buyers of the volumes and type(s) of crude oil associated with the proposed export;  and If any Canadian buyer expresses an interest in purch asing all or part of the available volumes, the 
applicant must enter into good faith negotiations wi th that potential buyer and negotiate on the same 
basis as it has negotiated, or which it is in the pro cess of negotiating, with its export customer(s).  The 
applicant is obligated only to disclose to potential Canadian buyers the volumes, type(s) of crude oil 
and the term associated with the pr oposed export.  The applicant is  not required to provide pricing 
information at this stage of the procedure.  
To demonstrate that it has complied with the FMA pro cedure for crude oil, the applicant will have to 
demonstrate that:  (a) no Canadian buyer was interested in buying a ll or part of the crude oil on similar terms and 
conditions as contained in the export sales contract(s);  or 
 
(b) Canadian buyers expressed an interest in purchasing crude oil from the applicant and that 
satisfactory contractual arrangements were reached.  In accordance with the Regulations, the applicant 
would be required to submit the terms and conditions of its export sales contract as part of its export 
licence application.  Should a Canadian buyer expr ess concern that it had not been provided fair 
market access, it would have to demonstrate to the NE B that it was either not informed of the crude oil 
available for sale or that the app licant had refused to enter into good faith negotiations with respect to 
offering the crude oil on similar terms and conditions  as are made available to the export customers. 
 In addition, in fulfillment of its mandate, the NE B will take into account a ll other relevant public 
interest considerations, including th e need for the applied-for licence. 
 
A public hearing is also required by the NEB Act.  Section 25 of the NEB Act Part VI (Oil and Gas) Regulations describes the information that is 
necessary for applicants to furnish to  the NEB for licences to export oil.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 61 
 
 
 Orders 
 
The NEB authorizes oil exports by issuing short-term  orders for periods less than one year for light 
crude oil and less than two years for heavy crude oil.   All Canadian oil exports at present occur under 
short-term orders due to characteristics of the oil market. 
 
Where the NEB determines that an application for an  order for the exportation of oil contains all the 
information necessary to dispose of the a pplication, the NEB may issue an order. 
 
[ChineseTaipei Question 17]:  What is done to ensure that the administrative surveillance 
mechanism does not interfere with fair market competition? 
 
Canada's Response:   The National Energy Board (NEB) comp iles statistics related to its regulatory 
role in the oil, gas and electric utility industries.  The National Energy Board Export and Import 
Reporting Regulations describe the information that must be submitted to the NEB respecting the oil, 
gas or electricity exports .  Every holder of a licence or an order for the exportation of oil, natural gas 
or electricity must submit certain information to  the NEB every month, in accordance with the Export 
and Import Reporting Regulations .  The NEB then aggregates this data and publishes monthly and 
annual statistics and reports.  In an advisory function, the NEB also keeps und er review and analyzes matters related to its 
jurisdiction and provides information and advice on aspects of energy su pply, transmission and 
disposition in and outside Canada.  In this role , the NEB publishes periodic assessments to inform 
Canadians on trends, events and issues which may affect Canadian energy markets.  These statistics and reports contribute to ensuring market transparency and promote fair market 
competition. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 18]:   In Canada, full-service branches of foreign banks may accept 
deposits of Can$150,000 or more, which are not e ligible for Canada's fe deral deposit insurance 
scheme.  The OECD has flagged the minimum depos it threshold for full-service branches as a barrier 
to fuller contestability in Canada's financial service s sector.  We should be grateful if Canada could 
please explain the underlying rationale for this restri ction in the form of a minimum deposit threshold 
applied to full-service branches of foreign banks?  Canada's Response:  Branches of foreign banks are more lightly regulated than subsidiaries or 
incorporated financial institutions.  In addition,  foreign bank branches have much lighter capital 
adequacy requirements than do subsidiaries.  As such they are restricted from engaging in certain 
activities, such as retail deposit-taking.   Given this restriction, foreign bank branches are not required 
to be members of CDIC, or to pay the deposit insura nce premiums.  The policy rationale is that given 
the lighter regulatory supervision and capital requi rements Canada has sought to limit branches to 
sophisticated customers and, therefore, restricted the size of deposits they could take.  
[Chinese Taipei Question 19]:   The Report by the Secretariat states that "The OECD has flagged 
both the minimum deposit threshold for full-service branches and the prohibition on direct bank sales of non-authorized insurance products as barriers to fuller contestability in Cana da's financial services 
sector."Could Canada please consider removing th e restriction (or lowering the minimum deposit 
threshold) for full-service foreign bank branches? 
 
Canada's Response:  Banks are a cornerstone of the Cana dian financial system. Ensuring sound 
management and prudential regulati on is critical.  Minimum deposit thresholds ensure that the best 
interests of the Canadian financial system are protect ed.  At this time the government has no intent to 
amend this provision. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 62  
 
 [Question 20] 
 
Canada launched a Blue Sky policy in 2006, which ca lled for a liberalized approach to bilateral air 
transportation negotiations.  Since 2006, it has negot iated open-skies-type air transport agreements 
with some 11 countries, including South Korea and Ne w Zealand.  We notice al so that it has either 
expanded existing agreements or concluded new agreements with a further 18 countries, and has 
signed an air transport agreement with the EU and its Member States in 2009 as well.  Over the last 
4 years, our civil aviation authority has proposed on several occasions negotiations through various 
channels with a view to expanding the current air se rvice agreement between us in line with Canada's 
Blue Sky policy, but as yet no positive response from Canada has been received. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 20]:   Can we now look forward to Ca nada giving full consideration to 
starting such negotiations with us in the not-too-distant future?  Canada's Response:   We thank Chinese Taipei for their qu estion with regards to further discussions 
on bilateral air relations.  Relevant Canadian av iation authorities have taken note, and will undertake 
to continue dialogue with the civil aviation au thorities of Chinese Taipei through appropriate 
channels. 
 
[Questions 21 to 26] 
 
As indicated in the report, the legal profession in Canada is self-governing and comprises lawyers and 
notaries (in Québec).  The professional practice of legal services is conditional upon membership in 
one of the 14 independent bodies, mandated under provincial and territo rial legislations to regulate 
their respective members in the " public interest".  In addition, foreign lawyers may be licensed as 
foreign legal consultants to provide legal advice onl y on those laws they are permitted to practice in 
their home jurisdictions and, in Quebec and British Columbia, on public interna tional law.  We have 
the following questions:  
[Chinese Taipei Question 21]:  Why are notary services included in the legal profession in Québec 
only?  Are the notaries in the other provin ces or territories in Canada self-governing? 
 
Canada's Response:  Only in Quebec do notaries exist as a separate and distinctly regulated 
profession in addition to lawyers.  This stems from Quebec's Civil Code system in which lawyers and 
notaries are two distinct professions with distinct legal functions, a system which historically came from France. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 22]:  Could Canada please elaborate further on the scope and meaning of 
"public interest" in the context of the mandate to public bodies on regulating their members?  
Canada's Response:   Law societies are independent bodies established by provincial or territorial 
legislation to regulate members of the legal professi on in the public interest.  They are charged with 
ensuring that people in Canada are served by legal professionals who meet high standards of 
education, competence and professional conduct, so that  the public interest of Canadian citizens is 
fully respected.  To fulfill this role, law societie s set standards for admission to the profession and the 
conduct of members;  they investigate complaints and discipline members of the profession who breach the established standards of conduct;  to pr ovide further protection for the public, they also 
maintain plans to provide compensation to clients when a member of the profession is negligent or 
misuses client funds.  
[Chinese Taipei Question 23]:   As of the end of 2007, the law so cieties in Canada had approximately 
79,000 practicing members, of which non-residents accounted for 3.9%.  How many practicing members in the law societies have there been since then?  What is the percentage of non-residents  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 63 
 
 
 among the practicing members?  How many foreign la wyers and notaries thereof are there? Where are 
these foreign lawyers and notaries mainly from?  
Canada's Response:  Updated statistics on practising members ar e not available at this time but will 
be provided to the WTO Secretariat when they become  available.  For the latest statistics on foreign 
lawyers' numbers and origins who are practising Canadian law, please consult:  http://www.flsc.ca 
/en/foreignLawyers/stats.asp  For further in formation regarding the National Committee on 
Accreditation (NCA), which is responsible for the evaluation and certification of foreign lawyers' 
credentials, please contact the NCA at nca@flsc.ca. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 24]:   As of the end of 2007, there were 105 licensed foreign legal 
consultants in Canada.  How many licences for forei gn legal consultants have been issued by the law 
societies since then?  Where are these foreign legal consultants mainly from? 
 Canada's Response:   These statistics are collected by 13 different and independent jurisdictional 
organisations in the Canadian federal system, and th e Federation of Law Societies of Canada is still in 
the ongoing process of assembling such updated statis tics from all Canadian law societies.  Updated 
statistics will be provided to the WTO Secretariat when they become available.  At the moment, 
foreign legal consultants mainly come from the United States and the United Kingdom. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 25]:   When will those provinces or territories, which have not yet adopted 
rules enabling foreign lawyers to act as foreign lega l consultants, set up such regulations to implement 
the aforementioned licensing?  
Canada's Response:  Law societies in the remaining provinc es without such rules have internal 
discussions on this topic regularly, in the context of their full discretion to regulate the legal profession 
in their territory based on their legal mandate to do so. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 26]:   Why has the accord, which was negotiated in 1998 by Canada, the 
United States and Mexico under NAFTA and whic h contains recommendations and model rules on 
regulations for foreign legal consu ltants, not yet been implemented? 
 
Canada's Response:   As noted, the accord was with regards to recommendations and model rules. 
Practical aspects of their implementation were to  be agreed by the three national associations. 
Unfortunately these associations have not been  able so far to come to agreement. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 26]:  It is our understanding that Sena te Public Bill S-232 was introduced 
in the Canadian Senate in 2009.  The enactment of this Bill will amend the Patent Act to make it easier 
to manufacture and export pharmaceutical products to  address public health problems afflicting many 
developing and least-developed countries.  Is th ere a high level of support for this Bill among 
Members of Parliament and government departments?   Do you expect it to be passed in the near 
future? 
 
Canada's Response:  Bill S-232 was introduced in Canada's Senate in March 2009 and proposed 
significant changes to Canada's Access to Medi cines Regime (CAMR).  The Government did not 
support Bill S-232.  Bill S-232 did not pass the Senate  before Parliament's dissolution in December 
2009.  
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 27]:   According to our understanding,  Bill C-32 seems to enact a "notice-
and-notice" system that is different from the "notice-and-takedown" system that has been 
implemented internationally.  For our reference, could Canada please explain more about how this 
"notice-and-notice" system works? 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 64  
 
 Canada's Response:   In June 2010, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-32, the Copyright 
Modernization Act , legislation that was aimed at moderniz ing Canada's copyright laws in a manner 
that would balance the interests of creators and ri ghts holders in the digital age as well as implement 
the two World Intellectual Property Organization (W IPO) Treaties dealing with digital copyright 
issues. 
 
Bill C-32 died on the Order Paper when an election was called in March 2011.  In June 2011, in the Speech from the Throne, the G overnment of Canada committed to "introduce and 
seek swift passage of copyright legislation that  balances the needs of creators and users." 
Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act , had proposed a "notice and notice" regime intended to 
discourage copyright infringement on the Internet.  Under this regime, currently in operation on a 
voluntary basis in Canada, internet service provide rs (ISPs) forward any notice they receive from a 
copyright owner to a subscriber who they a llege has engaged in infringing activities. 
 
Such notices are intended to inform the subscriber that their activities have been detected and may 
contravene the Copyright Act , thereby discouraging the subscriber from engaging in infringing 
activities in the future.  Additionally, under Bill C-32, ISPs wo uld have been required to retain a record of the identity of the 
alleged infringer, which may be disclosed upon court or der, for at least six months and up to one year 
in cases where infringement pr oceedings have been instituted.  ISPs  that failed to retain such records 
or to forward notices would have been liable for statutory damages.  
COSTA RICA 
 
[Costa Rica Question 1]:  The report mentions that in support of the strategy for sustainable 
economic development, the Canadian Intern ational Development Agency (CIDA) assigned 
$40 million for a five-year period (2009/2010 – 2013/2014)  to increase the participation of developing 
countries in the global economy, focusing on the f acilitation of the trade and standards in the 
agricultural sector.  Could Canada provide furthe r details on the names and scope of the specific 
projects that have been funded to date with resources from that fund?  
 
Canada's Response:  Contributions are provided to the six recipient multilateral organizations under 
specific terms and conditions outlined in contribution agreements.  It is too early to discuss specific 
projects and programs, as these are still being develo ped by the recipient organizations.  The Canadian 
International Development Agency (CIDA) is curre ntly working with the recipients to develop 
program proposals that are in line with the terms of the contribution agreement. Examples of funding 
under these agreements include: 
 
 The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) - Aid for Trade Strategic Fund - $10 million, 
2010-2014.   The IDB instituted an AFT Strategic Fund in 2009 to help countries in the 
Americas benefit from liberalized trade and increased market access by using grant resources 
to overcome supply-side constraints.  The trus t fund is the first of its kind created by a 
multilateral organization and is predicated on the not ion that trade can be an engine for growth 
and poverty reduction when accompanied with appropriate public and private sector policies. CIDA has invested in this leading-edge trust fu nd.  The grant is directed to projects focused 
on trade facilitation and standards, with one quarter devoted specifically to gender-based 
programming.  
 
 The African Development Bank (AfDB) - Aid for Trade - $15 million, 2010-2014.  The AfDB 
plays a leadership role in the implementation of AFT in Africa by addressing soft and hard  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 65 
 
 
 infrastructure constraints through operationa l activities, assisting in institutional capacity 
building, and improving cross-country cohere nce through knowledge sharing.  The AfDB 
currently does this through a variety of separate programs, very few of which focus exclusively on trade facilitation and standards.  CIDA has lead the way in helping the AfDB 
create a focused AFT trust fund, modelled on th e one in place at the IDB.  The contribution 
serves as a catalyst for the creation of a much larger, more focused multi-donor trust fund.  
The grant would target AFT-related areas where Africa is lagging, namely in trade facilitation 
and in helping exports to meet in ternational standards, particularly  in agriculture.  In addition, 
25% of the funds are earmarked for gender-specific programming.  
 
 Other recipient organizations include the World Bank Trade Facilitation Facility ($5 million 
2010-2014), the Standards and Trade Developmen t Facility ($5 million 2010-2014), the WTO 
Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund ($2.5 million 2010-2014), and the Advisory 
Centre on WTO Law ($2.5 million 2010-2014).  
[Costa Rica Question 2]:  Could Canada provide some recent ex amples of investments it has made in 
economic infrastructure under the framework of Aid for Trade?  What components have those 
investments covered?  What criteria have been u sed to select the beneficiaries of that assistance?  
 Canada's Response:   Canada contributes to both the "hard" and "soft" side of the development of 
economic infrastructure.  For example: 
 
 Nicaraguan Electrification Pr oject, $18.95 million 2009-2014.  Canada has provided funding 
aimed at providing access to electricity for a pproximately 102,000 indi viduals in over 650 
communities. 
 
 Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation  Program in Haiti 75M 2008-2011 .  Canada has 
contributed to the Inter-American Developm ent Bank's Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation 
Program in Haiti. 
 
 The Infrastructure Consortium for Africa, $1M, 2011-2013.   Hosted at the African 
Development Bank, the Infrastructure Consortiu m for Africa (ICA) was created in 2005 to 
accelerate progress towards meeting the urgent infrastructure needs of Africa in support of economic growth and development.  The Consor tium brings together G8 donors, Regional 
Economic Communities (RECs), the African Un ion (AU), multilateral organizations, and 
other financiers such as China, to coordi nate initiatives to increase public and private 
investment in regional infrastructure across the continent.  Canada also supported the 
NEPAD-Infrastructure Project Preparati on Facility and African Water Facility. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 3]:  The report indicates that Canada has a special preferences program in 
effect that benefits 49 of the least developed c ountries in the world and that was most recently 
renewed through to 2014.  Could Canada provide the list of 49 countries benefiting from that 
program?  
 Canada's Response:  The Least Developed Country Tariff (LDC T) treatment is extended to LDCs 
based on the UN categorization.  The list of eligib le countries is available at the following website:  
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trad e-commerce/tariff-tarif/2011/01-99/countries-pays-eng.pdf. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 4]:   The Report by Canada refers to the fre e trade agreement with Jordan that is 
subject to approval by the Canadian Parliament, a nd to the agreement between Canada and Israel in 
effect since 1997, and the interest expressed in 20 10 by both parties in expanding the coverage of WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 66  
 
 those agreements.  Could Canada provide more information about how those instruments would 
contribute to the development of Canadian trade policy?  Canada's Response:  Canadian trade policy is guided by the Government of Canada's Global 
Commerce Strategy, with the overall objective to continue to expand Canadian access to global 
markets.  While the World Trade Organization rema ins the cornerstone of Canada's trade policy, 
Canada is also pursuing a number of bilateral and regional trade and investment initiatives as part of 
this strategy in order to advance Ca nadian economic and foreign policies.  
 With regard to the two initiatives mentioned in the question: 
 
 The possible expansion of the Canada-Israel Fr ee Trade Agreement is in the preliminary 
stages.  Canadian and Israeli officials are in t ouch to determine next steps.  While Canada has 
conducted a preliminary internal analysis to iden tify potential benefits of  expansion, Canada's 
consideration of whether and to what exte nt to make the free trade agreement more 
comprehensive will need to take into account potential stakeholder interests through a public 
consultation process, including with the provinces and territories. 
 
 Once implemented, the Canada-Jordan Free Tr ade Agreement is expected to open up 
additional opportunities for Canadian and Jordan ian companies, as well as to expand Canada-
Jordan trade and help further stre ngthen our bilateral relationship. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 5]:  The Report by Canada refers to the start of negotiations for a 
comprehensive economic partnershi p agreement between Canada and India.  Could Canada provide 
more information on the scope of that agreemen t and how it would help develop Canadian trade 
policy? 
 
Canada's Response:   The Government of Canada has made I ndia a key priority on Canada's foreign 
and trade policy agenda.  Increasing trade with India, one of the world's fastest growing markets, would mean more opportunities for Canadian comp anies, more jobs in Canada and increased 
prosperity.  
The Canada-India Joint Study on Feasibility of a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement 
(CEPA) found that freer trade in goods and services could increase Canada's gross domestic product 
by at least US$6 billion, and bilateral trade could increase by 50 percent.  A bilateral agreement with 
India could deliver commercial benefits to Canadi an companies across many sectors of the Canadian 
economy including forest products, minerals, ma nufactured goods, fish and seafood products, and 
agricultural products.  Furthermore, Canadian servi ce providers stand to benefit from freer trade, 
particularly in sectors such as energy and mining services, environmental services, engineering services and financial services.  Canada is seeking a high-quality CEPA that elimin ates tariffs on most goods, opens opportunities in 
services and reduces non-tariff barriers. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 6]:  The Report by Canada refers to ne gotiations on a free trade agreement 
between Canada and Korea.  Could Canada provide  more information about  why Canada and Korea 
have made no progress since 2008 towards concludi ng that process, especially since both countries 
have a clear policy of pursuing trade liberalization? 
 
Canada's Response:  The negotiations with South Korea ar e well-advanced; however, there are 
outstanding differences on some key market access i ssues.  The next round will only be scheduled 
when there are reasonable prospects for bri nging these negotiations to a conclusion. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 67 
 
 
 [Costa Rica Question 7]:  Could Canada indicate the main prefer ences negotiated in chapters relating 
to investments in preferential trade agreements si gned by Canada and other countries, in comparison 
with foreign investment promotion and protection (FIPA) agreements? 
 Canada's Response:   Canada maintains the same preferenc es in both its Investment Chapters and 
FIPAs.  That is, both are generally based on the prov isions of the Investment Chapter (Chapter 11) of 
the NAFTA. 
 
[Costa Rica Questions 8 and 9]:   In 2009, Canada announced that  it would focus 80% of bilateral 
resources in 20 countries.  Could Canada identify those 20 countries?  Which are the 20 countries to 
which Canada directs 80% of bilateral cooperation?  How were they selected?  How is the remaining 
20% distributed?   
 
Canada's Response:  The 20 countries to which Canada directs 80% of bilateral cooperation are:  (i) 
Americas:  Bolivia, Caribbean, Colombia, Haiti, Honduras,  Peru, (ii) Africa:  Sudan, Ethiopia, Ghana, 
Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, Tanzania, (iii) Asia :  Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, 
Vietnam, (iv) Europe:  Ukraine, and (v) Middle East:  West Bank/Gaza.  Overall, Canada chose the 20 countries of focus based on their real needs (poverty/vulnerability);  
Canada's ability to make a difference;  and du e regard to Canadian foreign policy priorities. 
 
The remaining 20% is disbursed in a range of c ountries, which can be found in CIDA's 2009-2010 
Statistical Report available at http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi -cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/JUD-4128122-
G4W.  Developing countries also benefit fro m CIDA's substantial contributions to  multilateral 
agencies and the programs of the Partnership with Canadians Branch.  
 
[Costa Rica Question 10]:  What specific objectives and coopera tion projects are carried out within 
the framework of the Sustainable Development Pl an in relation to food security and sustainable 
economic growth?  Canada's Response:  In May 2009, the Government of Canada set three priority themes to guide 
IDA's work:  (i) Increasing Food Security, (ii) Secu ring the Future of Children and Youth, and (iii) 
Stimulating Sustainable Economic Growth.  These three priority themes are set within the context of 
our overall commitment to aid effectiveness a nd poverty reduction.  Through the Sustainable 
Economic Growth Strategy, CIDA will support work to create the long-term growth that will raise the 
income levels and resilience of poor women and men in developing countries.  The strategy focuses 
on three paths: building economic foundations, gr owing businesses, and investing in people.  
Examples of economic growth projects include:  
 Vietnam Policy Implementation Assistance Project $11M 2008-2013.   This project is aimed at 
helping to improve the enabling environment for investment in Vietnam; 
 
 Program for Building African Capacity  for Trade (PACT II) $19.8M 2008-2014 .  
Implemented  by the International Trade Centre (ITC), this program is aimed at improving 
cooperation and coherence across three Afri can Regional Economic Communities:  the 
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Economic Community of 
Central African States (ECCAS), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS); 
 
 Bangladesh Trade-Related Research and Policy Development:  $5.5M, 2004-2010.   This 
project contributes to a strengthened enabling environment for trade in Bangladesh, by providing guidance and advice to the Government  of Bangladesh regarding the international WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 68  
 
 trading system.  This program is implemente d through the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), 
a civil society organization based in Bangladesh.  The program supports the CPD in its efforts 
to improve the private sector's access to trade policy information and advice.  Many project activities have been successfully completed, r esulting in: enhanced trade negotiations skills 
for the Government of Bangladesh;  increased avai lability of the latest trade-related data and 
information and improved access to CPD publications and other resources online for 
researchers, policy makers, academics, and ad vocacy groups in Bangladesh and abroad. 
Through such activities, the project contribut es to Bangladesh's strengthened global 
integration. 
 
 The Canada Investment Fund for Africa (CIFA): $100M, 2005-2014 .  The Canada Investment 
Fund for Africa (CIFA) is a Government of Cana da initiative created to provide risk capital 
for investment in Africa;  as such, it is an important component of Canada's contribution to private sector development in Africa.  The Government of Canada's investment of 
$100 million has leveraged an additional $160 m illion for investments in fifteen individual 
African companies in the oil and gas, mining, consumer goods, financial services, 
agribusiness, manufacturing, and logistics sect ors, as well as two regional equity funds 
targeting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). 
 All other projects can be searched and accessed through CIDA's Project Browser at: http://les.acdi-
cida.gc.ca/servlet/JKMSearchController?desTem plateFile=cpoSearchEn.htm&desClientLocale=enUS
&AppID=cpoEn.  
[Costa Rica Question 11]:   Could Canada report on the results obtained by appointing the 
Procurement Ombudsman?  Canada's Response:  Evidence to date indicates that stakehol ders have found the interventions from 
the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman to be he lpful and actions have already been taken on 
recommendations it has made to federa l departments and agencies.  As the office is relatively new, a 
formal follow-up report on recommendations from th e Office of the Procurement Ombudsman will 
take place in 2011-2012. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 12]:   Paragraph 105 indicates that in Fe bruary 2010, Canada concluded the 
Canada-US Agreement on Government Procurement, which for the first time includes commitments at 
the sub-federal level.  Is Canada legally able  to include provincial and territorial entities in 
government procurement agreements  with other trade partners? 
 Canada's Response:  In Canada, treaty-making power is reserved for the executive branch of the 
federal government.  It is therefore the federal gove rnment that negotiates international obligations on 
behalf of Canada.  The federal government retains Trade and Commerce power from s.91 (2) of the 
Constitution Act, 1867.  This gives the federal Parlia ment the ability to regula te trade and commerce, 
including regulating the flow of trade across inte rnational borders.  Provinces and territories are 
nevertheless closely consulted on international tr ade negotiations and work closely with federal 
officials. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 13]:  Could the Canadian representatives provide further information on the 
changes made in the 2010 amendment to the Pate nted Medicines Regulations with respect to 
extension of the deadline and matters pertaining to consent?  
Canada's Response:   The amendments to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) 
Regulations made in November 2010 did not change the ope ration of the regulations in respect to  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 69 
 
 
 extensions of deadlines and issues of consent.  Th e amendments were made to correct a few language 
and grammatical inconsistencies between the Engl ish and French versions of the legislation. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 14]:   Based on the Canadian government's experience in the period 2008 2009, 
when the CAMR system was used to manufacture two shipments of an antiretroviral medication 
patented by Apotex Inc. and export them to Rwa nda, did the Canadian government or users of the 
system identify aspects that should be changed for purposes of complying with its objectives?  If so, 
could the Canadian representatives detail which asp ects must be improved and how and when those 
improvements would be made?  
Canada's Response:  In 2008 the first shipment of drugs produced under Canada's Access to 
Medicines Regime (CAMR) was delivered to Rw anda, making Canada the only country to have 
successfully authorized an export under the WTO General Council's August 30, 2003 Decision on the 
implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRI PS Agreement and public health. 
The Commissioner of Patents granted, within two week s of receipt of the application, an authorization 
to Apotex to export 15,600,000 tablets of an antir etroviral drug to Rwanda over a two-year period. 
This demonstrates that CAMR can work to deliver  generic drugs to help combat disease in the 
developing world.  The Government of Canada  continues to support humanitarian access to 
medicines, while safeguarding Canada's ability to  produce innovative medicines for Canadians and 
other nations.  
The Government of Canada is not in a position to comment on the views of the users of CAMR. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 15]:  Paragraph 141 indicates that Canada 's strategy on the integration of 
environmental considerations into the negotiations  for bilateral and regional free trade agreements, 
bilateral regional continues to evol ve.  What elements determine th e evolution of Canada's strategy 
with respect to including envir onmental considerations in the ne gotiations for bilateral free trade 
agreements?  Is there a national policy document that  describes Canada's approach to this topic?  
(page 34, paragraph 141).  
 
Canada's Response:  In free trade agreement negotiations Ca nada seeks to ensure that trade 
liberalization and environmental protection are mutually supportive.  Our environmental side 
agreements also provide an opportunity to work wi th our trade partners on environmental issues of 
mutual interest or concern.  Canada's key obj ectives are to include commitments concerning the 
maintenance of high levels of environmental protection, the e ffective enforcement of domestic 
environmental laws and to not relaxing or wa iving environmental laws for the purposes of 
encouraging trade or investment.  We also seek to include:  provisions to ensure accountability, 
transparency and public participation; measures fo r the oversight and efficient implementation of 
commitments and resolution of differences;  a nd a framework for undertaking environmental 
cooperation.  Finally, Canada is committed to  conducting environmental assessments of trade 
negotiations.  
 
[Costa Rica Question 16]:   Canada has traditionally had a c ooperative, non-punitive approach to 
addressing the topic of the environment in trade agre ements.  Has that approach been maintained in 
this "evolution" of discussions on the topic?  If that  approach has changed, what led to that change? 
(page 34, paragraph 141).  Canada's Response:  Canada's approach to addressing the topic of environment in trade agreements 
continues to be collaborative and non-punitive.  It re spects the sovereign rights of Parties to set their 
levels of environmental protection and does not requ ire the harmonization of environmental standards 
between Parties.  Differences regarding the implemen tation of environment commitments, if they do WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 70  
 
 arise, are resolved through consultations.  The en vironment provisions are not subject to monetary 
penalties or trade sanctions. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 17]:  Does Canada have a cooperation policy to promote sustainable 
development for developing countries that are its counterparts in trade agreements?  If so, could 
Canada identify programs that have been implemented and list some successful projects? 
 Canada's Response:  It has been Canada's practice to in clude a framework for environmental 
cooperation in environment agreem ents negotiated in parallel to Free Trade Agreements.  These 
frameworks allow for work programs of cooperative ac tivities that seek to support the achievement of 
the environmental objectives and obligations  of parallel environment agreements and free trade 
agreements, including the promotion of sustai nable development.  Cooperative activities are 
developed on topics of mutual interest, subject to th e availability of resources in both Canada and the 
partner country(ies).  Under such work programs, Canada has successfully implemented projects in 
areas such as conservation of migratory species, polluta nt release and transfer registries, contaminated 
sites management and environmental enforcement. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 18]:  Paragraph 142 refers to labour cooper ation agreements signed by Canada 
with various trade partners.  Coul d Canada refer to its experience w ith implementing such agreements 
and explain the main differences between exis ting agreements and the agreements recently 
negotiated? (page 34, paragraph 142). 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's experience in implementing Labour Cooperation Agreements (LCAs) 
has been very positive over our seventeen year hi story of negotiating agreements.  The purpose of 
LCAs is to foster cooperation on labour matters a nd to commit Parties to effectively enforce domestic 
labour laws and internationa l labour standards.  While all LCAs ha ve shared the same goals, they have 
evolved over the years since the first one signed in 1993 with the United States and Mexico: the North 
American Agreement on Labour Cooperation.  Since th at time, Canada has ente red into similar labour 
cooperation agreements with Chile in 1997, Costa Rica in 2001, and with Peru in 2009.  All these 
agreements not only commit signatories to promote, respect and enforce national labour laws in the 
context of economic integration and development, but also provide the framework for Canada to work 
collaboratively with partner countries.  
Canada's most recent LCAs, such as the Canada -Peru Agreement, have achieved substantial 
breakthroughs in different areas su ch as the level of obligations, and the reintroduction of monetary 
assessments in cases of non-compliance.  The Canada -Costa Rica LCA is the only LCA negotiated by 
Canada that does not include the possibility of mone tary assessments, to be deposited in a cooperation 
fund to resolve the matter raised through the dis pute resolution process, in cases of non-compliance. 
 
Moreover, new clauses have been added concerning : non-derogation, which prohibits the Parties to 
the agreements from waiving the application of th eir labour laws in order to encourage trade or 
investment; and transparency, to en sure that dispute resolution pro ceedings will be open to the public. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 19]:  Paragraph 144 refers to the labour  program, through which support is 
given to labour capacity-building activities mainly  in countries that have negotiated labour 
cooperation agreements with Cana da.  Could Canada pr ovide more information on the different 
initiatives and projects carried out under that program?  With regard to budget distribution for the program, is priority given to countries with whic h Canada has signed labour  cooperation agreements, 
or what are the criteria for that distribution?  (Page 34, paragraph 144). 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's Labour Coope ration Agreements (LCAs) contain cooperation 
commitments and Canada meets those commitme nts by providing technical assistance funding to  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 71 
 
 
 partner countries to help them meet their obliga tions under LCAs.  In addition, Canada provides 
funding to upcoming LCA partners to develop and implement capacity-building projects in order to 
strengthen governance in the labour area.  However, pr iority for distribution of funds is given to LCA 
partners, particularly those who have undertaken  or have committed to undertaking, through the 
negotiation process, a higher level of labour obligations as outlined in Canada's recent LCAs. 
 
Canada provides this funding through the Intern ational Trade and Labour Program (ITLP) and the 
International Program for Professional Labour Administration (IPPLA).  The projects under these programs have focused on the modernization of labou r policy and administration, the enforcement of 
national labour laws, the strengthe ning of labour inspectorates, the promotion of social dialogue, and 
improvements to occupational health and safety sta ndards.  For more specific information regarding 
Canada's funded projects in the labour area please visit:  http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/ 
labour_globalization/IPPLA/index.shtml.  For instance, in the context of the Canada-Costa  Rica Agreement on Labour Cooperation, Canada has 
provided Costa Rica over $2.5M in technical assist ance, which makes it so far the single largest 
recipient of labour-related technical assistance f unded by the Labour Program of Human Resources 
and Skills Development Canada. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 20]:  Could you provide us with a copy of the Agreement to facilitate the 
movement of people and goods: "Beyond the Border:  A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and 
Economic Competitiveness".  Specifically, what meas ures have been taken within the framework of 
that agreement to increase the competitiveness of both countries and what measures have been taken 
to facilitate the mobility of people and goods?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada has provided Costa Rica w ith a copy of the agreement, Beyond the 
Border: a Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness .  Specific measures 
that will be undertaken by Canada and the United St ates to increase competitiveness and facilitate the 
movement of people and goods under the Shared Vision remain under negotiation, and will be 
announced later this year.  However, as indicated in the declaration, such initiatives could include 
(among others): efforts to pursue creative and effectiv e solutions to better manage the flow of traffic 
between the two countries;  expansi on and enhancement of trusted trav eller and trader programs, such 
as NEXUS;  implementation of common practices and streamlined procedures for customs processing 
and regulatory compliance;  and the development of an integrated approach to cargo security 
measures.  
 
[Costa Rica Question 21]:  What is the difference between a bilateral agreement on science and 
technology and a bilateral arrangement in terms of the obligations set out?  Could examples be 
provided of the types of commitments that have  been taken on under the framework of such 
agreements with other Latin American countries such as Brazil and Chile?  Do those commitments 
relate in any way to trade facilitation or investment?  Canada's Response:   Agreements are like treaties and lega lly binding;  arrangements are not (more 
like Memorandums of Understanding). 
 Although our agreement with Brazil was signed in 2008,  we are this month having our first meeting 
with Brazil where we will discuss the plan forward.   We are meeting with Chile in November to 
discuss how to move forward as well.  Discussions will focus on sectors that may be complementary, 
existing mechanisms for funding which can be tapped into, and how to build partnerships and projects 
between government, academia, and the private sector  to enhance innovation and commercialization. 
 There are no clear commitments to report on at this time.  Trade facilitation and investment may flow out of the commitments but are not the fo cus of these agreements and arrangements. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 72  
 
 [Costa Rica Question 22]:  On the Web site indicated in quotation No. 13, which provides a general 
description of the strategic environmental assessment objectives of the trade negotiations, we were unable to obtain the document detailing the environmen tal assessment procedure applied in the case of 
bilateral negotiations.  Could you pr ovide us with that document?  Are there documents that describe 
environmental assessment procedures applie d to recent bilateral negotiation processes? 
 
Canada's Response:  The same procedure applies as well to environmental assessments of bilateral 
trade negotiations.  Information on consultations with Canadians on Environmental Assessments of 
trade negotiations can also be found at:  http ://www.international.gc.ca/consultations/active/ 
index.aspx?menu_id=2.  
[Costa Rica Question 23]:  Paragraph 106:  Could you provide us  with the text of the Cabinet 
Directive on Streamlining Regulation?  
 Canada's Response:  The directive is available from http://www.regulation.gc.ca. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 24]:   Within the consultation and transpar ency mechanisms for trade policies, 
are there specific consultation mechanis ms for bilateral negotiation processes? 
 
Canada's Response:  There are several consultation mechanisms  that are employed at various stages 
of the bilateral negotiation process.  If there are exploratory discussions on the feasibility of an FTA, 
the Government of Canada issues an invitation fo r comments to all Canadians through Canada's 
official journal, the Canada Gazette .  This process allows Canadians to submit 
questions/comments/concerns that are taken into acc ount in Canada's decision on whether or not to 
proceed with negotiations.  Also during the exploratory phase, the Government publishes an Environmental Assessment, consults with Provinces and Territories, industry, and interested groups, 
such as civil society organizations. 
 Many of these mechanisms continue during the ne gotiations and the implementation phase, including 
frequent consultations with other government departments, industry groups and the general public.  
The Provinces and Territories are also kept apprised throughout. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 25]:  Could you explain why banking, insurance, trust services and loan 
companies cannot become commercial corporations?  What  kind of legal status is required to exercise 
that type of commercial activity? 
 
Canada's Response:  Financial institutions are incorporated as commercial entities under Canadian 
law. Banks are incorporated under the Bank Act , Insurance companies under the Insurance Companies 
Act, and trust and loan companies under the Trust and Loan Companies Act .  
 
[Costa Rica Question 26]:  Please indicate whether Canada's strategy to increase its participation in 
world investment and innovation includes amending Canadian participation requirements in the 
boards of directors of commercial corporations? 
 
Canada's Response:   At the moment, amendments are not being contemplated to this requirement 
under the Canada Business Corporations Act.  
 
[Costa Rica Question 27]:  What factors have been identified to explain the fact that new companies 
represent only one-fifth of direct foreign investme nt in the country, a trend that has remained 
relatively constant since the mid-1980s?  (paragraph 15, page 16) 
 
Canada's Response:  The analysis focuses solely on greenfiel d investments which are subject to 
notification under the Investment Canada Act (ICA);  thus expansions or take overs are excluded.  At  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 73 
 
 
 this point, we have no conclusive arguments as to  why the share of greenfield investment has 
remained relatively stable, i.e. around 20%, over the past three decades. 
 
Some points to consider, however, include: the vast majority of FDI in Canada, as elsewhere normally 
occurs in the form of cross-border mergers and ac quisitions (M&As), accounting for somewhere in the 
neighbourhood of 75% to 80% of FDI flows, on average.   In addition, nearly 4/5ths of investment in 
Canada is undertaken by foreign-owned firms that  already have operations in Canada.  So the 
combination of those two factors may explain why Greenfield investment has accounted for 20% of FDI since the mid-1980s – a trend that may well mirror the experience of most industrialized countries. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 28]:  Has there been progress with Canada's entry into the International Centre 
for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)?  Table II.3, page 20.  Canada's Response:  Canada signed the ICSID Conventio n on December 15, 2006 and passed 
implementing legislation in March 2008.  Canada has not yet ratified the ICSID Convention, largely 
due to on-going negotiations  on implementation with the provinces a nd territories.  To date, Ontario, 
British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories 
have passed implementing legislation. Canada hopes to be in a position to ratify the ICSID 
Convention in the near future.  
 
[Costa Rica Question 29]:  Taking into account the recommendations made by the Competition 
Policy Review Panel on Canada's Investment Act a nd Competition Act, have there been changes to 
the liberalization of investment in air trans port and telecommunications, and to the de facto 
prohibitions of mergers in the financial services sector?  Canada's Response:  In March 2009, the Government of Cana da passed legislation that eliminated 
the lower investment review thresholds for tr ansactions in the transportation services, uranium 
production and financial services sectors.  Amendments  were also introduced to allow for an increase 
in voting interests held by foreigners in the ai r transportation sector.  The Canadian government is 
currently examining options for the liberalizati on of foreign investment restrictions in the 
telecommunications industry.  As indicated in th e Secretariat report at IV 5(i)(b) paragraph 124 
foreign ownership restrictions for satellite  operators were removed in July 2010. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 30]:  Paragraph 32, page 22:  When does Ca nada expect to fully update its 
notifications on agriculture?  When does Canada e xpect to fully update its notifications on public 
procurement?  When does Canada expect to provi de notification of the FTAs agreed upon with Peru, 
EFTA and the preferential access agreements  with Australia and New Zealand? 
 
Canada's Response:  Preparations for Canada's outstanding notifications are underway.  Canada 
plans to submit its notifications as soon as possible.  At this time Canada cannot provide an exact time 
for its submissions.  
Canada is in the process of finalizing its notifica tion of procurement statistics for 2008 and 2009 and 
expects to submit them later this year.  Canada will also submit its notification of any changes to 
domestic procurement legislation in the near future. 
 
The Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement was notified on August 4, 2009, and the Canada-Peru Free 
Trade Agreement was notified on July 31, 2009.  These notifications were circulated in the WTO 
documents WT/REG270/N/1 and WT/REG271/N/1.  Both of these free trade agreements were 
reviewed at the 58th session of the WTO Committee on Regional Trade Agreements in September 
2010. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 74  
 
 While both notifications made by Ca nada included the respective preferential rules of origin, Canada 
did not provide separate notifications of the Agreemen ts' rules of origin to the WTO Secretariat as per 
the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin, Annex II, pa ragraph 4. Canada is currently undertaking the 
necessary steps to submit its notifications of its pref erential rules of origin to the WTO Secretariat. 
 
In the interim, the rules of origin can be found here: 
 Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement  http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreemen ts-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/EFTA-AnnexC-
en.pdf. 
 http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreemen ts-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/EFTA-AnnexC-
app1-en.pdf.  
Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement 
 http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements -accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Canada-Peru 
FTA_chapter3-en.pdf.  http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements -accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Canada-Peru 
FTA_chapter3a-en.pdf. 
 The preferential rules of origin under the agreemen ts with Australia and New Zealand were notified 
on June 22, 1995. Please see G/RO/N/1/Add.1.  
 
With regards to notification on government procurem ent, Canada is in the process of finalizing its 
notification of procurement statistics for 2008 and 2 009 and expects to submit them later this year.  
Canada will also submit its notification of any chang es to domestic procurement legislation in the near 
future.  
 
[Costa Rica Question 31]:  By approximately when does Canada expect to approve its FTAs with 
Jordan and Panama in Parliament? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada is working towards ratification and/or bringing into force the following 
agreements and we look forward to the enhanced tr ade with each of these countries and the prosperity 
the agreements will bring about. 
 
Panama :  Canada signed its Free Trade Agreement with Panama in May 2009, and with its signature, 
Canada approved the Agreement.  Legislation requi red to implement the Canada-Panama FTA, tabled 
in Parliament in March 2010, ceased to exist when  the 2011 Canadian nationa l election was called (all 
government legislation before Parliament ceases to exist at dissolution).  Once the government re-
introduces the implementing legislation, and it is pas sed by Parliament, officials will work with their 
Panamanian counterparts to promptly bring the Agre ement into force.  Canada has not encountered 
any difficulties with Panama or within its own territo ry regarding the entry in to force of the Canada- 
Panama Free Trade Agreement.  Jordan :  Canada signed its Free Trade Agreement with  Jordan in June 2009, and with its signature, 
Canada approved the Agreement.  Legislation required to implemen t the Canada-Jordan FTA, tabled 
in Parliament in March 2010, ceased to exist when  the 2011 Canadian nationa l election was called (all 
government legislation before Parliament ceases to exist at dissolution).  Once the government re-
introduces the implementing legislation, and it is pas sed by Parliament, officials will work with their 
Jordanian counterparts to promptly bring the Agreem ent into force.  Canada has not encountered any  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 75 
 
 
 difficulties with Jordan or within its own territory regarding the entry into force of the Canada-Jordan 
Free Trade Agreement. 
 
Colombia:   On June 29, 2010, the implementing legisl ation for the Canada-Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement and its related Agre ements received Royal Assent in Canada. On April 11, 2011, 
Colombia formally advised Canada that is has co mpleted all of the necessary steps in its domestic 
approval process.  Canada and Colombia are now proceeding as quickly as possible to complete the 
remaining technical steps required for implementati on.  Canada has not encountered any difficulties 
with Colombia nor within its own territory regardi ng the entry into force of the Canada-Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement.  
 
[Costa Rica Question 32]:   What are (if available) the tentative dates on which Canada hopes to 
satisfactorily conclude the various fr ee trade negotiations currently underway? 
 Canada's Response :  Canada is working towards the conclu sion of all agreements under negotiations. 
 
EU:  Negotiations toward a Canada-European Uni on Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement 
are expected to conclude by 2012. 
 
India:  Canada will seek to complete negotiations on  a free trade agreement with India in 2013. 
 
CARICOM:   A third round of Canada-CARICOM trade agreement negotiations was held in Ottawa 
from April 4 to 8, 2011.  Canada is committed to th e expeditious conclusion of  negotiations, but it is 
not yet possible to predict when a mutu ally agreed accord will be concluded. 
 Other  Negotiations:   The other negotiations are at varying stages, some only just beginning, with no 
specific dates for conclusion. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 33]:   Within the framework of the Aid Ef fectiveness Program cited as one of 
the two major strategies guiding CIDA's Aid for Trade, what tools does Canada use to measure the effectiveness of the aid provided?  In other word s, how does it measure the success of the results of 
that aid and its effectiveness in reducing margins of poverty and improving the quality of life of those 
living in that situation? (page 23, paragraph 40, Section II – Trade and Investment System)  
Canada's Response:  All CIDA programs are evaluated periodically to ensure effectiveness and 
efficiency. In addition, CIDA's Aid Effectiveness  Action Plan (2009-2012) was developed to ensure 
high quality results.  In 2009, CIDA finalized an Aid Effectiveness Action Plan, which consolidates 
the Government of Canada's domestic priorities a nd international commitments on aid effectiveness to 
better deliver and demonstrate devel opment results over four years.  The Agency monitors and reports 
on progress against the Aid Effectiveness Action Plan, on an annual basis, based on information gathered through country performance reports that ex amine the extent to which results have been 
achieved.  OECD-DAC Monitoring Survey on the Paris D eclaration on Aid Effectiveness: Canada has 
participated in all three Monitoring Surveys organized by the OECD's Development Assistance 
Committee, to track the level of progress made in implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.  Results-Based Management 
 
CIDA has been managing for development results for mo re than thirty years.  First introduced in the 
1970s, results-based management (RBM) is integral  to the Agency's management philosophy and WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 76  
 
 practice.  RBM was further strengthened with upda tes to the Agency's RBM policy in 2008, supported 
by a suite of guidelines and training tools.  Fu rthermore, CIDA's risk management framework and 
practices were strengthened so that they are more  directly linked to the Agency's RBM systems. 
Results-based management underpins corporate, program, and project planning, implementation, 
monitoring, and evaluation, as well as the Agency's  reporting to Parliament and to the Canadian 
public, and internationally, on its development achievements. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 34]:   Paragraph 44 mentions that the "t he GPT and LDCT have been extended 
to June 2014 and CARIBCAN to 2011".  Does Canada intend to keep extending those benefits beyond 
the years indicated? 
 
Canada's Response:   The GPT and LDCT are legislated un til June 30th, 2014, and a decision will be 
taken in due course.  The WTO waiver for CARIBC AN tariff treatment expires at the end of 2011.  
Canada is considering its options at this time w ith respect to the CARIBCAN waiver and made an 
intervention at the May 26, 2011, meeting of th e Council on Trade in Goods to this effect. 
 
Costa Rica Question 35]:   Could Canada explain what alternativ e tariffs and the other types of tariffs 
mentioned in paragraph 33 are?  Canada's Response:  In Canada's Customs Tariff , there are 152 tariff lines categorized as mixed 
duties (M).  Of these, nine items have mixed duty rates of the form "¢/kg but not less than X% plus 
X%".
3 
 
Costa Rica Question 36] :  Why does the percentage of consolid ated lines appear to have decreased 
according to table III.3?   
Canada's Response:  The number of unbound lines has not changed; rather, the change in this 
percentage reflects the fact that the overall numb er of items in the Customs Tariff has decreased 
during the review period.  For example, Budget 2009 eliminated the remaining duties on machinery 
and equipment, thus affording the opportunity to simplify the structure of the Customs Tariff with more general tariff lines.  As indicated in Budget 20 11, the Government of Canada intends to further 
simplify the Customs Tariff to facilitate  trade and lower costs for businesses. 
 
Costa Rica Question 37]:   Question 37 from Costa Rica :  Paragraph 39 and table III.4 reflect 
applied tariffs higher than the consolidated ones, e.g., apple juice.  How is this violation of article II of 
the GATT explained?   
Canada's Response:  We are aware of this discrepancy and we are taking steps to correct it in the 
future.  
Costa Rica Question 38]:   Paragraph 46 indicates that "under Article 115 of the Customs Tariff, the 
Governor in Council may issue Remission Orders gr anting tariff reductions"  Does this authorization 
apply only to tariff reductions or also to increases? 
 
Canada's Response:  The authority is to remit duties paid or payable, not to impose new duties or 
increase existing duties.  
Costa Rica Question 39]:   Paragraph 52 mentions that beer from domestic breweries may be subject 
to lower rates by bracket;  but not imported beer.  How is the different treatment given to domestic 
and imported beer justified, which appear s to violate Art. III.2 of the GATT 1994? 
                                                      
3 These tariff lines are:  0704.10.11, 0704.20.11,  0705.11.11, 0705.19.11, 0706.10.11, 0706.90.21, 
0708.20.21, 0709.40.11, 0709.90.31.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 77 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  The federal excise measures related to beer is modelled after similar programs 
in other countries and have not had the effect of cu rtailing growth in imports of beer into Canada.  
Indeed, imports of beer (HS 2203) into Canada  have increased 32% during the review period. 
 
Costa Rica Question 40]:   How does Canada ensure that the exemption from indirect duties granted 
to wine that meets the national content require ments does not violate Art. III.2 of the GATT 1994? 
 Canada's Response:  Similar to the beer measure, the federal excise measure related to wine is 
modelled after similar programs in other countries a nd has not had the effect of curtailing growth in 
imports of wine into Canada.  Indeed, imports of  wine (HS 2204) into Canada have increased 34% 
during the review period. 
 
Costa Rica Question 41]:   How does Canada justify that Québ ec's application of lower rates to 
alcoholic beverages produced in that province does not violate Art. III.2 of the GATT 1994?  (page 
43, paragraph 56)  
 
Canada's Response:  A response will be forthcoming pending further consultations with provincial 
authorities.  
[Costa Rica Question 42]:   The Report by the Secretariat states that import licences (permits) are 
required for agricultural products subj ect to tariff quotas to benefit from the applicable in-quota rate of 
duty, and that various allocation methods are used (Table AIV.1). 
 
Further to what is indicated in table AV.1, what is the reference period for imports for granting the 
quota?  Is a percentage reserved for importers who ha ve not made previous imports?  In the case of the 
quotas granted by methods other than first in time, fi rst in law, when is the assignment made and what 
requirements must be met to access those quotas? (page 45, paragraph 57) 
 Canada's Response:  Canada has structured each TRQ in such  a way as to meet the specific needs of 
each sector and sub-sector, and therefore there are a number of differences between and within TRQs. We are providing general responses to the question po sed by Costa Rica and we direct Members to the 
detailed Notices to Importers for each product, availa ble at http://www.international.gc.ca/ controls-
controles/notices_avis/imp/index.aspx. 
 Reference periods:  With respect to historical TRQs, allocations are based on a representative period 
prior to the introduction of import controls.  These introduction dates and reference periods vary by 
product. Subsequently, historical allocation levels  have been adjusted (e.g. for under-utilization). 
 
The reference periods for non-historical allocations are based on the previous year's activity.  In order 
to facilitate a smooth transition from one year to th e next, the reference period is different from the 
allocation year.  For example, the turkey TRQ is a llocated in January, but the reference period extends 
from September 1 to August 31.  
New importers:  For the majority of Canada's TRQs , "new entrants" can apply provided they meet the 
criteria as specified in the Notices to Importers.  In the case of cheese, powdered buttermilk, and 
concentrated/condensed milk/cream, the entire TRQ is allocated to historical importers. 
 Timing of allocations:  TRQ allocations are made fo r a period of 12 months. Most allocations extend 
from January to December, with the following exceptions: 
 
August 1 to July 31:  butter and other fats and o ils derived from milk;  cream;  dry whey;  wheat; 
wheat products;  barley;  and barley products.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 78  
 
 April 1 to March 31:  milk protein substances. 
 Beef (see our reply to question number 66).  
Requirements:  The eligibility criteria for allocations  (e.g. production levels, sa les and forecasts) vary 
according to the characteristics of each product group ing and each industry within that grouping. For 
example, the eligibility requirements for a chicken TRQ allocation for a restaurant would be different 
from the criteria for a chicken processor.  While the criteria vary, there is generally a requirement for 
precise reporting (e.g. production volumes, sales, forecasts, etc.), often including certification from an independent qualified professional a nd a sworn affidavit from the applicant.  Detailed information 
about eligibility criteria is available at: http://www. international.gc.ca/controls-controles/notices_avis/ 
imp/index.aspx. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 43]:   Is the WTO TBT Committee notified of the technical regulations issued 
by federal, provincial and terr itorial governments? (paragraph 70)  
 
Canada's Response:  Yes.  Canada notifies technical regulati ons developed by the federal, provincial 
and territorial governments.  
[Costa Rica Question 44]:   Paragraph 71 mentions that "federal authorities must give positive 
consideration to requests for recognition of foreign t echnical regulations, to the extent that these fulfil 
the objectives of Canadian technical regulations."  Are the regulations enacted by provincial and 
territorial governments also subject to recognition of  foreign technical regulations, provided there is 
compliance with the legitimate objectiv e? Which areas have been recognized?  
 Canada's Response:  The Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  referenced in paragraph 71 
of the Secretariat's report applies strictly to fe deral authorities.  Canada has recognized foreign 
regulations in areas including: automobiles,  and the transport of dangerous goods. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 45]:   What does the expression "the scope  of the consultations should be 
proportional to the impact of the regulations" refe r to? Could you elaborate on that? (paragraph 72) 
 
Canada's Response:  Regulatory authorities are asked to consid er the potential impact of regulations. 
If a given regulation is expected to have a significan t impact, than its development will be expected to 
include more detailed and wider-rangi ng consultations than if it is a simple amendment to an existing 
regime.  
More information is available from the document Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations  
available online here:  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gl- ld/erc-cer/erc-cer00-eng.asp (English). 
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gl- ld/erc-cer/erc-cer00-fra.asp (French). 
 
[Costa Rica Question 46]:   Are the technical regulations gove rning trade mentioned in paragraph 72 
based on international standards?  Does the 75-da y period for making comments refer only to national 
consultations?  Is the domestic c onsultation process carried out prior to the international consultation 
with the WTO?  
 
Canada's Response:  As noted in paragraph 71 of the Secretariat Report, the Cabinet Directive on 
Streamlining Regulation directs federal authorities to use ava ilable international standards provided 
they achieve the intended regulatory objective and offer a level of assurance of conformity with 
domestic technical regulations and st andards equivalent to that sought by Canada. Canada is not in the  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 79 
 
 
 practice of carrying out a separate domestic and international consultati on period.  Canada's 
notifications to the TBT Committee typically provi de an Internet reference to Part I of the Canada 
Gazette where the draft technical regulation in ques tion will have been pre-published for a fixed 
comment period. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 47]:  To which multilateral mutual rec ognition agreements on conformity 
assessment is Canada a party?  In what areas?   Is Canada a party to accreditation recognition 
agreements? (paragraph 80)  
 Canada's Response:  The following Internet reference lis ts multilateral mutual recognition 
agreements on conformity assessment (government to government):  
 http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-ag reements-accords-commerciaux/goods-
produits/mralst.aspx?lang=en. (English).  
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-ag reements-accords-commerciaux/goods-
produits/mralst.aspx? lang=fra (French). 
 For the voluntary arrangements between accreditatio n bodies that Standards Council of Canada (SCC) 
is a part of, see the list below:  
International Accreditation Forum (IAF)- mutual re cognition of certificates for Quality Management 
Systems (QMS), Environmental Managements Systems (EMS) and product certification; 
 International Laboratory Accred itation Cooperation (ILAC) – Recogn ition of testing and calibration 
results of accredited laboratories; (includes ILAC  MoU with IEC and IEC Conformity Assessment 
Schemes). 
 Asia Pacific Laboratory Cooperation (APLAC) – R ecognition of testing and calibration results of 
accredited laboratories.  Inter-American Accreditation Cooperation (IAAC) – R ecognition of testing and calibration results of 
accredited laboratories and recognition of QMS certificates. 
 Pacific Accreditation Cooperation (PAC) – Recogn ition of QMS, EMS and product certification 
certificates.  
Cooperative Accreditation Arrangement (MCAA) between SCC, ANAB (United States, JAS-ANZ 
(Australia & New Zealand), JAB (Japan), a nd EMA (Mexico) for QMS and EMS registrars. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 48]:  How does the federal government verify that the sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures implemented by provincia l and territorial governments comply with the 
obligations set out in the Sanitary and Phytosan itary Measures Agreement of the WTO?  Are the 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures implemented by provincial or territorial governments reported to 
the WTO in keeping with the SPS? (page 57, paragraph 88) 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada would like to note that the specific examples of provincial measures 
listed in this paragraph of the WTO Secretariat re port are not examples of SPS measures.  The Federal 
government has jurisdiction with regards to intern ational and inter-provincial trade for SPS issues.  
Where it is deemed that a federal SPS measure may have a significant impact on trade, Canada notifies in accordance with its tran sparency obligations under the SPS Agreement.  As stated in the 
WTO Secretariat's report, the Government of Cana da is not aware of any SPS measures adopted by 
sub-federal authorities that have a trade impact. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 80  
 
 [Costa Rica Question 49]:  Could Canada provide additional in formation on the criteria used to 
determine the level of priority that will be given to  the request for risk assessment of a product prior to 
its importation?  In particular, is a country interested  in exporting informed of the level of priority that 
has been given to its request? (page 60, paragraph 97) 
 
Canada's Response:  Examples of factors influencing the overall priority of a risk assessment (RA) 
include:  
 the potential introduction of a new pest or disease find in Canada, for which no RA is 
available and no proper or known risk mitigation measures exist 
 newly available information regarding a commod ity already approved for import but has now 
been identified as a host of an actionable pest or disease (i.e. emerging pests and diseases, imminent pest and/or disease threats and pest s and/or diseases of concern linked to existing 
trade)  
 importer request to import a new commodity (o r a familiar one from a new origin) with no 
history of import (i.e. a RA is required to deci de whether or not to permit the import of the 
new commodity into Canada).  
A country that requests a risk assessment is not officia lly informed of the level of priority that a given 
request is assigned.  However, they are given an estimated time of completion which would be 
directly related to the priority.  Throughout the RA process, and where requested, Canada will provide 
a status update on a RA to an exporting country.   
[Costa Rica Question 50]:  Paragraph 159 mentions th at federal government policy allows the review 
of contracts valued at over Cdn$2,000,000 (but not subject to international agreements) to determine 
potential benefits in terms of i ndustrial and regional developmen t, economic development of the 
indigenous population, the envir onment and other socio-economic obj ectives.  Could Canada explain 
the implications of this contract review process in  further detail?  At what stage in the procurement 
process is the review carried out?  Could this re view process involve a change in the conditions 
originally set out in the contract documents? 
Canada's Response:  In accordance with the federal govern ment's Procurement Review Policy 
(http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12074),  potential opportunities to support industrial 
and regional development and othe r national objectives (e.g., the environment and employment equity 
programs) are considered for governme nt procurements exceeding $2 million .  In addition to 
departments with portfolio responsibilities for i ssues like the environment, economy and aboriginal 
issues, regional development agencies are represen ted in a review process that is administered by 
Public Works and Government Services Canada.  Member departments of an Interdepartmental 
Procurement Review Committee may make recomme ndations regarding appr opriate procurement 
strategies that would support government objectives.  
The review is carried out as early as possible in the requirements planning stage and is completed 
prior to the solicitation phase of the procurement.   
[Costa Rica Question 51]:  What type of environmental consider ations should be incorporated into 
the contract documents and how should that be do ne-by means of technical specifications or other 
mechanisms or requirements? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada Policy on Green Procurement came into effect 
April 1, 2006, with the objective of integrating environmental performance considerations into the 
procurement decision-making process in the contex t of value for money and life-cycle approach 
management. Using a life-cycle approach to examin e costs associated with a commodity allows for  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 81 
 
 
 consideration not only of the purchase price but also those costs associated with operating, 
maintaining and disposing of the good.  The policy is available on the Department of P ublic Works and Government Services Canada's 
(PWGSC) website: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ecologisation-greening/achats-procurement/ 
politique-policy-eng.html . 
 
PWGSC has developed a green procurement tool kit to assists federal departments and agencies with 
the integration of environmental performance cons iderations in their procurements:  http://www. 
tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ecologisation-greening/achat s-procurement/trousse-toolkit/index-eng.html. 
 
The following Statistics Canada we bpage also provides information on green procurement targets and 
policy requirements:  http://www.stat can.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/tbl/tbl3a-eng.htm. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 52]:  By what means is information on contracts over Cdn$10,000 disclosed? 
Is there a single point of access to information on all public procurement? 
 Canada's Response:  The federal government proactively discloses information on contracts and 
amendments over $10,000.  This reflects broader federal government commitments to transparency 
and strengthened accountability within the public sect or that was originally announced in Budget 
2004.  Each departmental website includes a Proactiv e Disclosure link.  A list of all departments and 
agencies can be accessed from the following webs ite:  http://www.canada.gc.ca/depts/major/depind-
eng.html.  
[Costa Rica Question 53]:  Paragraph 177 refers to state-owned enterprises in Canada and indicates 
that they include 48 parent Crown corporations wholly owned by the government.  Could Canada 
provide further information on the type of activities carried out by those corporations and on the 
exclusive rights or monopolies they hold? (Page 90, paragraph 177).  Canada's Response:   The Government of Canada classifies  Crown corporations by their legal 
characteristics (parent, agent, separate employer, portf olio, etc.) rather than according to their areas of 
activity or any exclusive or monopoly rights they may have.  Currently, the Government of Canada is 
consulting Crown corporations to develop a co mmon approach for reporting such information. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 54]:  Paragraph 182 refers to the amendmen t in 2009 to various provisions of 
Canada's Competition Act to streamline compliance a nd achieve a greater deterrent effect, in addition 
to harmonizing the Canada's legal requirements with t hose of its main trade partners, in particular the 
United States.  Could Canada explain the scope of those amendments in greater detail and indicate to 
what extent the objectives they have sought have been achieved? (page 93, paragraph 182) 
 Canada's Response:   For details on the objectives and scope  of the 2009 amendments to Canada's 
Competition Act , please consult the Competition Bureau's (the  "Bureau") Guide to Amendments to the 
Competition Act (http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/ei c/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/ 03045.html) and other 
information contained on the Bureau's Web por tal (http://www.competitionbureau.gc. ca/eic/site/cb-
bc.nsf/eng/h_03036.html).  Given the recent nature of these amendments, it is still too early to draw 
any conclusions on their effect.  
[Costa Rica Question 55]:  Please provide information on the results of the review conducted by the 
Canadian Competition Bureau of the Immunity Program in 2007 and on the Leniency Program 
finalized in 2010? (pages 93-94, paragraph 182).  
Canada's Response:  The Immunity and Leniency Programs are among the Bureau's most effective 
tools for detecting and investigating criminal activities prohibited by the Competition Act . WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 82  
 
 As reported, the Bureau's formal Immunity Progr am was first implemented in September 2000 and 
revised in October 2007.  The details of the program are set out in an Information Bulletin that covers 
the Bureau's practices, its role in the immunity process, the conditions under which the Bureau will 
recommend that the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada ("DPP") grant immunity and the 
responsibilities of the immunity applicant.  Th e Bulletin was supplemented with "Responses to 
Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs), firs t published in 2003 and expanded in 2005. 
 The 2007 review of the Immunity Program resulted in ad justments to the Bulletin and the FAQs, 
which streamlined procedures and clarified the substa ntive elements of the Program.  The Bureau has 
published a policy backgrounde r detailing these adjustments.
4 
 
From a procedural perspective, the Bureau re moved the provisional guarantee of immunity as a 
precursor to an applicant's providing full disclosur e of information and obtaining final immunity from 
the DPP.  The applicant now receives a final (though  conditional) grant of immunity when the Bureau 
and the DPP are satisfied that the entry requirements of the Program are met.  This streamlined 
approach has increased transparency and the simplified international application process. 
 
From a procedural perspective, the Bureau stream lined the Immunity application process.  Until the 
2007 revision, the Bureau's Immunity Program form ally had two steps:  a Provisional Grant of 
Immunity (PGI) and a final immunity agreement.  Th e two-step approach required an applicant first to 
proffer detailed information of the relevant offence together with a statement of the evidence that it 
expected to be able to provide.  Where satisfied th at there had been an offence under the Act and that 
all other requirements of the Program were met, the Bureau would present its assessment of the applicant's information to the DPP and recommend th at the DPP grant the applicant a PGI.  The PGI 
required the applicant to fully di sclose all evidence and information it had in relation to the offence 
and to provide continuous coopera tion throughout the investigation and any ensuing prosecution. 
Where the Bureau was satis fied with the extent of the cooperation, it would make a recommendation 
that the DPP enter into a final imm unity agreement with the applicant. 
 As a result of the 2007 revisions, the Bureau elimin ated the PGI requirement and adopted a "single 
agreement approach."  Under the new procedure, an applicant will receive a final (though conditional) 
immunity agreement when the Bur eau and the DPP are satisfied that the entry requirements of the 
Program are met and that the applicant is capable of subsequently meeting its obligations.  This 
streamlined approach reduces uncertainty on the part of immunity applicants by providing them with a 
single document that clearly sets out the full extent of their obligations and assurances in respect of 
their agreement to cooperate with the Bureau's inv estigation and any subsequent prosecutions.  It also 
allows for greater convergence of the Bureau's pro cesses with those of partner enforcement authorities 
in other jurisdictions, such as the United States (t hus simplifying matters for foreign applicants). 
 
From a substantive perspective,  the Bureau removed certain barriers to program eligibility.  In 
determining which business organi zations or individuals should be  disqualified from a grant of 
immunity, the Bureau adopted a "coercion" test rather  than an instigator/leader test.  In addition, the 
Bureau removed the "sole beneficiary" test for a ll offences other than tho se involving one party. 
 
The Bureau also clarified its confidentiality commit ment to applicants and removed the requirement 
for applicants to make restitution. 
 
In 2010, the Bureau published a Leniency Bulletin and FAQs, which clarifies the roles of both the 
DPP and the Bureau during the leniency process, and sets out the factors that the Bureau will consider 
                                                      
4 Competition Bureau, “Adjustments to the Imm unity Program and the Bureau’s Response to 
Consultation Submissions”, available at:  http:// www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/vwapj/ 
Adjustments_ to_the_Immunity_Program-e.pdf/$FILE/Adjustments_to_the_Immunity_Program-e.pdf.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 83 
 
 
 in making leniency recommendations to the DPP.  The 2010 Bulletin follows earlier drafts published 
in 2008 and 2009.  In developing the Leniency Prog ram, the Bureau considered best practices of 
foreign jurisdictions that have adopted leniency polic ies.  The Bureau also considered input from key 
stakeholders, including the American, Canadi an and International Bar Associations.  
 
The publication of the Bulletin and FAQs has resulte d in a more formalized leniency program with 
greater transparency and predictability for applican ts.  Individuals and business organizations are more 
likely to come forward, cooperate, and plead guilty (r ather than litigate) when  they are aware of the 
relevant leniency considerations and when they ar e confident that the Bureau will follow them in its 
leniency recommendations to the DPP. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 56]:  Paragraph 185 mentions that the provisions of the Competition Act 
relating to abuse of dominant position and, in so me cases, conspiracy, cannot prevent intellectual 
property rights from being exercised and that the exercise of those rights for the purpose of trade 
restriction may only be subject to special correctiv e measures.  Could Canada elaborate on the type of 
special corrective measures applied when intellectual property rights are exercised to restrict trade? 
(page 95, paragraph 185).  Canada's Response:  In accordance with subsection 32(2) of  Canada's Competition Act, the Federal 
Court may order the following corrective measures:  
(a) declare void, in whole or in part, any agreemen t, arrangement or licence relating to the use of the 
intellectual property;  (b) restrain any person from carrying out or exercising any or all of the terms or provisions of the agreement, arrangement or licence; 
 
(c) direct the grant of licences under any such pate nt, copyright or registered integrated circuit 
topography to such persons and on such terms and conditions as the court may deem proper or, if the 
grant and other remedies would appear insufficient to  prevent the use of that intellectual property, 
revoking the patent;  
(d) direct that the registration of a trademark in th e register of trade-marks or the registration of an 
integrated circuit topography in the register  of topographies be expunged or amended;  and 
 (e) direct that such other acts be  done or omitted as the Court may de em necessary to prevent any such 
use of the intellectual property.  
[Costa Rica Question 57]:  What percentage of the mergers reviewed by the Competition Bureau are 
approved and rejected? (page 96, paragraph 188). 
 
Canada's Response:   Statistics on the Bureau's merger ex aminations are published annually and are 
publicly available on the Bureau's Website  (http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-
bc.nsf/eng/h_00169.html).  Below are the statistics for 2009-2010.  The last publicly available annual 
report is for 2007-2008.  The 2008-2 009 and 2009-2010 annual reports w ill be available shortly on the 
Bureau's Website. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 84  
 
 2009-2010  MERGER EXAMINATIONS  
Examinations Commenced  216 
Notification filings and Advan ce Ruling Certificate requests 200 
Notification filings only 10 
ARC requests only 155 
ARC requests and Notification filings 35 
Other examinations 16 
Examinations Concluded  221 
No issues5 under the Competition Act  211 
Advance Ruling Certificates issued 139 
"No-action" letters6 57 
Other examinations 15 
Concluded with issues under the Competition Act  8 
Consent Agreements Registered with the Competition Tribunal 6 
Foreign remedies resolved Canadian competition concerns 1 
Transactions abandoned due to competition concerns 1 
Section 92 applications concluded or withdrawn 0 
Transactions abandoned for reasons unrel ated to the Commissioner's position 2 
Supplementary Information Requests issued in concluded matters 5 
Total Examinations during the year 232 
Examinations ongoing at year-end 11 
 
[Costa Rica Question 58]:  Could Canada provide more informa tion on the specific price controls 
applied to certain products and ser vices, including patented medicines?  To what other products and 
services does Canada apply price controls and what  are the criteria used to set them? (page 96, 
paragraph 187).  
Canada's Response:  The Patented Medicines Price Review Board ensures that prices charged by 
patentees for patented medicines sold in Canada are not excessive.  It also reports on pharmaceutical 
trends of all medicines, and on the research and development spending by pharmaceutical patentees. Board Staff review pricing information for all pate nted drug products sold in Canada on an ongoing 
basis to ensure that the prices charged by pate ntees comply with the Guidelines established by the 
Board, which are based on the price determination factors in Section 85 of the Patent Act . 
 
[Costa Rica Question 59]:  Please elaborate on the establishment of a sole domestic market, as well 
as its main obstacles.  Canada's Response:  Canada has a highly-integrated internal market.  Large areas of the economy 
(e.g. telecommunications, banking, shipping, and air transportation) are under federal jurisdiction and 
thereby under a single regulatory regime.  Other ar eas are either wholly under provincial jurisdiction 
(e.g. the recognition of occupationa l qualifications) or are regulated  by both federal and provincial 
governments (e.g. protection of the environment).  All levels of government-federal, provincial, and 
territorial–signed the Agreement on Internal Tr ade (AIT) which came into effect in 1995.
7  I t  
established rules for the free movement of persons , goods, services, and investments within Canada. 
 Some differences may arise in the way provi nces and territories regulate areas under their 
constitutional responsibility such as the recognition of occupational qualifica tions, and variations 
relating to the sale of goods and services.  Some areas, such as the environment and food and agricultural products, are regulated by both fede ral and provincial and territorial governments. 
                                                      
5 Examinations resulting in in sufficient grounds for challenge 
6 Including ARC refusals  
7 Nunavut is a signatory.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 85 
 
 
 [Costa Rica Question 60]:  Canada continues to lag behind othe r advanced economies in terms of 
productivity, due mainly to its inadequate capital deep ening and lacklustre performance in the field of 
innovation. In this regard, what measures is Canada  considering to promote innovation and to create a 
more dynamic negotiating atmosphere?  
 
Canada's Response:  In its June 3, 2011 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada 
announced its policy agenda to ensure long-term ec onomic prosperity.  The policy agenda focused on 
promoting innovation by means of several key initiativ es, such as promoting critical workforce skills, 
passing copyright legislation, promoting and encouraging research and development, and 
implementing a Digital Economy Strategy.  The Govern ment of Canada also set up the Research and 
Development Review Expert Panel in  October 2010 and it is expected to release a final report no later 
than October 2011.  
[Costa Rica Question 61]:  In regard to tariff remissions in the "public interest", please indicate in 
which cases Canada has resorted to this option. 
 
Canada's Response:  As indicated in the report, remission of customs duties has been done under the 
specific authority of the Customs Tariff since 1988.  
[Costa Rica Question 62]:  In terms of indirect taxes and duties, the report mentions that indirect 
federal duties are imposed in the form of taxes on production, beer, both domestic and imported. 
However, domestic beer may be subject to lowe r rates by bracket, but not imported beer.  Could 
Canada clarify this differentiation, which seems to violate the principle of domestic treatment? 
 Canada's Response:  The reduced excise duty rates available for beer produced domestically are 
limited to beer production up to 75,000 hectolitres pe r year.  Beyond this annual production threshold, 
the same excise duty rates apply for beer products of the same alcohol by volume (ABV) content, 
whether manufactured in or imported into Canada .  As discussed in response to question 39, these 
measures are modelled after similar programs in ot her countries and have not had the effect of 
curtailing growth in imports of beer into Canada.  Indeed, imports of beer (H S 2203) into Canada have 
increased 32% during the review period. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 63]:  Canadian companies wishing to make export sales or increase their sales 
could get public funds within the framework of 112 federal and subfederal pr ograms.  Could Canada 
elaborate on this subject?  Does this apply to a ll sectors? Is this aid reported to the WTO?  
 
Canada's Response:   In most cases, these programs target Canadian small and medium-sized 
enterprises. Eligibility for some of these progra mmes may be conditional on the company's province 
or territory of incorporation, its ownership charact eristics, or the nature of its activities.  Specific 
eligibility requirements for a program are availabl e through the administering entity charged with its 
oversight.  The funds are administered by a wide range of entities, including federal and provincial 
Crown corporations, regional economic devel opment agencies and provincial government 
departments. 
 
Canada's subsidy notification to the WTO is prepar ed in accordance with th e obligations outlined in 
Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and C ountervailing Measures Canada's latest subsidy 
notification is available on the WTO website – document (G/SCM/N/186/CAN). 
 
[Costa Rica Question 64]:   In regard to incentives and othe r measures of assistance to businesses, 
could Canada expand on the official assistan ce initiatives that depend on national content 
requirements? (paragraph 144, page 78)   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 86  
 
 Canada's Response:  Other thanthose mentioned in the TPR, Ca nada is unaware of  any other support 
initiatives contingent on local-content. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 65]:  In January 2009, an environmental protection plan aimed at reducing 
environmental pollution was implemented; under th e framework of that program, incentives were 
granted to Canadians who disposed of more polluting vehicles.  Do those incentives apply to any 
make of vehicle, provided that it has fe wer emissions? (paragraph 102, page 138) 
 
Canada's Response:  The national vehicle scrappage program , known as Retire Your Ride, targeted 
all personal automobiles and light-duty trucks of m odel year 1995 and earlier.  Vehicles or model year 
1995 and older emit 19 times more smog-forming emi ssions than vehicles of model 2004 and later. 
 Owners of these vehicles were eligible to receive an  incentive if their vehicle was in running order, 
registered and insured with the program participant fo r at least the past six months.  Eligible personal 
vehicles were those that have a gross vehicle we ight of 3,856 kg (8,500 pounds) which includes all 
cars as well as nearly all sport-utility vehicles, vans and pick-up trucks.  
 
[Costa Rica Question 66]:  The WTO Secretariat's report describes the export funding support 
provided by the Government of Canada.  Do the public funds to conduct sales abroad referred to in paragraph 125 involve some form of export 
subsidies?  Are they reported to the WTO? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada, like many countries, maintain s a number of programs at both the 
federal and sub-federal level that support businesses in their efforts to expand and grow.  Those 
programs that fit the definition of a subsidy, as per the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures, are notified to the WTO in accordance with Canada's international trade obligations. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 67]:  What features of the components of the new agricultural policy 
framework "Growing Forward" ensure that the aid provided to agricultural producers in the form of 
price maintenance or as compensation for falling pri ces, stays consistent with the commitments to 
reduce trade distorting domestic aid undertaken by Canada in the Uruguay Round?  
Canada's Response:  The Business Risk Management (BRM) suite of "Growing Forward" provides 
agricultural producers with the financial tools to manage farm business risks.  The AgriStability and 
AgriInvest programs are designed as a whole-farm ma rgin program to protect against both small and 
large declines in income.  The Ag riInsurance program provides insurance against production or asset 
losses caused by natural perils.  The AgriRecovery framework provides prompt financial assistance in 
an extraordinary disaster event to help producers r esume business operations as quickly as possible.  
The development of BRM programs takes into account  the rules and obligations of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, including Canada's domestic support commitment. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 68]:  The Report by the Secretariat states that administration methods for the 
individual WTO tariff quotas remain largely unchanged, but that the representative period for the 
allocation of the beef and veal tariff quota (Table AIV.1) has been amended each year in order to 
minimize disruption in the Canadian beef industry as a result of the BSE case in Alberta in May 2003. 
 
The note at the foot of page 9 indicates that the re presentative period has been modified each year to 
reduce the disorganization of the Canadian beef sector to a minimum.  How has that representative 
period varied over the last three periods? (page 110, paragraph 16)  Canada's Response:  Traditionally, the TRQ for beef and v eal has been based on the company's 
throughput during the previous 12-month period (November 1 to October 31).  With the 2003  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 87 
 
 
 discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, many 
countries imposed restrictions on the importation of cattle, beef and their products, resulting in ample 
supplies of inexpensive Canadian beef being available to domestic processors. 
 Consequently, many traditional beef importers sw itched to domestic beef.  In order to avoid 
penalizing these traditional importers, applicants for beef and veal TRQ have the choice of using as 
their representative period either the 16-month period ( January 1, 2002, to April 30, 2003, prorated to 
a 12-month period) or a more recent 12-month period (August 1 to July 31).  
 
The beef and veal allocation methodology is currently  subject to annual review, including a Canadian 
market review and forecast of the beef industry a nd consultations with the industry.  However, there 
have been no changes to the methodology in the last three periods. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 69]:  The report indicates that Canada adopted a new agricultural policy 
framework, the Growing Forward framework agreem ent, which entered into force on 1 April 2008 
and which is the basis for the federal, provincial and territorial measures during the period between 
2008/2009 and 2012/2013.  However, Canada has not  reported the amount of the payments made 
within that new agricultural policy framework.  Why has Canada not reported its domestic support commitments for the years beginning in 2006 and 
when will it do so, considering that the last  notification was for the year 2005 (document 
G/AG/N/CAN/82), which means that it is five years overdue in its commitments? 
 Canada's Response:  Preparations for Canada's outstanding notifications are underway.  Canada 
plans to submit its notifications as soon as possible.  At this time Canada cannot provide an exact time 
for its submissions.   
[Costa Rica Question 70]:  With respect to "business risk ma nagement" programs – AgriStability, 
AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery—u nder what domestic aid category is Canada 
considering reporting those programs?  What ar e the main sectors benefiting from those programs?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is currently preparing notificati ons in which these will be classified in 
accordance with the criteria of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Canada will submit its domestic 
support notification to the Committee on Agriculture when it is completed.  The Business Risk Management (BRM) programs provide agricultural producers with the financial tools to manage 
business risks that are inherent in the nature of farming (e.g., income and production losses, 
extraordinary disaster events that impact negativ ely on income).  The BRM suite of the national 
"Growing Forward" framework is designe d to benefit all agricultural sectors. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 71]:   Who monitors whether the type of aid provided at the provincial and 
territorial levels, which is to complement the na tional "Growing Forward" framework programs, is in 
line with the regulations of the WTO Agreem ent on Agriculture, and how is that done?  
 
Canada's Response:  Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials work closely with their 
provincial/territorial counterparts to ensure that a ll support to the agriculture sector is reported and 
properly classified.  This is accomplished thr ough data sharing on programs, as well as regular 
collaboration (e.g., meetings, conference calls).  
[Costa Rica Question 72]:   Many of the support programs a pplied by Canada are price-linked 
(paragraph 27:  price guarantee programs and other guarantee programs).  
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 88  
 
 Given that Canada's last notification of aid was for the period 2005 (paragraph 32), how does Canada 
guarantee for the WTO members that it has not exceeded  its consolidated aid levels in the past five 
years?  Canada's Response:  Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada mon itors the agricultural domestic support 
at the federal and provincial/territorial levels to en sure consistency with Cana da's international trade 
obligations.  Canada intends to s ubmit its notifications for the later reporting years as soon as possible. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 73]:   What actions have been made been taken since 2008 to break the 
monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB)? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Canadian Government introduced Bill C-46, An Act to amend the CWB 
Act and Chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998, Ma rch 3, 2008.  This Bill would have allowed the 
Government to remove barley from the CWB monopoly by regulation, but it was not passed.  
The Canadian Government recently stated in the Ju ne 2011 Speech from the Throne that it intends to 
introduce legislation to ensure that western farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the 
open market, effectively removing the CWB monopoly.  
[Costa Rica Question 74]:   What is the participation of the Canadian government in the Canadian 
Wheat Board, the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC)?  
 
Canada's Response:  Under the CWB Act, the Canadian G overnment's oversight of the CWB 
includes: appointment of five of the 15 directors on the CWB Board of Directors; the guaranteeing of CWB initial payments, borrowing, and credit sales;  annual approval of the CWB Borrowing Plan and 
Corporate Plan;  approval of transfers from the "s pecial account";  and approval of payments to 
farmers.  
 Under the CDC Act, Government participation in the CDC includes appointment of the three 
commissioners.  About half of the CDC's ad ministrative budget is covered by Government 
appropriations.  The CDC also borrows money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to operate some 
of its programs.  The Government annually appr oves the CDC's Corporate Plan and Borrowing Plan, 
and performs an annual financial a udit.  The Government also approves the entry of the CDC into 
Federal-Provincial agreements, such as the Nati onal Milk Marketing Plan and the Comprehensive 
Agreement on Pooling of Milk Revenues.  
[Costa Rica Question 75]:   When is a decision expected with re spect to the three options set forth for 
greater openness to direct foreign participation in the telecommunications sector? 
 Canada's Response:  T he Government of Canada is examini ng this issue.  No announcement has 
been made regarding the timing of a decision.  
[Costa Rica Question 76]:   The Secretariat's report states that the Canadian broadcasting system is 
Canadian-owned, under effective Canadian contro l, and that programming is predominantly and 
ostensibly Canadian.  Is there any possibility of greater openness to foreign participation in this 
sector?   Canada's Response:  Under current rules, non-Canadians can own up to 20% of voting shares of a 
broadcasting programming and distri bution undertaking (maximum 33 1/3% in the case of a parent 
corporation).  There are no plans for policy change in  the broadcasting sector at this time, with respect 
to ownership rules. It should be noted, however, that one of the key features of the Canadian broadcasting system is its openness to foreign television services.  A large number of foreign 
television programming services have been author ized by the Canadian Radio-television and  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 89 
 
 
 Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for distribution in Canada (the complete list is available on 
the CRTC website at:  http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/ publications/satlist.htm.  The CRTC is an 
independent public authority responsible for the licen sing, regulation and supervision of all aspects of 
the Canadian broadcasting system, with a view  to implementing the policy objectives of the 
Broadcasting Act. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 77]:   Could Canada indicate its reasons for imposing local presence 
requirements for insurance, reinsurance and retr ocession activities in Canada, thereby limiting cross-
border trade in this type of service?  Is there any exception to this requirement for companies of 
countries that have signed a free trade agreem ent with Canada? (paragraph 167, page 161) 
 
Canada's Response: Requiring local presence ensures proper regulation of those entities insuring in 
Canada risks. Canada's local presence requireme nts are fully consistent with its cross-border 
commitments.  
Canada's cross-border trade commitments are listed in each of its trade agreements, the text of which 
can be found here:  http://www.international.gc .ca/trade-agreements-a ccords-commerciaux/agr-
acc/index.aspx. 
 
[Costa Rica Question 78]:  According to the Secretariat's report, Canada continues to impose 
restrictions on the aircraft repair and maintena nce services, maintaining the possibility of forcing 
airlines to turn to national maintena nce and repair facilities.  It also continues to apply the principle of 
most-favoured-nation to grant authorizations to fo reign aircraft maintenance organizations.  Could 
Canada elaborate on the reasons for which these requirements are maintained and the MFN treatment, and whether greater openness is expected in this sector to foreign participation by other countries? 
(paragraph 192 and 195 pages 167 and 168)  
Canada's Response:  Authorizations by Canada of all aircra ft maintenance organizations are based 
on ensuring a high level of safety consistent with Canadian regulations and standards to which all 
AMOs providing services to operators certified by Tran sport Canada must adhe re.  To this end, 
Transport Canada has entered into agreements a nd technical arrangements for aircraft maintenance 
with Civil Aviation Authorities that meet or exceed Canadian safety requirements.  Examples include 
agreements with the United States of America and the European Union, as well as technical 
arrangements with authorities from Singapore, Brazil,  New Zealand, Israel, and Hong Kong, China to 
name a few.  The basis of granting MFN treatment  to our safety bilateral partners remains the 
consistent application of Canada 's internationally-recognized high standard of safety excellence. 
Canada remains open to establishing bilateral technical arrangements with other state civil aviation 
authorities for the purposes of aircraft maintenance and repair.  COLOMBIA 
 
[Colombia Question 1]:  The Report by the Secretariat states that "[…Canada affirms that] with the 
amendments to the Customs Act enacted in 2009, it will examine goods within designated Customs 
Controlled Areas (CCAs) in order to counteract sm uggling".  How do these areas work and what are 
the requirements for establishing them? 
 Canada's Response:   The implementation of Customs Contro lled Areas (CCA) will help the Canada 
Border Services Agency (CBSA) co mbat internal conspiracies at or near Canada's border.  When 
goods or persons arriving from outside Canada that ha ve not been released or examined by the CBSA 
come into contact with domestic goods or persons , such as workers, incl uding cleaning, retail, 
baggage handler or cargo handler staff, there is an increased risk that internal  conspiracies may occur. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 90  
 
 Amendments to CBSA's current legislation will give CBSA officers the flexibility to question and 
examine people and goods anywhere within or upon ex it of a CCA.  The amendments to the law also 
obligates person within a CCA, upon the request of an officer , to present themselves, answer questions 
truthfully and report goods.   
For an area to become a CCA it must be designate d as such by the Minister of Public Safety and 
Emergency Preparedness.  CCAs will be areas near or associated with the border where international 
goods or persons are arriving from outsi de of Canada that have not been released or examined by the 
CBSA are more likely to come into contact w ith domestic goods or persons, such as workers. 
 
[Colombia Question 2] :  What other measures has Canada im plemented to combat smuggling and 
other forms of illegal trade?   Canada's Response:   One such measure is the Advanced Commercial Information program.  This 
program introduces more effective risk management processes and tools to identify threats to health, 
safety, and security prior to cargo conveyances reaching Canada. 
 The program aligns with the CBSA's mandate to  provide integrated border services that support 
national security and public safety priorities by identif ying high-risk goods prior to their arrival in 
Canada while facilitating the m ovement of low-risk goods. 
 
[Colombia Question 3]:   The Report by the Secretariat states  that "the Canada Border Services 
Agency (CBSA) is in the process of developing a trusted trader strategy". What are the objectives of this strategy?  Canada's Response:   The strategy's main objective is to align existing Trusted Trader programs in 
order to ensure efficient and effective program management and delivery. 
 
[Colombia Question 4] :  What are the requirements to be one of these traders? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada currently has in place three trusted trader programs: Customs Self 
Assessment (CSA), Partners in Protection; and Pa rtners in Compliance.  Each program has its own 
requirements. 
 Carriers seeking to operate under the Customs Self Assessment Program are required to be bonded; 
they must have a history of transporting goods to or from Canada for at least 90 days; they do not have 
a history of contraband or major commercial infractions ;  they are willing to be liable for and maintain 
control of all shipments, including CSA-approved sh ipments, until the goods are released;  and they 
are willing to provide senior management author ization that proper commercial business processes 
and audit trails will support CSA program requirements.   Importers seeking to operate under the Customs Self Assessment Program must be residents of 
Canada;  they must have a history of actively im porting for at least 90 days; they must not have a 
history of contraband or major commercial infractions;  they must be prepared to make an investment 
in business systems;  and they also must be willi ng to provide senior management authorization that 
their books and records contain or will contain commercial business processes,  customs interfaces and 
internal control procedures.   
To be eligible for the Partners in Protection Progr am, applicants must be either an importer, an 
exporter, an air carrier, a rail carrier, a marine carri er, a highway carrier, a customs broker, a courier, a 
warehouse operator, a freight forwarder or a shippi ng agent.  The applicant must own or operate 
facilities in Canada that are directly involved in the importation or expor tation of commercial goods 
and have a good record of compliance with the CBSA.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 91 
 
 
 To be eligible for the Partners in Compliance Program , an applicant must be a resident of Canada with 
their business entity permanently established, located  and managed within Canada.  The applicant 
must have the general authority to carry out busi ness without the approval of another person outside 
Canada.  The importer must maintain separate b ooks and records for their Canadian operations, 
prepare separate financial statements, maintain a ccounts for the imported goods and pay for imports 
and duties and taxes.  The importer must be a registered member of the Customs Self Assessment 
Program.  The applicant must also have completed the Customs Self Assessment validation review and must have shown that no significant outstanding CBSA accounting issues exist.    
[Colombia Question 5]:   Are these similar to the Authorized Economic Operators (AEOs) promoted 
by the World Customs Organization (WCO)?  
 Canada's Response:   Yes, there are similarities between the programs.  The Canadian programs, 
however, were developed from a Ca nadian perspective and before th e WCO developed their model.  
As a result, differences may exist. 
 
[Colombia Question 6]:   The Report by the Secretariat states that "…designated customs officers 
determine the customs value of imported goods, generally through […] post-importation verification". 
Does the customs authority determine the customs va lue of goods prior to authorization of customs 
release?  
Canada's Response:  No. All valuation verifications are conduc ted after importation in a post-entry 
verification environment, based on risk.   
 
[Colombia Question 7]:   Has Canada used reference prices to  dispute the declared value in the 
inspection process?  
 
Canada's Response:   No.  Canada has never used reference prices to dispute the declared value. As 
previously stated, customs values are verified in  a post-entry verification system based on risk. 
 
[Colombia Question 8]:  What is the maximum timeframe available to the customs authority to 
determine the value of goods?  
 
Canada's Response:  Customs has 4 years to verify and re- assess the value for duty.  The importer 
also has the obligation for 4 years to correct an erroneous customs value within 90 days of having 
reason to believe the declaration was erroneous.  
[Colombia Question 9]:  
Paragraph 88 of the Secretariat's report states tha t:  "While SPS-related import requirements are the 
domain of the Federal Government, provincial and territorial governments have jurisdiction for some 
food safety issues, including for food manufactured and sold within their borders...  [and that] 
consultative bodies between the federal, provincial, and territorial (FPT) governments include the [...] 
FPT Food Safety Committee". 
 According to paragraph 92:  "T he Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation reinforces a number 
of regulatory principles under Canada's SPS regime .  In particular, it re quires federal regulatory 
authorities to:  use relevant international standa rds, guidelines, and recommendations where those 
standards achieve the policy objective sought by Canada;  apply cost-benefit analysis wherever 
possible, but especially for "high-impact" regulations ;  and to consult the provincial and territorial 
governments as required."  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 92  
 
 Paragraph 94 of the Secretariat's report states that:  "Canada's [...] national notification authority under 
the SPS Agreement is the Standards Council of Cana da. Canada has notified federal measures only to 
the SPS Committee, since the authorities are not awar e of any SPS measures adopted by sub-federal 
authorities that have a trade impact."  
Could the Government of Canada provide more de tailed information on the authorities, procedures 
and regulations, at the federal, provincial and lo cal levels, for implemen tation, coordination and 
evaluation of the commitments acquired under the WTO SPS Agreement? 
 
Canada's Response:   The Federal government has jurisdiction with regards to international and inter-
provincial trade for SPS issues.   As stated in the S ecretariat's report, the Government of Canada is not 
aware of any SPS measures adopted by sub-fede ral authorities that have a trade impact. 
 In Canada, the bodies responsible fo r federal regulations related to food safety and animal and plant 
health include the Canadian Food Inspection Agency , Health Canada and Ca nada Border Services 
Agency.  In addition, federal depa rtments are responsible for the do mestic implementation of the SPS 
Agreement.  With respect to meeting our transparency obliga tions, the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is 
Canada's enquiry point and notification authority.  The SCC monitors the Ca nada Gazette to identify 
relevant changes to regulations for WTO notificati on.  In addition to regul ations that go through the 
Canada Gazette process, departments and agencies ca n also develop and implement measures such as 
import policies that do not modify legislation.  The SCC works with these au thorities to notify such 
measures. 
 
[Colombia Question 10]:   Page 108, paragraph 6 of the Secretar iat's report mentions that:  "Since the 
last Review of Canada, the Government has taken steps to strengthen the competitiveness of maritime 
transport, notably through investments in port infrastructure and by removing a 25% tariff on imported vessels.  However, restrictive cabotage rules remain  in place; this impedes the efficiency of the 
Canadian maritime industry.  We would like to k now what impact these new instruments have on 
Canadian fisheries operations. 
Canada's Response:   The impact of these new instruments on fisheries operations is unknown.   
 
[Colombia Follow-up Question]:   Page 108, paragraph 7 of the report states that: "Canada has 
introduced a new agricultural policy framework (Gro wing Forward), a major component of which is a 
suite of new or modified "business risk mana gement" measures (AgriStability, AgriInvest, 
AgriInsurance, [AgroInvest Kick Start] and Agri Recovery) aimed at partially compensating producers 
for revenue or income losses arising from low co mmodity prices, increased production cost, reduced 
production, or natural disasters [as well as impr oving marketing and productivity]..." Page 116, 
paragraph 31 of the report men tions that... "Agriculture and Ag ri-Food Canada lists 142 programmes 
(as of January 2011)" and that "since its last TPR,  Canada has implemented a number of transitional 
or ad hoc measures" in support of its agriculture a nd agri-food sector.  On this point, the Government 
of Colombia invites the Canadian authorities to upda te its notifications regard ing internal assistance as 
soon as possible, since the notification given in Nove mber of last year refers to calendar year 2005. 
The notification mechanism definitely helps improve  transparency and gives first-hand information on 
the programs and measures that countries are implementing.   Canada's Response:  Preparations for Canada's outstandi ng notifications are underway.  Canada 
plans to submit its notifications as soon as possible.  At this time Canada cannot provide an exact time 
for its submissions.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 93 
 
 
 [Colombia Question 11]:   Paragraph 14 of the Secretariat's report states that: "About 41% of the 
applied MFN in-quota tariffs for agricultural produc ts (totalling 152 tariff lines) are non-ad valorem.  
The ad valorem equivalents range from 0.3% to 8. 6% (for products where import data were available 
to calculate the AVEs).  Could Canada list the produc ts to which this kind of tariff applies and, if 
possible, indicate the ranges within which the tariffs fluctuate?  
Canada's Response:   See accompanying spreadsheet. 
 
[Colombia Question 12]:  Paragraph 17 of the report states that:  "Since its last TPR, Canada has 
adopted a new agricultural policy framework.  Th e Growing Forward Framework Agreement, which 
entered into force on 1 April 2008, provides the basi s for federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) measures 
for the period 2008/09 to 2012/13.  It replaces th e Framework Agreement on Agricultural and Agri-
Food Policy for the Twenty-First Century (A PF Agreement), which covered 2002/03-2007/08.  
Canadian agricultural policy is under joint federal a nd provincial/territorial responsibility, with cost-
shared activities generally shared at a ratio of 60:40."  And Paragraph 20 states that: "AgriStability 
provides payments to compensate for margin (i.e. whole-farm income) declines.  It replaces similar 
measures under the expired Canadian Agricultura l Income Stabilization (CAIS). Payments are 
triggered when producers' "production margins" drop mo re than 15% below their historical "reference 
margins".  The production margin is calculated by  subtracting allowable expenses (those related 
directly to the production of agricultural commodities,  including feed costs, fertilizer, and pesticides) 
from allowable revenues in a year.  The reference margin is the average production margin of the 
previous five years, excluding the highest and lo west values (i.e. the Olympic average).  Could 
Canada expand on the explanation of how the "pro duction margins" and "reference margins" used to 
determine the payments to compensat e producers' income are calculated?  
 
Canada's Response: 
 
Production Margin 
 
The production margin is calculated by subtrac ting allowable expenses from allowable income.  
Allowable items are those directly related to th e primary production of agricultural commodities on 
the farm (for example, feed costs, fertilizer and pesticides). 
 
Allowable and Non-Allowable Income and Expense Items 
 
To be allowable, income and expenses must be directly related to the primary production of 
agricultural commodities.  The following table provides some examples of allowable and non-
allowable income and expense items. 
 
Allowable Income Non-Allowable Income 
Agricultural Commodity Sales Agricultural Contract work 
Rebates for Allowable Expenses Business Risk Management and Disaster Assistance Payments 
Wildlife Damage Compensation Payments Other Program Payments * 
Crop/Production Insurance Proceeds Re bates for Non-Allowable Expenses 
Insurance or Other Procee ds for Allowable Income 
and Expense Items Patronage Dividends 
Premium Adjustment Payments (reference years only) Interest 
 Gravel 
 Trucking 
 Machinery Rental 
 Leases 
 Resales of Commodities Purchased 
*Payments received from programs other than Production Insura nce are generally considered non-allowable income for 
program purposes.  However, certain pr ogram payments may be considered a llowable in the Program Year and non-
allowable in the reference years if they compensate for a loss that is covered by AgriStability. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 94  
 
  
Allowable Expenses Non-Allowable Expenses 
Commodity Purchases Machinery Repairs 
Containers and Twine Agricultural Contract Work 
Fertilizer and Lime Advertising and Marketing costs 
Pesticides Building and Fence repairs 
Insurance Premiums (crop produc tion) Other insurance premiums 
Veterinary fees, medicine, A.I. fees Memberships/Subscription Fees 
Minerals and Salts  Legal and Accounting Fees 
Machinery (gasoline, diesel fuel, oil) Non-Arm's Length Salaries 
Electricity Office Expenses 
Freight and Shipping Motor Vehicle Expenses 
Heating Fuel Small Tools 
Arm's Length Salaries Soil Testing 
Storage/Drying Licenses/Permits 
Prepared Feed Telephone 
Insurance or Other Premiums for Allowable 
Income and Expense Items Machinery Lease/Rental 
Commodity Futures Transaction Fees Land Clearing and Draining 
Commissions and Levies Interest (real estate, mortgage, other) 
 Property taxes 
 Rent (land, buildings, pastures) 
 Quota rental (tobacco, dairy) 
 Gravel 
 Purchases of commodities resold 
 Motor vehicle interest and leasing costs 
 Allowance on eligible capital property 
 Capital cost allowance 
 Mandatory inventory adjustments – prior year 
 Optional inventory adjustments – prior year 
 Other 
 
Program Year Margin 
 
The program year margin is the production margin fo r the year for which the producer is applying for 
AgriStability. 
 
 The program year margin is calculated by subt racting allowable expenses from allowable income 
for the year for which the producer is applying for the program. 
 For producers who report their taxes on the cash basis of accounting, the production margin for 
the program year is then adjusted for chang es in purchased inputs, accounts receivable, accounts 
payable, crops inventory, and livestock inventory. 
 The program year margin may also be adjusted to  reflect operations that are combined for whole-
farm purposes. 
 
Reference Margin 
 A reference margin reflects the producer's margin history based on the production margin in previous 
years, taking into consideration farm type and size, and is calculated using an Olympic Average 
(taking the last five years of the producer's marg in, removing the highest and lowest margins within 
that time period, and averaging the remaining three years).  
[Colombia Question 13]:   How does Canada ensure that these measures are compatible with the 
Agreement on Agriculture in  terms of domestic support?  
 Canada's Response:  The Business Risk Management (BRM) suite of "Growing Forward" provides 
agricultural producers with the financial tools to manage farm business risks.  The AgriStability and 
AgriInvest programs are designed as a whole-farm ma rgin program to protect against both small and  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 95 
 
 
 large declines in income.  The Ag riInsurance program provides insurance against production or asset 
losses caused by natural perils.  The AgriRecovery framework provides prompt financial assistance in 
an extraordinary disaster event to help producers resume business operations as quickly as possible. 
The development of BRM programs takes into account  the rules and obligations of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, including Canada's domestic support commitment.  
 
[Colombia Question 14]:  Paragraph 26 of the report states that: "Most Canadian assistance to 
agricultural producers has been delivered in the form of market price support for supply-managed 
commodities (milk, poultry meat, eggs, and related products) (Table IV.1).  Market price support 
includes all policy measures that raise the domestic pr ice relative to the border price of the commodity 
concerned, including border measures, such as tariff s and tariff quotas, and export subsidies.  Supply 
management comprises (I) control over imports of products and several by-products; (ii) stable 
producer prices;  and (iii) production management (quotas).  Could Canada indicate how it ensures that these support measures do not distort the domestic market 
price and how the supply management system for commodities works? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sect ors operate under a supply management 
system whereby production is controlled thr ough marketing/production quotas to meet domestic 
demand.  Supply management relies on predictabl e supplies – achieved through marketing/production 
quotas and import restrictions – in order to bring pri ce stability to the market.  Support prices are used 
for butter and skim milk powder. 
 Canada's regime is consistent w ith its obligations under the WTO. 
 
[Colombia Question 15]:   Can Canada explain how it determ ines the percentage of the wholesale 
price offered as a guarantee to protect marketing agencies against declines in  the market price?  
 
Canada's Response:  The percentage (fifty percent) of the wholesale price offered as a guarantee to 
protect marketing agencies against declines in the market price is determined by legislation under the 
Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.  The wholesale price is forecast by analysis of (a) current 
supply and demand conditions expected  to prevail during the forecast period, in Canada and the world, 
particularly the U.S.; (b) existing market prices an d historical trends; and other exogenous factors, 
such as petroleum prices, exchange rates, gove rnment policies which will affect the prices. 
 
[Colombia Question 16]:   What products can take advantage of this program? 
 
Canada's Response:   According to the Agricultural Marke ting Programs Act (AMPA) which governs 
the Advance Payments Program (APP), an eligible product is: 
 
(i) an animal that is raised in Canada  or the fur pelt of such an animal, 
(ii) a plant that is grown in Canada or the product of such a plant, or 
(iii) honey or maple syrup that is produced in Canada; 
 
The Minister must be able to determine that it is possible to establish an average price for the 
agricultural product;  and the agricultural product is  not processed or, in the case of a perishable 
agricultural product, is not processed beyond what is  necessary to store it and prevent spoilage.  The 
producer must also retain ownership of the produc t and be responsible for marketing the product.  
Supply managed commodities do not qualify. 
 
[Colombia Question 17]:  According to Paragraph 28 of the Secretariat's report:  "The Advance 
Payments Program is a product-specific loan guarantee programme under which the Federal 
Government, inter alia, guarant ees cash advances of up to Ca n$400,000 provided by participating WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 96  
 
 producer organizations to producers, based on the valu e of the eligible product (including livestock).  
Loans are interest-free up to Can$100,000 and repaya ble within 18 months. In the 2009-10 production 
period, the Government guaranteed Can$1.9 billion in advances.  Amendments to the AMPA were 
made in February 2008 to provide for emergenc y advances in cases of severe economic hardship; 
advances were made to hog and cattle producers for the 2008-09 production period.  During the 
review period, the Canadian hog industry also r eceived assistance through two ad hoc measures.  
Could Canada state the interest rate for loans over Can$100,000? 
 
Canada's Response:   The APP program is delivered by 3
rd party administrators who are responsible 
for negotiating the interest rates on the advances i ssued over $100,000.  In general, the rates are 
variable rates and are at the prime rate (3.00%) of the lender minus 0.25%, which represents, for most 
lenders participating in the program, a rate of 2.75%.  
[Colombia Question 18]:   Could Canada explain the conditions for granting assistance to the hog 
sector in 2008-2009, through the Hog Industry Lo an Loss Reserve Program and the Hog Farm 
Transition Program? 
 Canada's Response:   The Hog Industry Loan Loss Reserve Program (HILLRP) was established in 
the fall of 2009 to assist viable hog operations with their short term liquidity pressures by having the 
Government of Canada share the risk with financial institutions of consolidati ng short term debt into 
long term loans by March 31, 2010. 264 loans have  been registered with AAFC totalling $411.2 
million which amounts to $245.6 million in reserve funding. 
 In addition to HILLRP, AAFC also implemente d Hog Farm Transition Program to assist hog 
producers to transition to new markets by providing compensation of up to a maximum of $75 million.  These programs were created as a direct result of  the industry's request for Government support 
identified through the Canadian Pork Council's (C PC) Strategic Transition Plan in June 2009. 
 
[Colombia Question 19]:   Paragraph 29 of the report states that:  "The Canadian Agricultural Loans 
Act (CALA) programme of June 2009 (Table AIV. 2) is a loan guarantee programme with expanded 
eligibility to start-up farmers, agricultural co-operativ es and for inter-generational farm transfers.  The 
maximum loan amount has been increased from Can$250,000 to Can$500,000, with up to 
Can$500,000 for land and buildings and Can$350,000 for any other purpose.  Up 1 November 2010, 
3,400 loans totalling Can$183.3 million ha d been registered under the CALA. 
 Could Canada state the interest rate, amortizat ion periods, type of co llateral and method for 
establishing these guarantees? 
 
Canada's Response:   Under the CALA, farmers may be eligible for new loan guarantee limits of up 
to $500,000, with $500,000 available for real prope rty (land and buildings) and $350,000 available for 
all other purposes.  Beginning farmers can receive up to 90% financing under the program (they must 
supply 10% equity as collateral), while existing farm ers can receive up to 80% financing (they must 
supply 20% equity as collateral).  The maximum inte rest rates are the lender's prime plus 1% for 
variable term loans and the lender's comparable re sidential mortgage rate plus 1% for fixed term 
loans.  The maximum amortization for a loan under the program is 15 years for land and 10 years for 
any other purpose.  For Cooperative loans, th e maximum amortization is 20 years for land and 
buildings, and 10 years for any other purpose.  
[Colombia Question 20]:  According to Paragraph 36 of the report: "As indicated by the OECD 
measurement of support, earlier progress away from commodity-specific support has reversed, mainly 
due to higher market price support for milk in 2009.  Canadian commodity-specific support (SCT) 
accounted for 65% of the total PSE in 2007-09, up  from 57% in 2004-06 (Table IV.1)."  Could 
Canada explain how this program works a nd how it differs from government subsidies?  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 97 
 
 
 Canada Response:  The OECD measurement of market price support (which differs from the WTO 
measurement) represents the combined effect of many different policy instruments.  As explained in the OECD documentation, the OECD market price s upport is a transfer from consumers, not from the 
government budget.  
 
[Colombia Question 21]:  Could Canada explain the methodology used to combine the different 
variables that determine income support for dairy producers? 
 
Canada's response:   The OECD calculation of market price support for milk8 observes the difference 
between producer price and a world reference price at fa rm gate level.  The worl d reference price is an 
estimation based on Canadian imports and exports of butter and skim milk powder.  The OECD 
market price support is the result of the  price difference multiplied by the level of total milk 
production.  
[Colombia Question 22]:  The Secretariat's report (IV Trade Policies by Sector, para 45) states that: 
"The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) [...] has responsibilities with respect to the implementation 
and administration of the supply management syst em for dairy products, mainly establishing support 
prices for butter and skim milk powder, and managi ng the market sharing quota for industrial milk at 
the national level. [...]  Import permits for the butte r tariff quota have been allocated exclusively to the 
CDC with the requirement that these imports be directed to processors and further processors." 
However, it then states that: "with the exception of a few products in some provinces (e.g. fluid milk 
in the Atlantic Provinces), the majority of da iry products are traded freely between provinces, 
according to the authorities."  Could the Canadian government explain how this ba lance is achieved and list the products in the dairy 
sector that are not traded freely? 
 
Canada's Response:  Limited volumes of fluid milk products  (table consumption) are not freely 
traded between the Atlantic Provinces.  These volumes are limited and target regional markets.  They 
are not included in the establishment of mark et sharing quota at the Canadian level.  
 
[Colombia Question 23]:  The Secretariat's report, para 45 states that: "concerns have been raised in 
the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Committee on Agriculture about the potential 
trade-restrictiveness of the new compositional standa rds for cheese." As point iii) explains:  "Canada 
has taken steps to modify its concession for certain milk protein concentrates used primarily in cheese 
milk extension, to replace a tariff-only regime by a tariff quota regime."  
Could Canada provide explanations to address the concerns stated by these authorities regarding the 
measures taken?  
 
Canada's Response:   There is no evidence that the Canadi an compositional standards for cheese are 
restricting Canadian imports of cheese or milk prot ein ingredient for use in cheese and therefore these 
are not seen as trade restrictive measures.  Canadian  imports of dairy ingredients such as Milk Protein 
Concentrates and Milk Protein Isolat es increased slightly in 2010.   
 
[Colombia Question 24]:  Paragraph 54 of the Secretariat's report states that:  "The current Fisheries 
Act is one of the oldest Canadian statutes still in u se; it has not been modernized significantly since it 
entered into force in 1868.  The Canadian Governme nt is committed to introduc ing "new legislation to 
                                                      
8 OECD (2010), OECD’s Producer Support Estimate and Related Indicators of Agricultural Support, 
OECD, Paris. 
OECD (2004) Proposal Concerning the Calculation of Market Price Support for Milk, Working Party 
on Agricultural Policies and Markets (AGR/CA/APM(2004)4, OECD, Paris. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 98  
 
 reform Canada's outdated system of fisheries mana gement" in line with the 2005-2010 Strategic Plan 
of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).  The au thorities consider renewal of the Fisheries Act 
important as the current Act does not provide direction to the Minister and officials on how to use the statute's broad discretionary powers.  In order to  obtain more information on policies dealing with 
issues such as overfishing, respect for free populati ons, control of illegal fishing and other current 
issues involved in the sustainable de velopment of the fishing sector, could Canada provide us with a 
copy or summary of the 2007 Fisheries Act, wh ich will replace the current one dating from 1868; and 
can you let us know whether the new Act will be passed this year? 
 
Canada's Response:  Please see the link provided here to the 2007 Fisheries Act  which is intended to 
replace the current one dating from 1868 http://www.pa rl.gc.ca/ House Publications/Publication. 
aspx?DocId=3153379&Language=e &Mode=1 It is not yet known when the Bill to re-introduce the 
new Act will be tabled in Parliament. 
 
[Colombia Question 25]:  Paragraph 134 of the Secretariat's report states that:  "The CRTC requires 
incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to pr ovide competitors with unbundled access to essential 
services, including access to local loops.  ILECs are the companies that provided telecom services as a 
monopoly (within regional services areas) prior to th e introduction of competition.  The CRTC also 
requires ILECs to provide interconnection to competitive carriers.  In order to ensure 
non-discriminatory terms and conditions, ILECs must seek CRTC approval for tariffs for 
interconnection agreements and all exchange of tr affic with fixed and mobile competitors, and for 
other services such as local telephone service in remote areas and wholesale services provided to 
competitors where the ILEC is dominant.  Interconnec tion rates of operators ot her than local exchange 
carriers are not subject to regulatory approval."  Paragraph 135 of the report states that:  "Since the last Review of Canada, the local telephone market 
has been further deregulated.  In 2007, CRTC's Fo rbearance Order of 2006 was changed, to refrain 
from tariff regulation of ILECs in circumstances where a facilities-based competitive market exists. 
Price deregulation is based on incumbents' applica tions for local forbearance and meeting the relevant 
criteria, which have been adjusted essentially from a ma rket share test to an infrastructure test.  Where 
a competitive market infrastructure does not exist,  the CRTC retains regulatory oversight, including 
through price-cap regulation.  CRTC estimates that services subject to price cap regulation at retail 
level account for almost Can$7 billion in annual reve nues for the large ILECs with over 65% derived 
from the local residential voice market."  According to Paragraph 136 of the report:  "For  competitive local telephone service providers, the 
CRTC mandates the equal sharing of costs for th e establishment of interconnecting trunks in each 
pre-determined interconnecting re gion, and has adopted a "bill-and- keep" approach to compensation 
of calls termination, with manda ted pricing where traffic flows are not balanced between carriers." 
With regard to interconnection:  What guidelines do es CRTC have in place to ensure that information 
obtained by Canadian telecommunication service provi ders protects the privacy of the personal and 
confidential data in individual reco rds when they provide their services? 
 
Canada's Response:  All personal information of customers other than their name and telephone 
number as listed in a directory, is required to be  stored and protected as confidential information. 
Major telecommunications companies that pr ovide services to competitive suppliers of 
telecommunications services must maintain a separate competitor services unit and not disclose competitively sensitive information about the operati ons of the competitive provider and its customers 
to other units of the major supplier. 
 
[Colombia Question 26]:  According to Paragraph 157 of the report:  "The statutes that govern 
federally regulated financial institutions are subject to  review every five years;  the next is scheduled 
for 2012.  In addition to amendments enacted in  2007, following the regular review, Canada updated  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 99 
 
 
 its financial institutions legislation through th e Budget Implementation Acts of 2009 and 2010.  
Recent measures include empowering the Minister of Finance to enter into any contract that promotes the stability or maintains the efficiency of Canada's  financial system;  the creation of a bridge bank 
framework as a means of preserving the residual valu e of a failing deposit-taking institution; and new 
credit card and mortgage insurance regulations with  an emphasis on consumer protection.  Moreover, 
since 2010 cooperative credit ins titutions (credit unions and caisses populaires ) have the option to 
continue or incorporate as federal entities, a measure that would potentially foster the development of 
stronger domestic competitors in the financial servic es sector.  The Federal Government also intends 
to establish a single securities regulator through a vol untary regime that would enable the existing 13 
provincial and territorial authorities to opt in." 
 
When it is mentioned that the Minister of Financ e is empowered to enter into any contract that 
promotes the stability or maintains the efficiency of Canada's financial system, what kind of contracts 
does this refer to?  
Canada's Response:  The Government gave new authority to the Minister of Finance to enter into 
transactions that promote financial stability and ma intain efficient and well-functioning markets – 
including providing loans, lin es of credit, and the provisi on of payment of guarantees. 
 
[Colombia Question 27]:  Paragraph 159 of the report states tha t: "Under Canada's federal financial 
institutions legislation, regulatory consent is re quired to carry out certain types of transactions, 
including incorporations, the establishment of co mmercial presence, mergers and other corporate 
restructurings, and ownership changes.  The appr oval process is administered by OSFI;  depending on 
the nature of the transaction, consent is granted ei ther by the Minister of Finance, acting on OSFI's 
advice, or by the Superintendent of Financial Institu tions (Table IV.11).  Most Ministerial approvals 
relate to the acquisition of control or of a significa nt interest in a financial institution, transfer of 
business or reinsurance transactions, and applications for the incorporation of financial institutions or 
the authorization of Canadian branches of foreig n financial institutions.  In the assessment, the 
Minister of Finance must consider all matters releva nt to the transaction, including the best interests of 
Canada's financial system.  Typically, OSFI approval s concern:  orders authorizing new entrants to 
carry on business in Canada;  certain substantial invest ments;  transfer of assets in excess of 10%;  
non-cash consideration for shares;  reinsuranc e by a related party;  and redemption of 
shares/debentures.  The IMF and the OECD have  expressed concern about Canada's regulatory 
approval process, flagging uncertainty about the cr iteria applied in the assessment of mergers and 
other corporate restructurings."  According to the footnote on page 195, the concern expressed by the IMF and the OECD about 
Canada's regulatory approval process dates from 2006. Given the amount of time that has passed since 
then, Colombia would like to know whether this concer n has been reiterated in recent years or whether 
Canada has attempted to address the con cerns expressed by these organizations? 
 Canada's Response:  The criteria that would be used in the event of a merger or acquisition are set 
out in the Bank Act, which can be found at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-2/. 
 
[Colombia Question 28]:   What is the scope of the concept of "non-residents"? 
 Canada's Response:   In Canada a person is a non-resident if they normally, customarily, or routinely 
live in another country or if a person doe s not have residential ties in Canada. 
 
[Colombia Question 29]:  According to this paragraph, in ge neral, a law degree from a recognized 
Canadian university is a prerequisite for membership  in a Canadian law society.  Are there exceptions 
to this rule?  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 100  
 
 Canada's Response:   There is an additional avenue for a fo reign-trained lawyer wanting to establish 
permanently in a province or territory to practice Canadian law.  The process involves applying for an 
evaluation and recognition of his/her credentials with the National Committee on Accreditation of the 
Federation of Law Societies of Canada.  
[Colombia Question 30]:   According to Paragraph 228 of the Secretariat's report: "Several mutual 
recognition agreements (MRAs), signed by the different regulatory bodies, cover the architecture and engineering professions.  An agreement under NAFTA exists for engineers.  The Canadian Council 
for Professional Engineers has also negotiated MRAs with professional engineering bodies in Australia, France, Ireland, and Hong Kong, China." 
 
Do the mutual recognition agreements referred to in this paragraph cover professional titles and/or 
licences to exercise a profession? 
 
Canada's Response:   Yes, by establishing the process and conditions under which the evaluation and 
recognition of qualification and expe rience requirements take place. 
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 1]:  "Tariff quota products are included in the Import Control List 
established under the Export and Import Permits Act."  Could Canada explain what method is used to 
establish the tariff quota amounts, and how the allocated volumes are compatible with the provisions 
of the Agriculture Agreement w ith regard to market access?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's tariff quota amounts are equa l to its commitments under either the 
Agriculture Agreement or the North American Free Trade Agreement, whichever is greater. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 2]:   "Canada has notified federal measures only to the SPS 
Committee (Table III.12), since the authorities ar e not aware of any SPS measures adopted by 
sub-federal authorities that have a trade impact."  What initiative is Canada taking to ensure that all 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures are notified to the SPS Committee and that non-notification does 
not in any way become a barrier to trade? 
 
Canada's Response:   The Federal government has jurisdiction with regards to international and inter-
provincial trade for SPS issues.  Where it is deemed  that a federal SPS measure may have a significant 
impact on trade, Canada notifies in accordance w ith its transparency obligations under the SPS 
Agreement.  As stated in the WTO Secretariat's report, the Government of Canada is not aware of any 
SPS measures adopted by sub-federal au thorities that have a trade impact . 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 3]:  "Tariff protection remains highest  for dairy products (averaging 
237.3%), followed by animals and animal products (averaging 52.8)."  Why does Canada maintain 
such high protection for these products?  
Canada's Response:   Supply management is a system that ensures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food i ndustry.  It also promotes stable farm incomes. 
Supply management is based on matching domestic  production to domestic demand.  Therefore, 
predictable levels of imports maintained through ta riff rate quotas are necessary to the functioning of 
the system. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 4]:   "About 41% of the applied MFN in-quota tariffs for agricultural 
products (totalling 152 tariff lines) are non- ad valorem .  The ad valorem  equivalents range from 0.3% 
to 8.6%."   What work are Canadian authorities now doing to change this kind of tariffs and make them 
ad valorem , thereby helping advance the Doha Round?   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 101 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   There are no plans at this time to m odify non-ad valorem tariffs to ad-valorem 
tariffs.  
[Dominican Republic Question 5]:  Canadian agricultural policy is under joint federal and 
provincial/territorial responsibility, with cost-shared activities generally  shared at a ratio of 60:40. 
Could Canada explain this cost-s haring activity in more detail? 
 
Canada's Response:   In Canada, agriculture is a matte r of shared jurisdiction (federal and 
provincial/territorial).  In terms of sharing the costs of programs in this area of shared jurisdiction, a 
relationship has evolved over time such that the federal government generall y pays 60% of program 
costs and the respective province(s)/territory(ies) pay(s) the remaining 40% of program costs.  
Administration costs are also shared at this 60:40 ratio (Federal:Provincial).  
[Dominican Republic Question 6]:  Market price support includes all policy measures that raise the 
domestic price relative to the border price of th e commodity concerned, including border measures, 
such as tariffs and tariff quotas, and export subsidies.  Supply management comprises (I) control over 
imports of products and several by-products; ( ii) stable producer prices; and (iii) production 
management (quotas). […]  The Government remain s committed to the supply management system.  
Under the GF Framework Agreement, supply mana gement has been explicitly recognized as a 
business risk management programme.  
Is Canada considering reducing or eliminating this program? 
 Canada's Response:   The supply management system has ser ved Canada well for many years, and 
Canada has no plans to alter the system. 
 
[The Dominican Republic Question 7]:   "The federal AgriMarketi ng programme provides matching 
funding to activities to enhance the marketi ng capacity and competitiveness of the Canadian 
agriculture, agri-food, fish and seafood subsectors." Where do these counterpart funds come from, and what criteria are used to grant this financing so that they are not considered subsidies? 
 
Canada's Response:  The counterpart funds come from nati onal industry associations which are in 
turn funded by their membership.  In Canada's vi ew, the program as designed is consistent with its 
WTO obligations. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 8]:  "Canada maintains other measures in support of its agriculture 
and agri-food sector.  Agriculture and Agri-Food Ca nada lists 142 programmes (as of January 2011)." 
Could Canada list these programs and indicate whic h heading of the Agriculture Agreement they 
correspond to?  Canada's Response:   The necessary data collection for the Table DS:1 notifications, in which 
measures under the Growing Forward Framework Agre ement will be included, is underway.  Canada 
will submit its domestic support notification to th e Committee on Agriculture when it is completed, 
classifying its measures in accordance with th e rules of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 9]:  According to the Government of Canada report, beer and wine 
imports are not given domestic treatment because th e special consumption tax is higher for imported 
products than for domestic products, for which reason Canada has been challenged by the European 
Union in accordance with articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  An understanding was re ached, on the basis of most favoured nation 
treatment, to reduce the customs duties applied to ce rtain products imported to  Canada.  Is Canada 
considering modifying these taxes in order to avoid other disputes in the WTO?  
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 102  
 
 Canada's Response:   At present, Canada does not have plan s to change the federal excise duties on 
alcohol products.  
[Dominican Republic Question 10]:   In the case of tobacco, we would be interested in more details 
regarding the application of special taxes to uns tamped manufactured products for sale at duty-free 
stores.  It is important that you provide us with more information on this subject. 
 Canada's response:   At the federal level, section 53 of the Excise Act, 2001 imposes a special duty 
on imported manufactured tobacco that is delivered to  a duty free shop and that is not stamped.  This 
special duty is payable at the time of delivery and is payable by the duty free shop licensee.  For 
information on the rates at which this special duty is imposed, please consult section 1 of Schedule 3 
to the Act.  For example, the special duty on a carton of 200 cigarettes is $15.  In certain cases, a duty free shop licensee may appl y for a refund in respect of the special duty 
imposed under section 53 that was paid by the licen see.  In particular, the Minister of National 
Revenue may refund the special duty on importe d manufactured tobacco that is destroyed in 
accordance with the Customs Act, as per section 181. 1 of the Excise Act, 2001, or sold to a non-
resident who is departing from Canada, as per secti on 183 of the Act.  The la tter refund is limited to 
the duty paid on the first 200 cigarettes, 200 tob acco sticks and 200 grams of other manufactured 
tobacco purchased by each non-resident traveller.  Th e application for a refund must be made by the 
licensee within two years after the tobacco is destroye d, in the case of section 181.1, or sold, in the 
case of section 183. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 11]:   Under the Excise Tax Act of 200 1, indirect federal taxes are 
imposed in the form of levies on the production of  both domestic and imported beer.  Lower taxes 
may be applied by tranches to beer from domestic breweries, while imported beer is not given that 
privilege. We would like to know how these taxes w ill be applied so that they do not violate the 
GATT National Treatment Principle.  Canada's response:   The reduced excise duty rates availabl e for beer produced domestically are 
limited to beer production up to 75,000 hectolitres pe r year.  Beyond this annual production threshold, 
the same excise duty rates apply for beer products of the same alcohol by volume (ABV) content, 
whether manufactured in or imported into Cana da.  These measures are modelled after similar 
programs in other countries and have not had the effect  of curtailing growth in imports of beer into 
Canada.  Indeed, imports of beer (HS 2203) in to Canada have increased 32% during the review 
period.  
 
[Dominican Republic Question 12]:  With regard to competition legislation, the Review notes 
improvements in recent years.  However, it empha sizes that several areas remain exempt from the 
Competition Act.  Crown corporations, both federa l and provincial, have monopolies or exclusive 
rights over certain economic activities such as the importation and sale of alcoholic drinks, the 
marketing of freshwater fish and fish products, and the provision of specific types of mandatory 
insurance.  Also, it is stated that certain crown co rporations are exempt from federal and/or provincial 
taxes, regardless of the (commercia l or non-commercial) nature of thei r activities.  In this regard, we 
would like to know how the Canadian authoriti es regulate this kind of privileges without them 
violating the GATT National Treatment Principle.  
 
Canada's response:  Canada's Competition Act  (the "Act") applies to th e commercial activities of all 
Crown Corporations.  In the case of agent Crown cor porations, the Act specifies that they are subject 
to competition law when they are in a situation of actual or potential competition.  When there is no 
actual or potential competition, the Competition Act  does not apply because there is no possibility for 
anti-competitive behavior.  Section 2.1 of the Competition Act provides as follows: 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 103 
 
 
 " 2.1. This Act is binding on and applies to an  agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada 
or a province that is a corporation, in respect of commercial activities engaged in by the corporation in competition, whether actua l or potential, with other persons to the 
extent that it would apply if the agent were not an agent of Her Majesty."  
Section 79 of Canada's Competition Act  (the "Act") authorizes the Commissioner of Competition to 
apply to the Competition Tribunal for a remedial orde r where a person or firm that substantially or 
completely controls a class of business, has enga ged in, or is engaging in, a practice of anti-
competitive acts, with the effect or likely effect of  substantially preventing or lessening competition in 
a market.  An order issued under this section enjo ins the dominant firm from continuing its conduct, 
and may also include an administrative moneta ry penalty to ensure future compliance. 
 Generally speaking, any entity in the marketplace,  including Crown Corporations, engaging in actual 
or potential commercial activities, is subject to  the abuse of dominance provision of the Act. 
 
Crown Corporations created by Parliament that  are not however engaged in commercial activities 
(whether actual or potential), are not subject to the provisions of the Act, including those regarding abuse of dominance.   As of June 2011, 29 federal Crown co rporations are "agent" Crown corporations.  Such agency status 
is generally intended by Parliament to confer the privileges and immunities of the Crown on the 
corporation.  One of these benefits or immuniti es is that agent Crown corporations are free from 
provincial and municipal tax statutes and charges.   However, the federal government, including 
Crown corporations, compensates other levels of gove rnment in the form of Payments in Lieu of 
Taxes
9, which approximate the taxes that would apply to the organization. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 13]:   The Report by the Secretariat states that "[t]he most significant 
change to customs procedures during the period unde r review was the initiation of the third phase of 
the Advance Commercial Information (ACI) progra mme, through amendments to the Customs Act in 
2009.  The objective of the ACI programme is to allow the CBSA to undertake risk assessments in 
advance of the arrival of imports into Canada as well as to facilitate trade."  In this regard, we would 
like the Canadian authorities to comment on their experience with risk assessments and on the 
advantages of using this kind of procedure. 
 Canada's response:  The use of advanced risk assessments for a trusted trader program has been a 
positive experience for Canada and it has been a useful  tool for the efficient management of the flow 
of goods at the border.  It is our view that th is provides clear economic benefits to the importing 
nation. 
 It does not supersede, however, the necessity of  maintaining effective targeting and enforcement 
programs at the border.  The reliability of any truste d trader program is dependent in great part on a 
robust random controls process. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 14]:  The objectives of the federal government's trade and 
investment policy are stated in its Global Commerc e Strategy (GCS) (2007).  This document indicates 
that the Canadian government has identified prio rity markets, including Latin America and the 
Caribbean.   On this point, we would like to know wh ether the Dominican Republic will be among 
these priority markets, and how this would affect  negotiations on a future FTA with the Dominican 
Republic?  
 
                                                      
9 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act:  http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/ eng/acts/M-13/FullText.html. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 104  
 
 Canada's Response:   Canada would like to clarify that the Dominican Republic falls within the 
priority market of the Caribbean.  Free trade agreement negotiations between Canada and the Dominican Republic were launched in June 2007 and Canada remain s committed to the conclusion of 
these negotiations.  
[Dominican Republic Question 15]:   Regarding investment policies, we would like to know how the 
national security criteria works (without discriminating against foreign direct investment) in order to conduct a prior evaluation of the viability of invest ments in Canada.  Please define what the concept 
of national security consists of.  
Canada's Response:  The national security review process bri ngs Canada in line with what other 
developed countries are doing to safeguard their national security.  Threats to national security are cons tantly evolving.  The legislation and the regulations do not define 
national security since it would limit flexibility to respond to future threats, as is the practice of most 
other countries.  Canada will ensure that the app lication of the new national security mechanism is 
consistent with its internationa l trade obligations and the best practices of other industrialized 
economies.  The national security test requires the Minister of In dustry to consult with other safety and intelligence 
departments in order to identify cases where th ere are reasonable grounds to believe that an 
investment could be injurious to national security. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 16]:   With regard to notifications and transparency, the Secretariat 
Report states that "Canada did not notify any new laws, regulations or administrative guidelines that 
significantly affect trade in services during the period  under review."  It also states that "Canada has 
not notified its preferential origin standards for its free trade agreements with  Peru and the European 
Free Trade Association (EFTA), nor the prefer ential access agreements with Australia and 
New Zealand."  Given the importance of this issue in any potential negotiation, including the possible 
negotiation of a trade agreement with the Dominica n Republic, it would be relevant to know what 
measures Canada would take to impr ove transparency in the process. 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada would like to clarify that th e Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement was 
notified on August 4, 2009. Likewise, the Canada -Peru Free Trade Agreement was notified on July 
31, 2009.  These notifications were circulat ed in the WTO documents WT/REG270/N/1 and 
WT/REG271/N/1.  Both of these free trade agreemen ts were reviewed at the 58th session of the WTO 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements in Sept ember 2010.  Canada remains committed to 
transparency, one of the fundamental prin ciples of the World Trade Organisation. 
 
Dominican Republic Question 17]:  With regard to the Buy Canada policy (preferential purchase of 
Canadian products), and considering its possible link to Canadian legislation such as Bill C-32, certain 
Dominican sectors have stated their opposition to th is legislation, as they consider it discriminatory 
and in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) principles.  We would like to know whether this 
legislation was finally passed and how it will be app lied in such a way as to be compatible with the 
WTO.  Canada's Response:   Bill C-392, the Made in Canada Act  that proposed preferential government 
purchasing of Canadian products, was defeated in  the House of Commons at second reading on 
November 4, 2009, and therefore was never passed. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 18]:   With regard to the provisions of the Investment Canada Act 
that empower the Canadian Industry Minister to re view proposed or existing foreign investments "for  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 105 
 
 
 security reasons", We would like more information on the criteria used for this review, and whether 
environmental considerations are included.  Canada's Response:  The national security review process bri ngs Canada in line with what other 
developed countries are doing to safeguard their national security.  A parliamentary review panel 
suggested that it is in Canada's b est interest in a post 9/11 world to have in place an explicit national 
security test to support its investment policies.   Threats to national security are cons tantly evolving.  The legislation and the regulations do not define 
national security since it would limit flexibility to respond to future threats, as is the practice of most 
other countries.  Canada will ensure that the app lication of the new national security mechanism is 
consistent with its internationa l trade obligations and the best practices of other industrialized 
economies.  The national security test requires the Minister of In dustry to consult with other safety and intelligence 
departments in order to identify cases where th ere are reasonable grounds to believe that an 
investment could be injurious to national security .  The review mechanism is designed to minimize 
investment chill and bureaucratic requirements, and Canada will continue to welcome and actively 
encourage international investment as an important driver of economic success. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 19]:   As for the bi-weekly update of the legislative instruments that 
govern financial institutions at the federal level in Canada, we would like to know whether this is done 
in accordance with a legal order. 
 
Canada's Response:   Canadian legislation that governs fe derally regulated financial institutions 
includes a built in sunset clause that causes these statutes to lapse five y ears after they come into force. 
The sunset clause effectively forces a review of th ese statutes every five years.  The Government of 
Canada carries out this review and follows up with amendments to the statutes to ensure that they 
reflect best practices and are current with  new developments in the financial sector. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 20]:   As an active member of the TRIPS Council (which we are also 
on), what consideration has the Canadian government given to the mutual recognition of products with 
geographic indications and appellations of origin? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada has established a regime for th e protection of geographical indications 
for wines and spirits (in the Trade-marks Act ) that is available to competent responsible authorities.  
Geographical indications for other products may be  protected as trade-marks (or certification marks), 
which are available to all nationals of WTO Members. 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 21]:   What treatment would be gi ven to well-known trademarks? 
 
Canada's Response:  Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Trade-marks Act  lists certain prohibitions on the 
use of a registered trade-mark: s. 19 gives the owner of a registered trade-mark exclusive use of that 
mark throughout Canada in respect of those wares or  services with which the trade-mark is registered, 
s. 20 deems the sale, distribution or advertisement in  association with a confusing trade-mark or trade-
name to be infringement, and s. 22 pr ohibits any other use in a manner th at "is likely to have the effect 
of depreciating the value of the goodwill" of the trad e-mark.  In determining whether a trade-mark is 
confusing with another, the courts are instructed to take into account all surrounding circumstances 
(s. 6(5)), including the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to 
which they have become known, and the length of ti me the trade-marks or tr ade-names have been in 
use.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 106  
 
 [Dominican Republic Question 22]:  Could you please explain Canada's  legal requirements for the 
importation, distribution and sale of alcoholic drinks produce abroad.  Is it true that it is necessary to 
create a distribution company in Canada to be able to sell alcoholic drinks?  If so, could you explain 
how this measure can co-exist with th e Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement?  
 
Canada's Response:  No, it is not necessary to create a distribution company to sell imported 
alcoholic drinks in Canada .  Importers seeking to sell alcoholic dr inks in Canada would need an agent 
to represent their products in Canada vis-à-vis liquor boards when listed for sale.  
 For more information on impor ting food products into Canada , as well as Canadian labelling 
requirements for alcoholic beverages, please refer to  the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Guide to 
Importing Food Products Commercially along with the chapter on Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages 
in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising , which can be 
accessed via the links below:   
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fs sa/imp/guide1e.shtml#e1 (English). 
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/francais/fs sa/imp/guide1f.shtml#e1 (French). 
 http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa /labeti/guide/ch10e.shtml#10.15 (English). 
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/francais/fs sa/labeti/guide/ch10f.shtml (French). 
 
[Dominican Republic Question 23]:   Regarding the registration of trademarks, what is Canada's 
policy when an application is received to register a trademark that has certain similarities with one 
already registered?  When this kind of conflict ari ses, is there a way to appeal unfavourable decisions? 
 Canada's Response:  Section 12(1)(d) of the Trade-marks Act  states that a mark cannot be registered 
if it is confusing with a registered trade-mark.  The test for confusion is found in s. 6.  Any decision of 
the Registrar may be appealed to the Federal Court under s. 56.  
EUROPEAN UNION 
 
GOVERNMENT REPORT 
 
[EU Question 1]:   The report by the Government provides a description of measures taken inter alia  
within the framework of the Canada's Economic Ac tion Plan to address economic and social impacts 
of the recent crisis.  It mentions "personal and co rporate tax reductions, enhancements to Employment 
Insurance benefits, support for highly-affected  communities and industries, and significant 
investments in infrastructure".  According to the report, support envisaged under the Economic Action 
Plan for the most part ended in March 2011.  Could Canada provide information on whether ther e are any measures introduced in response to the 
crisis, including under the Economic Action Plan, wh ich would continue to apply after March 2011? 
In particular, we would appreciate information on whether there are any measures related to labour 
market, employment, labour costs etc. wh ich have been / would be prolonged. 
 Canada's Response:  In keeping with the objective to provide timely and temporary support to 
economic activity during the worst of the crisis, stimulus provided through the Economic Action Plan 
was heavily concentrated in fiscal years 2009-10 an d 2010-11, with the vast majority of measures 
ending in March 2011.  A limited number of measur es introduced in response to the crisis, outlined 
below, have been extended or continue beyond March 2011 to provi de additional support to the 
economic recovery.  
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 107 
 
 
 Infrastructure - In December, 2010 the deadline to complete projects under four provincial, territorial 
and municipal infrastructure initiatives was extende d from March 31, 2011 to October 31, 2011.  
Budget 2011, released on June 6th, indicated that roughly $1.3 billion of the $7 billion in federal 
stimulus originally anticipated from these four programs during fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11, would be delivered in fiscal year 2011-12.  No ad ditional funding has been granted to these or other 
infrastructure programs introduced in response to the economic situation. 
 
Employment Insurance / Training Initiatives - Through the Economic Action Plan, in Budget 2009, 
Employment Insurance premium rates were frozen at $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings in 2010.  During the fall of 2010, the Government announ ced that it would limit the increase of 2011 
Employment Insurance premium rates to 5 cents pe r $100 of insurable earnings, rather than planned 
increase of 15 cents per $100 of insurable ear nings.  Subsequently, Budget 2011 announced a 
temporary Hiring Credit for Small Business of up to  $1000 against a small employer's increase in 
2011 EI premiums over those paid in 2010.  Both  measures were aimed at supporting employment and 
hiring, particularly in small businesses, by lowering labour costs.  
The Work-Sharing program, which offers Employment Insurance benefits to workers willing to work 
a reduced work while their company recovers, has also  been extended.  Worker s will be able to access 
this program until October 2011.  In  addition, the Targeted Initiative for Older Workers, a retraining 
program was extended through the Economic Ac tion Plan, and re-extended in Budget 2011. 
 
Finally, three additional Employment Insurance benefit programs introduced through the Economic 
Action Plan will continue paying  benefits beyond March 2011;  ho wever, their final deadlines for 
eligibility (i.e. submission of claims from the unemployed individual) passed during or before 
September 2010.  
Tax Measures 
Budget 2009:  Canada's Economic Action Plan incl uded permanent and tempor ary tax reductions that 
were intended to provide immediate and ongoing  support to Canadians and Canadian businesses 
during the economic crisis. 
 
Two of the permanent personal income tax meas ures introduced in 2009 as part of the Economic 
Action Plan relate to providing additional work incentives and continue to  apply post March 2011: 
 
 Increases to the basic personal amount, the amount  that Canadians can earn before paying 
federal income tax, and the upper limit of the tw o lowest personal income tax brackets by 7.5 
per cent above their 2008 levels. 
 
 Enhancements to the Working Income Tax Be nefit (WITB), a refundable tax credit that 
supplements the earnings of low-income work ers to strengthen work incentives for those 
already in the workforce and encourage others  to enter the workforce.  The WITB was 
introduced in Budget 2007 and was effectively doubled under the Economic Action Plan.   
 
Two other permanent personal income tax changes con tinue to provide relief in other circumstances: 
 
 Additional support to families through enhancements to the Canada Child Tax Benefit 
(CCTB) and the National Child Benefit suppl ement (NCBs), which are tax-free monthly 
payments that are the main federal instrument  for the provision of financial assistance for 
families with children.  The income levels on which income-testing of the base benefit under 
the CCTB and the NCBs is performed were permanently increased. 
 
 Additional tax savings for seniors through an enhancement to the Age Credit, a federal non-
refundable income tax credit for low- and middle-income Canadians 65 years of age and WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 108  
 
 older.  The Age Credit is calculated by multiplying the lowest personal income tax rate, 
15 percent, by an amount that is indexed to compensate for inflation.  This amount was increased by $1,000 for 2009 and future years.  
 Taken together, these four permanent personal in come tax measures continue to provide over 
$3 billion in tax relief annually to Canadians. 
 One permanent business income tax measure introduced  in 2009 as part of the Economic Action Plan 
increased the annual amount of active business inco me eligible for the reduced business tax rate—
generally referred to as the "small business limit"—to $500,000 from $400,000. 
 
 The small business deduction reduces the federal cor porate income tax rate applied to the first 
$500,000 of qualifying active business income of  a Canadian-controlled private corporation 
(CCPC) to 11 per cent.  The small business deduction is phased out on a straight-line basis for CCPCs having between $10 million and $15 million of taxable capital employed in Canada.  
 
Two temporary business tax measures that were in troduced prior to, but extended by, the Economic 
Action Plan were also extended again in Budget 2 011:  the accelerated capit al cost allowance for 
investments in manufacturing or processing machin ery and equipment; and the mineral exploration 
tax credit for investors in flow-through shares.  
The Economic Action Plan also included two perman ent tax measures intended to help stimulate the 
housing sector during the economic crisis, and to  support home ownership over the longer-term: 
 
 Allowing first-time home buyers additional acce ss to their Registered Retirement Savings 
Plan savings to purchase or build an home by increasing the Home Buyers' Plan withdrawal 
limit to $25,000 from $20,000.  
 
 Assisting first-time home buyers by provi ding a new, non-refundable First-Time Home 
Buyers' Tax Credit based on an amount of $5,000.  The credit is calculated at the lowest personal income tax rate, 15 per cent, and is cl aimable for the taxation year in which the home 
is acquired.  
 
[EU Question 2]:  The report by the Government informs that  "/…/Canada is seeking a more level 
international playing field through eliminati on of all forms of export subsidies/…/". 
 
Could Canada elaborate on whether its position incl udes the abolition of the Canadian Wheat Board's 
(CWB) "export regime", including the government guarantee on CWB borrowings and credit sales? 
 Canada's Response:  The Canadian Government has recently stated that it intends to introduce 
legislation to ensure that western farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the open 
market, effectively removing the CWB monopoly. 
 
[EU Question 3]:  In the report by the Government re ference is made to anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures Canada ha s applied for years against imports of EU refined sugar, 
representing a fraction of total Canadian imports of these products.  Could Canada provide more 
information on what is the expected impact of the clarification and improvement of the rules 
governing anti-dumping and counterva iling measures, as aimed by Canada? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada has been committed to clar ifying and improving the disciplines 
governing the application of trade remedy measures in the Doha negotiations.  To this end, we 
introduced proposals to enhance disciplines related to product scope, sunset reviews and public 
interest, and were seeking clarification of the Anti-dumping Agreement to ensure that zeroing is  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 109 
 
 
 prohibited in all anti-dumping proceedings.  We also  continue to support a strengthening of the 
transparency and procedural fairness aspects of  the agreements, as well as greater harmonization 
between the rules governing anti-dumping and counterva iling duty investigations.  We believe that a 
positive outcome in the Rules negotiations will help to  bring more consistency and rigor to the trade 
remedy practices of WTO Members and thereby incr ease the predictability of the multilateral trading 
system.  
 
[EU Question 4]:   The report by the Government provides information on the updates and revisions 
of the NAFTA provisions on rules of origin.  Coul d Canada inform what is the main outcome of 
recent update and revision of NAFTA provisions on Rules of Origin?  
Canada's Response:  On September 1, 2009 Canada implemen ted measures to amend some of the 
NAFTA product-specific rules of origin.  These same  amendments were implemented by Mexico on 
October 1, 2009, and by the United States on Octobe r 2, 2009.  The amendments included technical 
rectifications to align the NAFTA product-speci fic rules of origin with the World Custom 
Organization's 2007 amendments to the Harmonized Sy stem.  As well, in response to specific industry 
requests and to correspond to developments made in  the free trade agreements  negotiated subsequent 
to the NAFTA, the amendments liberalized the rul es of origin applicable to a variety of goods, 
including herbs and spices, petroleum and oil produc ts, certain textiles and apparel, aluminum, electric 
transformers, primary cells and ba tteries, telephonics, televisions, locomotives and parts, and other 
instruments. 
 
[EU Question 5]:   Could Canada clarify whether these EAs include an examination of the potential 
environmental impact on the partner country of a proposed trade agreement, in particular in cases 
where the partner is a developing country?  
Canada's Response:   As outlined in the Government of Ca nada's Framework for the Environmental 
Assessment of Trade Negotiations, the environmenta l assessment of trade negotiations only examines 
the potential environmental impacts in Canada.  
[EU Question 6]:   Noting that sustainable development al so implies social sustainability, could 
Canada inform whether it has the intention to extend  the scope of its current assessments to also cover 
social sustainability?  Would Canada consider extend ing the analysis of social  sustainability also to 
partner country?  Canada's Response:   Canada is not considering changi ng the scope of its Framework for the 
Environmental Assessment of Trade Negotiations at this time. 
 
[EU Question 7]:   Does Canada carry out, or have the in tention to carry out, Human Rights Impact 
Assessments of trade negotiations?  If not, how does Ca nada seek to ensure that trade negotiations do 
not negatively impact on the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights?  Canada's Response:   Canada does not conduct a formal human rights impact assessment of trade 
negotiations, but human rights are factored into Canada's considerations prior to commencing 
negotiations for a trade agreement, as well as during a negotiation.  Moreover, the promotion and 
protection of human rights is an inte gral part of Canadian foreign po licy.  Canada stands up for human 
rights and takes principled positions on important issues to ensure that freedom, democracy, human 
rights and the rule of law, values that define this  country, are enjoyed around the world.  Canada 
works internationally on many levels to advance human  rights, including at the bilateral level through 
direct engagement with States, through developm ent assistance, and through various specialist bodies 
such as organizations within the United Nations body. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 110  
 
 [EU Question 8]:  The report by the Government informs a bout the revisions made to Agricultural 
and Food Goods' Chapter in November 2010.   Could Canada provide clarification on why it has excluded core functions of supply management 
systems (e.g. provincial marketing board and prod uction quotas) from its revised Agricultural and 
Food Good's Chapter, covering the trade of agricultural and food products? 
 Canada's Response:  The revised Agricultural and Food Goods' Chapter of the Agreement on 
Internal Trade (AIT )extends the reach of its non- discriminatory provisions to all technical measures 
affecting agriculture.  Technical measures include  those dealing with terminology, symbols, 
packaging, marking or labelling requirements.  To the extent that they do not correspond to the 
definition of a technical measure, the core functi ons of supply management systems (i.e., measures 
relating to supply management systems regulated  by federal and provincial governments, and 
provincially regulated marketing boards) do not fall within the scope of the AIT. 
 
[EU Question 9]:   Canada highlights in the Government's re port that trade is an important component 
of sustainable development.  In this context, c ould Canada provide information on whether, and how it 
supports trade-related sustainability assurance schemes?  Canada's Response:  Canada supports a voluntary, market-based  approach to such labelling schemes. 
This type of approach provides consumers with objective, third-party verified information in 
accordance with establishe d international standards (such as ISO 14000).  By remaining market-based, 
this approach creates opportunities for manufactur ers and producers while minimizing barriers to 
trade.  For example, the primary environmental labelling scheme in Canada  is the EcoLogo program. 
This program was developed by E nvironment Canada in 1988.  The Program is a voluntary, third-
party verified, eco-labelling initiative that uses a lif e-cycle approach to establish criteria for rating 
environmentally preferable goods and services, under ISO 14024.  Environm ent Canada owns the 
EcoLogo marks; however the certification program be longs to TerraChoice and is delivered through a 
collaborative agreement.  This eco-labelling pr ogram may assist companies in validating and 
marketing their products as the Pr ogram determines and promotes higher standards of environmental 
performance against which products and services can be assessed.  Currently under the Program there 
are more than 10,000 EcoLogo-certified products and services across more than 75 categories. 
 
[EU Question 10]:  Could Canada indicate its intentions in re lation to the ratification of the following 
core and priority ILO Conventions which it has not yet ratified: 1) Core Convention 29 on forced labour; 2) Core Convention 98 on collective bargaining;  3) Core Convention 138 on minimum age;  4) 
Priority Conventions 81, 129 and 144 on, respectively, labour inspection, labour inspection 
(agriculture) and tripartite consultation?  
 Canada's Response:  On June 13, 2011, Canada officially ratified ILO Conventions C29 on Forced 
Labour, C144 on Tripartite Consultations and C187 on Occupational Safety and Health.  ILO 
conventions C98, C138, C81 and C129 deal in larg e part with issues falling under provincial/territorial 
jurisdiction.  The Government of Canada seeks th e agreement of the provincial and territorial 
governments before ratifying such conventions. 
 Canada has currently ratified six of the eight ILO core conventions.  The possibility of ratifying the 
remaining Conventions has been discussed at meetings  of federal, provincial and territorial Ministers 
of Labour and they have agreed to proceed with a technical review of these ILO conventions for 
possible ratification. 
 Regardless of formal ratification, there is alread y a high degree of conformity in Canada with the 
major principles of all core conventions of the ILO. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 111 
 
 
 [EU Question 11]:  The report by the Government provides brief information concerning Labour 
Cooperation Agreements (LCA) nego tiated with the same countries w ith which Canada conducts talks 
on Free Trade Agreements.  In this context, the report mentions that Labour Cooperation Agreements 
"/…/seek to improve working conditions and living sta ndards in the signatory countries, and to protect 
and enhance basic workers' rights/…/".Could Canada  provide more information concerning the scope 
of the Labour Cooperation Agreements, in particular  on fields of the future cooperation between the 
signatories, commitments made by Parties to the Ag reements, institutional set up, mechanisms related 
to consultations, decision making, monitoring and dispute settlement, as well as possible involvement 
of other stakeholders, including social partners?  
 
Canada's Response:  Key elements of Canada's most recen t Labour Cooperation Agreements (LCAs) 
include the following: a commitment that domestic  labour laws embody and provide protection for 
fundamental labour principles, particularly those set out in the International Labour Organization's 
(ILO) 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work ; specific and enforceable 
obligations to effectively enforce labour laws;  a mechanism through which the public can raise 
concerns; an independent third-party review as a means of dispute resolution;  monetary assessments 
to encourage fulfilment of obligations; and, in ternational cooperation in support of agreement 
objectives.  LCAs commit signatories to enforce national labour  laws that should in turn embody and provide 
protection for fundamental labour rights and principl es.  Canada's LCAs foster cooperation on labour 
matters and the effective enforcement of domestic labour legislation.  LCAs do not establish common 
standards or obligate the harmonization of labour laws; instead, they seek to improve working 
conditions and living standards by ensuring that signa tory countries effectively enforce their domestic 
laws.  This commitment is subject to review by  independent panels and experts and may lead to 
financial penalties in cases of non-compliance. 
 
Canada's LCAs also include provisions that enable members of the public or organizations to submit 
complaints, known as "Public Communications", abou t perceived failure to enforce domestic labour 
legislation.  The submission, acceptance, and revi ew of Public Communications are governed by the 
pertaining provisions in the Agreement along with  specific Guidelines that are developed in 
accordance with such provisions.  These provisions allo w stakeholders, including social partners, to be 
involved in monitoring the implementation of LCAs. 
 Cooperation and technical assistance provisions with in LCAs provide an opportunity for Canada and 
its partners to work collaboratively on labour issues.  This cooperati on and assistance focus on 
capacity-building projects, sharing of labour experi ences and best practices, and the modernization of 
labour policy and administration. 
 For more information on specific provisions of Canada's LCAs, please visit:  http://www.hrsdc. 
gc.ca/eng/labour/labour_globali zation/ila/index.shtml . 
 
[EU Question 12]:  Could Canada elaborate on how the link between the Labour Cooperation 
Agreements and trade (notably FTAs) is made an d whether LCAs have any link to work of the 
international organisations in charge of the labour -related issues (e.g. whether they refer to the 
internationally recognised labour standards)? 
 
Canada's Response:   By supporting labour rights, FTA-re lated labour provisions contribute to 
increased productivity and competitiveness.  They attract investment by assuring investors and 
customers that goods are produced in a manner consis tent with international labour standards.  In 
addition, Canada is of the view that labour ag reements build public support for more open trade and 
help address some of the concerns that c itizens may have about trade liberalization. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 112  
 
 Canada's LCAs provide a stronger linkage to  the International Labour Organization's 1998 
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work , as well as stronger obligations regarding 
the contents of each country's laws.  Indeed, LCAs  commit the Parties to ensuring that their labour 
laws embody and provide protection not only fo r internationally-recognized labour rights and 
principles such as freedom of as sociation, collective bargaining , child and forced labour, and 
discrimination, but also provide acceptable protections  in the areas of occupational health and safety, 
wages, hours of work and migrant workers.  
[EU Question 13]:  Moreover, could Canada provide some  information on implementation of the 
LCAs which are already in force and the resulting experience?  
Canada's Response:   Implementation of Ca nada's Labour Cooperation Agreements (LCAs) is 
overseen by a Ministerial Council comprised of Minist ers responsible for labour affairs of the Parties 
or their designees.  LCAs provisions stipulate that Ministerial Council meetings are to be held regularly.  These meetings provide an opportunity for Ministers to exchange priorities, discuss matters 
related to the implementation of the LCA, and review progress under it.  In addition, the Council 
establishes a workplan of activities in support of th e LCA.  The activities identified generally focus 
on: establishing the administrative procedures neces sary to facilitate the full implementation of the 
LCAs provisions; information exchange between th e Parties;  and, the capacity-building support 
required to ensure that Canada's country partne rs are supported in their efforts to meet LCAs 
obligations.  The Ministerial C ouncil is supported by a National Administrative Office (NAO) in each 
country. 
 In sum, the collaborative nature of Canada's LC As contributes to genuine cooperation and provide a 
strong mechanism for continued communication between  the Parties, as well as strengthens working 
relations in the labour area. 
 
[EU Question 14]:  In its Government's report, Canada concludes that being a trading country, 
"/…/international commerce is the lifeblood of its economy/…/", and recognises "/…/the need to 
continue keeping its markets open a nd to take concrete measures to actively promote the liberalisation 
of trade and investment by reducing national barri ers and preventing new protectionist measures."  
 
Could Canada elaborate further on whether these inten tions to promote liberalisation of trade would in 
the future cover agricultural imports, in particul ar supply management products such as dairy and 
poultry products?  Canada's Response:  Canada's supply management system fully complies with its WTO Uruguay 
Round commitments, including its market access, export subsidy and domes tic support obligations. 
Canada continues to strongly support supply management.   
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
[EU Question 15]:  The WTO Secretariat's report informs "/… /While import licensing requirements 
have remained largely unchanged, public cons ultations are ongoing with a view to expanding SPS 
related licensing to a range of food products and ingredients.  This new regulatory initiative comes 
amidst the modernization of Canada's food safety le gislation and procedures within the framework of 
the Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan. / .../"    
Could Canada inform whether a list of products (CN codes), covered by the new requirements, will be 
published, and if the standards/requirements for each product will be based on international standards?  
 Canada's Response:  The scope of the proposed regulati ons covers imported food and food 
ingredients which are currently regulated solely un der the Food and Drugs Act, such as alcoholic and  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 113 
 
 
 non-alcoholic beverages, fats and oils, juices, bake ry products, infant formula, cereals, spices and 
seasonings, coffee or tea, and confectionary.  The nature of the proposed regulations pertains to importer licensing, therefore the standards/requirements for individual products will remain unchanged.  In fact, the products coming 
into the country from abroad have  always had to meet the Canadian requirements for safety and 
labelling.  Under the Food and Drugs Act and Fo od and Drug Regulations, importers (and domestic 
manufacturers) have always been responsible for th e safety and proper labelling of the food that they 
sell in Canada.  
The CFIA will take comments into consideration in  the development of the proposed regulations and 
associated program administration guidance documents.  
[EU Question 16]:  The WTO Secretariat's report informs "Overall, Canada has made substantial 
progress over the past two decades in reforming its agricultural sector, making producers less 
dependent from border measures, and govern ment support as a source of revenue./…/". 
 In this context, could Canada inform why does the Supply Management System remain excluded? 
 
Canada's Response:  Supply management is a system that en sures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food i ndustry.  It also promotes stable farm incomes. 
The supply management system has served Canada  well for many years, and fully complies with 
Canada's WTO obligations.  Canada has no plans to alter the system.  
[EU Question 17]:  The WTO Secretariat's report states that "The power to negotiate and ratify 
treaties rests solely with the fe deral executive. /…/ Treaties are made effective domestically through 
adjustments in legislation, regulations or polic y.  /…/ Provinces and territories have exclusive 
authority to implement Canada's international tr eaty obligations in areas that fall within their 
jurisdiction./…/"  
Could Canada elaborate on the legal mechanisms ava ilable to the Federal Government to ensure the 
implementation of the obligations of an internationa l treaty signed with a third party in areas that fall 
within the sub-national governments jurisdiction? 
 
Canada's Response:  The mechanisms through which Canada  sees to the implementation of such 
obligations rest primarily upon contacts with provinc ial and territorial authorities.  As a matter of 
policy and practice, Canada consults  with provinces and territories prior to entering into treaties with 
effects in areas that fall within pr ovincial/territorial jurisdiction.  Such consultations may be carried 
out at different stages of a treaty's elaboration.  It may take place through joint 
federal/provincial/territorial committees or a variet y of other mechanisms adapted to the specific 
circumstances of the treaty in question.  Where re levant, the federal government will seek, on the part 
of provinces and territories, an indication of their inte nt (through legislation, regulations, or policy) to 
implement the treaty obligations which involve their ju risdiction.  The form and nature of the response 
sought will also be adapted to the treaty involved.  
[EU Question 18]:  The WTO Secretariat's report states that "/…/ On 3 November 2010, the Minister 
of Industry sent a notice to BHP Billiton of Australia  indicating that "he was not satisfied" that its 
proposed transaction to take over Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. was likely to be of net 
benefit to Canada.  According to the Act, BHP B illiton had 30 days (from the date of the notice) to 
make any additional representations and submit any additional undertakings.  The authorities note that 
in November 2010, BHP Billiton announced that it had withdrawn its application for review.  The 
review process was terminated and since there w as no longer a transaction to review under the Act, 
there was no final decision to be made by the Minister./…/". WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 114  
 
 Could Canada elaborate on the principles of law, wh ether published or unpublished, the administrative 
boundaries to the Minister's mandate and the criteria and methods used to assess whether a particular 
investment operation is considered to be of "net be nefit" to the country?  What are the Government of 
Canada's plans for the review of the I nvestment Canada Act in this regard? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada recognizes the beneficial effect of increased capital and technology on 
the economy that is often realized through international investment.  The Investment Canada Act , 
which guides review of foreign investment into Canada, encourages investment that contributes to 
Canada's economic growth and employment opport unities, while providing for the review of 
significant investments in Canada by foreign investors to ensure realization of such benefit to Canada. 
 
Section 20 of the Act provides six factors that the re sponsible Minister of the Government considers in 
determining whether an investment is of likel y "net benefit" to Canada.  These include:  
 
- the effect on the level of economic activity in Canada;  on employment; on resource 
processing;  on the utilization of parts and ser vices produced in Canada and on exports from 
Canada; 
 
- the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new 
Canadian business and in any indus try or industries in Canada; 
 
- the effect of the investment on productivity, in dustrial efficiency, technological development, 
product innovation and product variety in Canada;  
- the effect of the investment on competition within any industry in Canada; 
- the compatibility of the investment with nati onal industrial, economic and cultural policies; 
and 
- the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets. 
When submitting an application for review, the inv estor is required to address each of these factors 
and provide supporting documen tation and financial data. 
 The Canadian government is examining options for the liberalization of foreign investment 
restrictions in the telecommunications sector.  A dditionally, a parliamentary review committee has 
accepted amendments to the Act to implement a more  liberalized threshold for foreign investment 
reviews. 
 Currently, the Minister of Industry is looking at ho w best to provide more information while assuring 
investors that confidential information will receive the same protection in Canada as it does elsewhere. 
An important aspect of this review  will be to develop guidance on th e kinds of investments that will 
be accepted or rejected.  Specifically, it is hoped th at more information about the parameters of the 
Government's decision-making process on foreign investment reviews will be made available  
 
[EU Question 19]:  Could Canada provide information on th e number and value of investments which 
have been screened in the past 3 years to assess th eir "net benefit" to Canada, indicate how many have 
not been approved, how many applications were withdrawn prior to approval, and indicate in how 
many of those cases where the investment was eventu ally approved that the investor undertook certain 
performance requirements, and their nature?  Could Canada indicate the reasons according to the net 
benefit criteria (as reflected in table II.2) why these investments have not been approved?  
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 115 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  For the year 2008, 28 investment propo sals were approved with a total asset 
value of the Canadian business of $20.6 Billion Cdn.  One application for review was not approved. 
For 2009, 21 investment proposals were approved wi th a total asset value of the Canadian business of 
$30.3 Billion Cdn. And for 2010, 16 in vestment proposals were approved with a total asset value of 
the Canadian business of $16.1 Billion Cdn.  Inform ation on withdrawals, undertakings provided and 
assessment of investor performance in implementi ng their plans and undertakings is confidential 
under the Act.  
[EU Question 20]:   Could Canada provide more  details on the initiatives related to foreign investment 
promotion and the allocation of funds?  
 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada is committ ed to making Canada a magnet for 
global investment and innovation, and to suppor ting Canadians pursuing investment and innovation 
opportunities abroad.  Building on the progress bein g made in negotiating bilateral investment and 
S&T agreements with key partners, as well as pa rtnerships with Export Development Canada, the 
Canadian Commercial Corporation and with the provinces and territories and business stakeholders, 
the federal government is expandi ng its efforts to promote Canada 's strengths as a partner and 
destination for global investment, enterprise a nd innovation.  Under a new Foreign Investment 
Promotion Strategy, Canada's co mmercial network at home and abroad is focusing on building the 
Canada "brand" in key markets and priority sector s through a wide range of new initiatives with an 
allotted annual budget of C$4.5 m illion budget.  Under the Champions  Program umbrella, investment 
promotion and services include: 
 Investment Champions Program:  Canadian business leaders are invited to reach out to 
prospective investors to highlight specifi c opportunities for partnering with Canadian 
companies, and the business cases for doing so.  Investment Champions help draw potential 
investors to industry-specific events across Cana da and enrich the itineraries of visits to 
Canada by potential investors.  Investment messaging from a peer perspective is delivered 
at major international business events attende d by influential corporate decision-makers. 
 Investment Promotion Tools:   New tools that articulate strong business cases for partnering 
with Canadian companies in key sectors and indu stries, such as Canada's Flagship Report and 
sector and industry-specific materials, are updated annually or bi-annually. 
 Investment Awareness Outreach:   Showcasing Canada's attractive business climate and 
thousands of innovative and highly competitive bus inesses to the world at events in priority 
markets. 
 Investor Aftercare Services :  Services offered to help foreign investors in Canada connect to 
the Canadian suppliers, professi onals, labour, knowledge and inn ovation networks they need.  
Investors are also be provided with help in id entifying expansion opportunities and/or ways to 
address issues affecting their current operations. 
 
[EU Question 21]:   The WTO Secretariat's report informs that  "Canada has maintained a solid record 
on notifications (Table AII.4).  However, notifica tions on agriculture and government procurement are 
lagging. /…/ Canada has not notified its preferential rules of origin for the FTAs reached with Peru 
and EFTA, nor the preferential access agreemen ts with Australia and New Zealand." 
 
Could Canada indicate when it plans to fulfil its not ification obligations concerning preferential rules 
of origin, as indicated in paragraph 31? 
 
Canada's Response: 
Canada notified both the Canada-EFTA Free Tr ade Agreement and the Canada-Peru Free Trade 
Agreement to the WTO Secretariat in 2009.  While  both notifications made by Canada included the WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 116  
 
 respective preferential rules of origin, Canada did not provide separate notifications of the 
Agreements' rules of origin to the WTO Secretariat as per the WT O Agreement on Rules of Origin, 
Annex II, paragraph 4.  Canada is  currently undertaking the necessary steps to submit its notifications 
of its preferential rules of origin to the WTO Secretariat.  
In the mean time, the rules of origin can be found here: 
 
Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement 
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreemen ts-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/EFTA-AnnexC-
en.pdf. 
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreemen ts-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/EFTA-AnnexC-
app1-en.pdf.  
Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement 
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements -accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Canada-Peru 
FTA_chapter3-en.pdf. 
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements -accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Canada-Peru 
FTA_chapter3a-en.pdf.  As for the rules of origin for the New Zealand and Australia Tariff Treatments, please note that the 
preferential rules of origin under these agreem ents were notified. Please see G/RO/N/1/Add.1 
circulated on June 22, 1995. 
 
[EU Question 22]:   Could Canada provide information re garding the status and nature of the 
preferential access agreements with Australia and New Zealand?   
Canada's longstanding limited preferential access agreements with these two countries are governed 
by the following agreement (follow links to see the texts of the agreements): 
 
Canada's Response:  
Trade Agreement between the Government of  Canada and the Government of Australia  (1960) 
http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-t exte.asp?id=102918&bprint=true. 
http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-t exte.asp?id=102917&bprint=true. 
 
Trade and Economic Agreement between the Gover nment of Canada and the Government of New 
Zealand  (1982) 
http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/resu lt-resultat.asp?type=1&sp=1. 
 
[EU Question 23]:  The WTO Secretariat's report notes that during the review period three FTAs 
have been signed with:  Colombia (2008), Jordan  (2009) and Panama (2010).  These three agreements 
are still being ratified by the respective governments,  and have not yet entered into force.  Could 
Canada provide an indicative timing of the entry into force of these FTAs?   
Canada's Response:   Canada is working towards ratification and/or bringing into force the following 
agreements and we look forward to the enhanced tr ade with each of these countries and the prosperity 
the agreements will bring about.  Panama:  Canada signed its Free Trade Agreement with Panama in May 2009, and with its signature, 
Canada approved the Agreement.  Legislation requi red to implement the Canada-Panama FTA, tabled 
in Parliament in March 2010, ceased to exist when  the 2011 Canadian nationa l election was called (all 
government legislation before Parliament ceases to exist at dissolution).  Once the government re-
introduces the implementing legislation, and it is pas sed by Parliament, officials will work with their 
Panamanian counterparts to promptly bring the Agre ement into force.  Canada has not encountered  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 117 
 
 
 any difficulties with Panama or within its own territo ry regarding the entry in to force of the Canada-
Panama Free Trade Agreement.  Jordan:   Canada signed its Free Trade Agreement with Jordan in June 2009, and with its signature, 
Canada approved the Agreement.  Legislation required to implemen t the Canada-Jordan FTA, tabled 
in Parliament in March 2010, ceased to exist when  the 2011 Canadian nationa l election was called (all 
government legislation before Parliament ceases to exist at dissolution).  Once the government re-
introduces the implementing legislation, and it is pas sed by Parliament, officials will work with their 
Jordanian counterparts to promptly bring the Agreem ent into force.  Canada has not encountered any 
difficulties with Jordan or within its own territory regarding the entry into force of the Canada-Jordan 
Free Trade Agreement. 
 Colombia:  On June 29, 2010, the implementing legisl ation for the Canada-Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement and its related Agre ements received Royal Assent in Canada. On April 11, 2011, 
Colombia formally advised Canada that is has co mpleted all of the necessary steps in its domestic 
approval process.  Canada and Colombia are now proceeding as quickly as possible to complete the 
remaining technical steps required for implementati on.  Canada has not encountered any difficulties 
with Colombia nor within its own territory regardi ng the entry into force of the Canada-Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement.  
 
[EU Question 24]:  The WTO Secretariat's report underlines th at Canada is pursuing an ambitious 
agenda of free-trade negotiations.  Could Canada el aborate in detail about the main objectives pursued 
by its RTAs agenda, and its imme diate goals for 2011 and 2012?  
 Canada's Response:   The main objectives of Canada's free trade agenda are: to secure competitive 
terms of access to global markets and networks for Canadian businesses;  to help increase foreign 
direct investment in Canada and Canadian direct investment around the world;  and to boost Canadian 
commercial engagement in global value chains.  Th e markets with which Canada is currently in 
discussions were chosen because they offer pot ential opportunities to advance these objectives. 
 Immediate goals for 2011 and 2012 are to work towa rd concluding ongoing negotiations and to aim to 
conclude the Canada-European Union Comprehe nsive Economic and Trade Agreement by 2012. 
 
[EU Question 25]:   The WTO Secretariat's report states "/…/Alcoholic beverages produced in 
Québec benefit from lower rates under certain conditions./…/"  Could Canada explain under which conditi ons the lower rates can be applied? 
 
Canada's Response:  A response will be forthcoming pending further consultations with provincial 
authorities. 
 
[EU Question 26]:  According to the WTO Secretariat's report "Canada maintains SPS related 
licensing requirements for importers of fish, and import permit requirements for animals and plants 
(Table III.9 and section (ix)).  Import requirements for these products remain largely unchanged since 
the last Review. /…/."    Could Canada explain how the Cana dian requirement for import permits for plant products takes into 
account point 4.2.2 on import authorization in the In ternational Standard for Phytosanitary Measures, 
ISPM 20 on Guidelines for a phytosanitary import regulatory system? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's system is based on IPPC st andards, such as ISPM # 1, ISPM# 2, 
ISPM  #11, ISPM #20 and ISPM # 21.  Canada's plant protection import pe rmit is a legal document 
issued by the CFIA which grants permission to the holder to import the products listed on it and under WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 118  
 
 which conditions they may do so (i.e., it lists a ll the import conditions and requirements that need to 
be met in order for a shipment of the commodity (o r commodities) to be allo wed entry into Canada). 
Canadian import requirements are based on the most recently available scientific and technical information.  When new information becomes available,  it is reviewed in the context of the applicable 
completed pest risk analysis or analyses and impor t requirements may be amended, where appropriate. 
The issuance of permits provides the CFIA an offici al and legal means to notify importers of changes 
in import requirements for a particular commodity.  
 
[EU Question 27]:  Paragraph 5 on page 23 in the WTO Secret ariat's report informs about Canada's 
consideration to extend the scope of SPS-related licensing requirements for importers to a wide range 
of food products and ingredie nts.  Para. 41 on page 62 describ es ongoing consultations for a new 
regulatory initiative that proposes licensing of importe rs that covers a number of products and which 
aims to "/…/strengthen the accountability of importers  for the safety of the food products they import; 
[…] thereby reducing the risk of unsafe products  entering the Canadian marketplace/…/".  
 
Could Canada clarify whether the new proposed licen sing requirements would add to or replace other 
import licensing requirements presently in place?   Canada's response:  No, the licensing provision under the Regulatory Proposal would not replace 
any existing licensing program regulated by the Gove rnment of Canada.  Im porters who hold a licence 
or registration issued under another regulation enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency 
(such as the Fish Inspection Regulations, Dairy Pr oducts Regulations, Meat Inspection Regulations 
and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Regulations, woul d require an importer licence should they import 
products regulated solely under the Food and Drug Act . 
 
[EU Question 28]:  Could Canada confirm that the new licen sing system that will be applied under 
the new regulatory initiative will be automatic as de fined under Article under Article 2.1 of the WTO 
Agreement of Import Licensing Procedures?  Will Cana da agree to the exempti on of beverage alcohol 
from the scope of the CFIA proposals to introdu ce new import control measures for non-federally 
regulated products?  Canada's response:  Canada has not yet finished drafting the proposed regulations that will set out 
the importer licensing requirements.  The CFIA will take comments into consideration in the 
development of the proposed regulations and asso ciated program administration guidance documents. 
 
[EU Question 29]:  Has Canada conducted a cost/benefit analys is of this initiative to quantify to 
which degree this extra regulatory burden will reduc e the risk identified of unsafe products entering 
the Canadian marketplace?  If so, could Cana da share the results of such an analysis? 
 Canada's response:  Canada will be undergoing an additional consultation period, both domestic and 
international, following the publication of propo sed regulations in Canada Gazette Part 1.  
Stakeholders will have access to Canada's cost/benefit analysis during this time. 
 
[EU Question 30]:  According to the WTO Secretariat's repor t "Used or second-hand vehicles remain 
prohibited from importation into Canada (tari ff item HS 9897.00.00 of the Customs Tariff).  
Exceptions include used or second-hand motor vehicles that are 15 years or older, and those imported from the United States, provided they meet Canadian safety standards (Chapter IV(4)(ii))." 
Could Canada explain why used or second hand motor vehicles imported from the United States are 
excluded from the prohibition? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada provides a liberalized vehicle market but does so within a framework 
that will not jeopardize the safety of Canadian road users.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 119 
 
 
 The treatment referred to in the 3 questions was ne gotiated as part of NAFTA, a preferential free trade 
agreement, but within a regulatory framework that  still maintains the precedence on Canadian vehicle 
safety regulations.  The GATT recognizes the desi rability of such closer integration between 
economies.  
Most vehicles sold at the retail level in the Unite d States are manufactured to nearly identical safety 
standards to Canadian specification vehicles and most  are capable of being modified to meet Canadian 
requirements.  This 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 minor changes that do not im pair the existing safety features) to meet the few 
additional Canadian safety standards that they may no t 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. 
 
[EU Question 31]:  Would Canada consider recognizing the EU spirits categories adopted in the 
Regulation (EC) 110/2008 of the European Parlia ment and of the Council on 15 January 2008, 
published in the Official Journal L 39 of 13 February 2008?  Canada's Response:   Canada is not currently contemplating making these types of regulatory 
amendments.  
 
[EU Question 32]:  The WTO Secretariat's report states that "In the Canadian system of government, 
the federal, provincial, and territorial government s have the authority to promulgate technical 
regulations (and sanitary and phytosanitary meas ures); each has its own regulatory process./…/" 
 
Could Canada elaborate on the efforts that are be ing made to avoid unnecess ary regulatory burdens 
caused by misaligned federal and sub-federal regulations?  
 Canada's Response:  Canada is a federal state where govern mental power is divided between the 
central ("federal") authority and several regional ("provincial") authorities.  Neither the federal 
Parliament nor the provincial Legislatures are subor dinate to one another.  With respect to the 
territorial application of legislation, the legislative competence of the federal Parliament applies to all 
of the territory of Canada.  The legislative compet ence of the provincial Legislatures applies to the 
territory of each individual province.  With respect to the subject matter of legislation, both the federal 
Parliament and the provincial Legislatures exercise  exclusive jurisdiction in a number of areas. 
However, in several areas, the federal Parliame nt and provincial Legislatures exercise shared 
jurisdiction.  In the event of an inconsistency betw een a valid federal law and a valid provincial law, 
the federal law will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.  
[EU Question 33]:  According to the WTO Secretariat's report "/…/ The authorities indicate that there 
is no system for collecting data on foreign techni cal regulations recognized by Canada, but they are 
exploring ways to set up such a system./…/"  
Could Canada provide more info rmation on its initiative to collect data on foreign technical 
regulations recognized in Canada? Is the purpose of the initiative to facilitate trade?  
 Canada's Response:  As individual regulatory authorities dete rmine whether it is appropriate to 
recognize a given foreign technical regulation, no cen tralized statistics exist,  though their development 
could potentially contribute to future policy development. 
 
[EU Question 34]:  The WTO Secretariat's report informs th at "Canada does not maintain a catalogue 
of technical regulations.  However, the Canada Ga zette contains a Consolid ated Index of Federal WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 120  
 
 Statutory Instruments, including technical regulati ons. In addition, the Sta ndards Council of Canada 
(SCC) maintains an online searchab le database (RegWatch) of all standards incorporated into 
Canadian federal regulations." 
 
In many instances foreign businesses find it difficult to know what standards apply to their products, and whether these are mandatory or not.  If extende d to the provincial and territorial level, this 
initiative would help address the compliance problem  posed by regulatory di fferences between the 
federal and sub-federal administra tions.  Could Canada inform whet her efforts are being made to 
extend the online searchable database maintained by  the Standards Council of Canada to sub-federal 
levels of government?  
 
Canada's Response:  Yes, the Standards Council of Canada (S CC) plans to considerably expand its 
online searchable database to include informati on concerning provincial/territorial levels of 
government.  SCC is currently assessing the required timeframe/resources that will be necessary to complete this expansion.  
[EU Question 35]:  The WTO Secretariat's report states that there have been concerns expressed by 
several Members as regards the new compositional requirements for cheese (revision of the Food and 
Drug Regulations, and the Dairy Products Re gulations on 14 December 2008).  These new 
compositional requirements for cheese strongly limit the use of milk protein substances (MPS), despite the fact that the Codex Alimentarius (of which Canada is an active Member) does not 
prescribe any limitations on their use.  As a result of this measure, Canadian imports of MPS have 
been negatively affected.  Could Canada inform how does it justify this measure in the context of: a) the recent outcome of GATT Article XVIII negotiations, which resulted in the opening of a TRQ as a compensation for 
Canada's modification of a WTO concession for this  product?  b) the TBT Agreement Article 2.4, 
which states that where international standards exis t, they should be used as a basis for technical 
regulations, unless deemed ineffective or inappropr iate for the legitimate objectives being pursued? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is a strong supporter of an ambitious outcome in the agricultural 
negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda.  Canada's decision to invoke GATT Article 
XXVIII was made as a result of the change in the ta riff classification of milk protein concentrates 
resulting from rulings made by Canadian domestic c ourts in 2005 and 2006.  The renegotiation of 
tariff concessions through GATT Ar ticle XXVIII is a longstanding ri ght under the WTO Agreements. 
In taking recourse to a GATT Article XXVIII ac tion, Canada respected its WTO obligations.  
 
The purpose of the regulatory amendments was to ha rmonize two sets of regulations that previously 
governed the composition of cheese – the Food and Drug regulations and the Dairy Products 
Regulations.  When developing th ese regulations, Canada took international standards into account, as 
well as the comments received during the World Trade Organization notification period.  
 
[EU Question 36]:   Furthermore, could Canada provide assurances that it will not follow this 
approach for other dairy products, despite requests in  this regard (for example the request by Dairy 
Farmers of Canada for yoghurt), and that the Code x Alimentarius standards will be followed if any 
changes in their requirements do occur?  Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada has not  initiated any regulatory process for 
establishing compositional standards for other dair y products.  Should Canada  consider establishing 
compositional standards for other products, Canada would take into account international standards 
such as Codex Alimentarius, as well as Canada's  trade obligations in their development. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 121 
 
 
 [EU Question 37]:   The WTO Secretariat's report informs "/…/Canada has notified federal measures 
only to the SPS Committee (Table III.12), since th e authorities are not aware of any SPS measures 
adopted by sub federal authorities that have a trade impact./…/"  Could Canada confirm that no regul ations implemented by the sub-fe deral governments in Canada are 
of such impact on trade that notifica tion to the WTO SPS Committee is needed? 
 Canada's Response:  As stated in the WTO Secretariat's repor t, the Government of Canada is not 
aware of any SPS measures adopted by sub-fede ral authorities that have a trade impact. 
 
[EU Question 38]:   Could Canada clarify what are the ob ligations of the provincial authorities in 
Canada under the WTO SPS Agreement regarding the no tification of SPS measures that affect trade? 
 Canada's Response:  The Federal government has jurisdiction w ith regards to international and inter-
provincial trade for SPS issues.  Where it is deemed  that a federal SPS measure may have a significant 
impact on trade, Canada notifies in accordance w ith its transparency obligations under the SPS 
Agreement.  
[EU Question 39]:  The WTO Secretariat's report states that "SPS requirements applied to imports are 
established on the basis of the disease or pest risks associated with these imports.  As a general rule, 
the authorities conduct a risk assessment prior to first time imports of an animal, plant, or animal or 
plant product from a particular country.  SPS import requirements that entail a full risk assessment are 
most commonly those related to animal and plan t health.  According to the authorities, risk 
assessments for imports of animals and animal produc ts may take up to a year to process, depending 
on the availability of risk assessments for product-co untry combinations presenting the same risk as 
the requested import, and the quality of information available.  The CFIA decides whether a full risk 
assessment is required, normally within three weeks of receiving the request.  The applicant is charged 
a fee when the full risk assessment is initiated."  Could Canada provide information on the average timeframe for conducting a p est risk assessment for 
plant products and for animal products, and also  confirm the maximum ti meframe for conducting a 
pest risk assessment (one year)?  
 
Canada's Response:  The time required to complete a risk assessment (RA) for plant or terrestrial 
animal health will vary depending on the availability  of information as well as the degree of difficulty 
in obtaining the information. A RA may take up to two years to complete or longer.  
[EU Question 40]:  Having in mind that the time needed for conducting risk assessments have an 
impact on trade, does Canada have the objective and the intention to establish a consolidated list of 
regulated pests for plant products and to establish ge neric import requirements for these pests?  Does 
Canada have the intention to establish generi c import requirements for all animal products?  
 
Canada's Response: 
 
Plant: 
Canadian import requirements for a commodity are based  on a pest risk analysis, which is carried out 
in line with ISPM #2, ISPM#11 and ISPM#21. Furtherm ore, a list of regulated plant pests by Canada 
is available on the Canadian Food Inspecti on Agency web site at the following address: 
 
Pests Regulated by Canada:  http://www.inspection. gc.ca/english/plaveg/protect/listpespare.shtml. 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 122  
 
 Animal: 
 
Canada does not intend to establish generic import requirements for all animal products. 
 
All of Canada's established import conditions for an imal products & by-products can be found on our 
public website http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/an ima/heasan/pol/pole.shtml#prod by commodity.  
The public can also query the Automated Import Re ference System for thei r specific commodity for 
CFIA import conditions. http://www.inspec tion.gc.ca/english/imp/airse.shtml. 
 
[EU Question 41]:  The WTO Secretariat's report describes how Canadian Food Inspection Agency 
(CFIA) manages import requests related to plants  and animal that require a risk assessment.  
 Canada informs to prioritise applications on new typ es of imports.  Regarding applications considered 
by Canada as the lowest priority, could Canada inform how long is the average period from a request 
of this type been received by Canada until it enters  into pest risk assessment  procedure?  Moreover, 
could Canada inform how long has the longest pendi ng request awaited to enter into pest risk 
assessment?  
Canada's Response: 
 Plant 
When an importer submits their request for a pest risk assessment on a new commodity (or a familiar 
commodity from a new origin), the request enters in to the pest risk assessment system without delay. 
 
Animal: 
Risk assessments (RA's) are prioritized for completio n timelines (country, region or zone recognition 
or regaining freedom status, industry, new commod ity, new conditions, policy review, other) at which 
time the RA is given an estimated time for completio n, based on its prioritization.  There is little delay 
in prioritizing and entering the request into the RA  stream once the official written request has been 
received by CFIA.  
[EU Question 42]:   The WTO Secretariat's report informs that "SPS related import permits are 
required for some products; they specify the cond itions under which the product can be imported into 
Canada (Table III.9). /…/ for plants and plant pr oducts the CFIA normally issues Plant Protection 
Policy Directives (D memos).  In addition, the ag ency maintains an online database of the import 
requirements for animals, plants, and their products (Automated Import Reference System – AIRS)."   
 
Could Canada inform to which ex tent import permits for plant pr oducts include import requirements 
not yet published by Canada?  Canada's Response:  All plant protection import permits issu ed by Canada's NPPO include import 
requirements which have been published by Canada.  
 
However, Canada's Plant Protection Regulations does include a provision for the importation, for 
special purposes which are not published, of material  otherwise prohibited entry into Canada - more 
specifically, for the purpose of research, education, exhibition and industrial processing.  Such importations are subject to strict containment meas ures and oversight to ensure that none of the 
imported material is released into the Canadian e nvironment.  Import requirements and conditions for 
such importations are determined on a case by case basis and are listed on an import permit. Material 
imported with such a permit is not pe rmitted to enter a commercial stream. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 123 
 
 
 [EU Question 43]:  The WTO Secretariat's report states "/ …/Although the CFIA normally evaluates 
disease risks on a country wide basis, it has occasion ally recognized certain regions or zones within 
countries as disease free…/…/"    Could Canada explain how Canada fulfils its obligations under article 6.2 of the WTO SPS agreement 
"Members shall, in particular, recognize the concep ts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low 
pest or disease prevalence" regarding plant products?  Canada's Response:  Canada recognises and applies the concep t of pest free areas (PFAs) for plants 
and plant products, and their application in respect of  ISPM 4 – Requirements for the establishment of 
pest free areas taking into account the pest status  in an area recognised by the exporting country.  
Canada also recognises and applies the concept of  Areas of Low Pest Prevalence (ALPPs) regarding 
trade of plants and plant products in respect of ISPM 22 – Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence taking into account the pest  status in an area recognised by the exporting 
country.  
 
[EU Question 44]:   Could Canada provide information on  EDC's Project finance programme (ie. 
structuring services, financing terms and conditions,  number of beneficiaries, volume of financing 
provided)?   Canada's Response:  EDC can provide limited recourse fina ncing to fund the construction of 
industrial and infrastructure projects across various  sectors in support of Canadian exports to, or 
Canadian sponsor investment in, such projects.  Financial terms and cond itions are reflective of 
market offerings.  Three key sectors of focus are energy; telecom and infrastructure;  and 
mining, minerals, and resources.  
 
[EU Questions 45, 46, and 47]:  (paragraph 144) The WTO Secretariat's report gives information 
about Canada's official support initiatives, which may be contingent upon local-content requirements, 
e.g. the feed-in tariff programme for renewable en ergy, established by the province of Ontario in 
2009.  Could Canada provide furthe r information on whether other pr ovinces of Canada have similar 
incentive programmes relying on local content requireme nts?  If yes, what is the level of assistance 
provided by these programmes and what are the local content requirements?  In the context of the 
WTO Secretariat's report findings in  paragraph 144, does Canada in tend to continue applying the 
currently contested local content requirements in pl ace, or introduce new ones at provincial or national 
level?  Canada's Response:  Outside of those mentioned in the TPR, Canada is unaware of any other support 
initiatives contingent on local content. 
 
[EU Question 48]:  The WTO Secretariat's report informs that "/…/Data were not available on 
procurement by municipalities, municipal organiza tions, publicly funded academic institutions, and 
health and social services entities (MASH entities), nor on procurement by Crown corporations."  With reference to paragraphs 151 and 164, could Canada provide data on governme nt procurement for 
the sub-federal level, the MASH se ctor and for Crown corporations? 
 
Canada's Response:   Federal, provincial and territorial governments are required to report annually 
on all purchases at or above the threshold levels specified in Chapter Five (Procurement) of the 
Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), as well as on purchases below these levels.  They are also 
required to report on specific types of purchases th at are excluded from the Chapter.  Entities covered 
under Annex 502.3 (Crown Annex) and under A nnex 502.4 (MASH Annex) are not required to 
submit such reports.  Procurement statistics are available on MARCAN, the gateway to public sector 
procurement in Canada:  www.marcan.net. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 124  
 
 [EU Question 49]:  Could Canada further elaborate on the pr ovisions set out in national and/or trade 
agreements which Federal Crown Corporations need  to take into account for developing their own 
procurement policies?  In the absence of unified le gislation, could Canada explain how and where are 
the tender opportunities published and how are the potential suppliers informed about the rules 
applicable to the given tender of a Crown corporation?   
Canada's Response:   Crown corporations subject to the procur ement obligations of trade agreements 
must ensure that their procurement procedures co mply with the commitments contained in such 
agreements.  A summary of Canadian trade commit ments set out in national and international trade 
agreements may be found in th e Contracting Policy Notice 2009-03 - Free Trade Agreements:  Update 
of Thresholds and New Free Trade Agreements, whic h includes links to the detailed rules that apply 
under each agreement (http://www.tbs-sct.gc. ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/Cont PolNotices/2009/12-31-
eng.asp).  
[EU Question 50]:  Could Canada further explain how green procurements is integrated into 
procurement processes? 
 
Canada's Response:   The federal government Policy on Green Pr ocurement came into effect April 1, 
2006, with the objective of integrating enviro nmental performance considerations into the 
procurement decision-making process in the contex t of value for money and life-cycle approach 
management.  Using a life-cycle approach to examin e costs associated with a commodity allows for 
consideration not only of the purchase price but also those costs associated with operating, 
maintaining and disposing of the good.  
 The policy is available on the Department of P ublic Works and Government Services Canada's 
(PWGSC) website: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ ecologisation-greening/achats-procurement/ 
politique-policy-eng.html. 
 PWGSC has developed a green procurement tool kit to assists federal departments and agencies with 
the integration of environmental performance consid erations in their procurements:  http://www.tpsgc-
pwgsc.gc.ca/ecologisation-greening/achats- procurement/trousse-toolkit/index-eng.html. 
 
The following Statistics Canada we bpage also provides information on green procurement targets and 
policy requirements:  http://www.stat can.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/tbl/tbl3a-eng.htm. 
 In addition, some provinces and territories have thei r own green procurement policies.  For example, 
Manitoba passed the Sustainable Development Act in 1998 and Nova Scotia passed the Environmental 
Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act (EGSPA) in  June 2007.  Further details can be found on 
provincial/territorial procurement websites via MARCAN www.marcan.net. 
 
[EU Question 51]:   Could Canada provide details on the cont ent and scope of existing and potentially 
future local content requirements?  
 
Canada's Response:  Examples of existing local content requi rements include the Canadian Content 
Policy and the Industrial and Regiona l Benefits Policy.  The Canadian Content Policy applies where 
Public Works and Government Serv ices Canada is the contracting authority, but does not apply to 
government procurement subject to international tr ade agreements.  The Policy is available in the 
Supply Manual of Public Works and Governme nt Services Canada at:  http://www.tpsgc-
pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/ga-sm/chap itre03-chapter03-eng.html#sa3-6 .  The Industrial and Regional 
Benefits Policy generally applies to large defen ce procurements, but does not apply to government 
procurement subject to international trade agreemen ts.  Further details on the Policy are available on 
Industry Canada's website at: http:// www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/home.  
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 125 
 
 
 [EU Question 52]:  Canada maintains a set aside for "small and minority businesses" in its current 
GPA commitments (see general note 1(f)).  Could Canada confirm that the set-aside programme(s) 
that exist(s) in Canada (both at Federal and s ub federal levels) target only aboriginal businesses? 
Canada's Response:  The Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business (PSAB) is a federal 
government policy put in place to increase the numbe r of Aboriginal firms competing for federal 
procurement contracts.  This stra tegy is consistent with Canada's  international trade obligations, 
including those under the GPA. Further details on the strategy are available on the website of Indian 
and Northern Affairs Canada at: http://www. ainc-inac.gc.ca/ecd/ab/psa/index-eng.asp. 
 
[EU Question 53]:  The EU understands there is not a single procurement remedies system in Canada. 
Could Canada further detail the review procedures  followed by the Canadian International Trade 
Tribunal?  Do the CITT procedures allow for remedi es before the award of contract (pre-contractual 
remedies) or can the CITT only act after the award of the contract (post-award remedies)?   Canada's Response:  A Descriptive Guide of the Procuremen t Review Process is published by the 
Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which incl udes reference to the Act,  Regulations and Rules 
governing the Canadian International Trade Trib unal as well as an elaboration of the available 
remedies.  The Guide is accessible online at: http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/publicat/guide_e.asp.  
 
[EU Question 54]:  Could Canada provide further details on the challenge procedures available to 
suppliers (including foreign supplie rs) participating in procuremen ts other than from the Federal 
Government?  In particular, do all the Canadian jurisdictions foresee both, the pre-contractual and 
post-award remedies?  Are the decisions of the remedy body binding?   Canada's Response:   Provinces have jurisdiction over the administration of justice within the 
province, including the organisation and maintenance of the civil and criminal provincial courts and 
civil procedure in those courts.  The court system is roughly the same across Canada with two levels: 
provincial courts and superior c ourts (although the names of the courts are not identical in each 
province). In civil or criminal cases involving breach of contract or other claims of harm (torts), the courts apply common-law principles in nine provinces and the territories.  In Quebec, courts apply the 
Quebec Civil Code.  In criminal or public cases, on the other hand, the common law is applied 
throughout Canada.  In many jurisdictions, courts  would also have to take into account specific 
legislation or regulation on public procurement. 
 
In addition to the court system which addresses ch allenges from suppliers, N ova Scotia has a Vendor 
Complaint Process in place to enable process improvement and service excellence (http://www.gov.ns.ca/tenders/policy/pdf_files/VendorComp laint.pdf).  In Saskatchewan, an arbitral 
mechanism has been implemente d under the International Commerc ial Arbitration Act for a bid 
challenge.  This process only applies to post-award challenges, which will be binding.  Pre-contractual 
remedies will not be binding.  Further to the New West Partnership Trade Agreement  (NWPTA), British Columbia, Alberta and 
Saskatchewan are developing a new bid protest me chanism.  The mechanis m will provide eligible 
suppliers with an expedited arbitral process that includes provisions related to the postponement of 
procurement awards.  The binding decisions of  the remedy body will include both cost and 
recoupment awards. 
 
[EU Question 55]:  Could Canada provide further details on corrective actions or compensation 
available to bidders? 
 
Canada's Response:  A Descriptive Guide of the Procuremen t Review Process is published by the 
Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which incl udes an indication of the available remedies (see WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 126  
 
 Appendix 4, articles 30.15 and 30.16).  The Guide is accessible on line at: http://www.citt-
tcce.gc.ca/publicat/guide_e.asp.  
 
[EU Question 56]:  Could Canada provide more details on the sub federa l level laws and procurement 
regulations?  More specifically, could Canada i ndicate which procurement rules are applied by 
provincial Crown Corporations and by the MASH sect or?  In the absence of unified legislation, could 
Canada explain how and where are the tender opportunities publis hed and how are the potential 
suppliers informed about the rules applicable to the given tender of a Crown corporation?  
 Canada's Response:  The MARCAN website (www.marcan.net) provides information on the 
procurement rules that apply to both federal and provincial/territorial government entities, Crown 
entities and the MASH sector.  MARCAN also provides a contact point, the procurement website, and an indication of where tender opportunities are published for each jurisdiction.    
[EU Question 57]:  Could Canada elaborate on how can it be justified that certain Crown 
corporations, such as Provincial liquor boards, ar e not covered by the Canadian competition law? 
 
Canada's Response:  Section 79 of Canada's Competiti on Act (the "Act") authorizes the 
Commissioner of Competition to apply to the Competition Tribunal for a remedial order where a person or firm that substantially or completely co ntrols a class of business, has engaged in, or is 
engaging in, a practice of anti-competitive acts, with  the effect or likely effect of substantially 
preventing or lessening competition in a market.  An order issued under this section enjoins the 
dominant firm from continuing its conduct, and ma y also include the imposition of an administrative 
monetary penalty to ensure future compliance.  Generally speaking, any entities in the marketplace,  including Crown Corporations that engage in 
actual or potential commercial activities, are subject to the abuse of dominance provision of the Act.  
 
[EU Question 58]:   Is it furthermore justified that certain alleged practices applied by these boards are 
compatible with rules on National Treatment?  Exam ples of such practices are the exemption of these 
boards from federal and provincial taxes, commerc ial activities of these boards not foreseen by the 
Federal Importation and Intoxicating Liquors Act (I ILA) and by relevant notifications to the WTO 
under Article XVII:4(a) of the GATT 1994, and the a pplication of Cost of Service Differentials, 
leading to higher prices mark-ups applied on imported wines and spirits. 
 
Canada's Response:  With respect to federal and provincia l taxes and commercial activities, Canada 
is unclear which specific provincial liquor board practi ces the EU is referring to.  In order to provide a 
more precise response, Canada would be pleased to engage further with the EU on any specific 
questions.  With respect to cost of service differen tial charges, Canada would note that these 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 cost s necessarily associated with marketing imported 
products. 
 
[EU Question 59]:  Will Canada continue to allow the mandato ry "single desk" selling system of the 
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), hereby guarant eeing of all CWB borrowing and export credits? 
 Canada's Response:  The Canadian Government recently announced that it intends to introduce 
legislation to ensure that western Canadian farmer s have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the 
open market.  Marketing through the CWB would no longer be mandatory. 
 
[EU Question 60]:  Could Canada provide further information on the areas of activity of sub-federal 
state-owned enterprises as well as on any monopoly or  exclusive rights that they may exercise? 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 127 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  Each province and territory maintains a web site that includes information on 
the structure and organization of that province or  territory.  These websites may be accessed from the 
following site:  http://www.canada.ca/othergov-autregouv/prov-eng.html.  
 
[EU Question 61]:  Is Canada envisaging making further amen dments to its competition regime to 
address the remaining exemptions in regulated sectors to ensure fair commercial treatment of domestic 
and imported goods, in particular as regards the sub-national alcohol monopolies?  If yes, which 
amendments are envisaged and what is th e time table for the envisaged amendments?  
 
Canada's Response:   In July 2007, the Government of Ca nada created a Competition Policy Review 
Panel (the "Panel") with a mandate to review Ca nada's competition and foreign investment policies, 
and to make recommendations to the federa l government for making Canada more globally 
competitive.  Based on the Panel's recommenda tions, Canada's Parliament passed significant 
amendments to the Competition Act in 2009, resp onsive to concerns raised by the Panel. 
 
There are limited exemptions in the Competition Act, as per Parliament's directions, including a 
regulated conduct defence with what in the Bur eau's view is a relatively narrow application. 
 
[EU Question 62]:  Which federal and sub-nationa l laws contain competition provisions applicable to 
sub–federal alcohol monopolies?  
Canada's Response:   Federally, only the Competition Act c ontains competition provisions that would 
be applicable to sub-federal alcohol monopolies.   In Canada, the importation of and in ter-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, w ith control over the sale of intoxicating liquor, and 
over the importation, sending, taking or transportatio n of such liquor into the provinces and territories.  
Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores ope rated 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 purch ase of alcoholic beverages in line with market 
needs as related to such commercial considerati ons as price, quality, availability, marketability, 
transportation and other conditions of purchase or sale. 
 Relevant Acts and regulations for each province and territory are listed below.  For more information 
on liquor marketing practices in each Province/Territory, please see G/STR/N/12/CAN, Canada's notification related to State Trading Enterprises, pp. 21-36. 
 
For Alberta: 
 Gaming and Liquor Act  (c. G-1, RSA 2000). 
 Gaming and Liquor Regulation  (Alta. Reg. 143/1996). 
 For British Columbia: 
 Liquor Distribution Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c.238 as amended and the regulations thereto. 
 
For Manitoba: 
 The Liquor Control Act , R.S.M. 1988, c.L160 and the regulations thereto, and their 
amendments, including:   
 The Liquor Control Act and C onsequential Amendments Act , S.M. 1993.   
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 128  
 
 For New Brunswick: 
 New Brunswick Liquor Corporation Act , R.S.N.B. 1973, c.N-6 and the regulations thereto, and 
their amendments.   
 Liquor Control Act , R.S.N.B. 1973, c.L-10, and the regulations thereto, and their amendments.   
 For Newfoundland: 
 The Liquor Corporation Act , R.S.N. 1990, c.L-19, and the regulations thereto, and their 
amendments.   
 The Liquor Control Act , R.S.N. 1990, c.L-18, and the regulations thereto, and their 
amendments. 
 For Nova Scotia: 
 The Liquor Control Act,  R.S.N.S 1989, c.260 and the regulations thereto, and their 
amendments. 
 
For Ontario: 
 Liquor Control Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. L.18;   
 Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, R.S.O. 1996, c. 26;   
 Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19;  and the regulations thereto, and their amendments.   
 For Prince Edward Island:  
 Liquor Control Act  and Regulations , R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c.L-14 and the regulations thereto, and 
their amendments. 
 
For Quebec: 
 Act respecting the Société des alcools du Québec  (RSQ, c. S-13, s. 16). 
 For Saskatchewan: 
 The Alcohol and Gaming Regulation Act, 1997 being Chapter A-18.011 of the Statutes of 
Saskatchewan, 1997 (February 1, 2003) as ame nded by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1998, 
c.16;  2000, c.36;  2002, c.27 and 42;  2003, c.15;  2004, c.67;  2005, c.3 and 21; 2007, c.10; 
and 2008, c.8. 
 For Northwest Territories: 
 Liquor Act , R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. L-9 as amended by the Statues of the Northwest Territories 
1991-92, c.38;  1994. c.19;  1995, c.11;  1998, c.17. c.21;  2002, c.10, c.20. 
 Liquor Regulations , R.R.N.W.T. 1990, c.L-34 as amended by the Statues of the Northwest 
Territories 1992, R-087;  1993, R-027;  1995, R-035, R-036;  1996, R-048;  1997, R-052;  
2000, R-055;  2001, R-067;  2002, R-033, R-034, R-035, R-074;  2004, R-031. 
 For Nunavut: 
 Liquor Regulations , R.R.N.W.T. 1990, c.L-34, as duplicated for Nunavut by section 29 of the 
Nunavut Act . 
 
For Yukon: 
 Liquor Act, Chapter 140 , R.S.Y. 2003, c.140.   
 Liquor Regulations Respecting the Sale and Consumption of Liquor.  
 
[EU Question 63]:  How does Canada ensure that regulator y requirements at the federal and sub-
federal levels are aligned, in particular as rega rds the Competition Act and the laws enacted by the 
sub-national governments applicable to  sub-federal alcohol monopolies? 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 129 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   In regards to the Competition Act specifically, there is no specific regulatory 
regime by which alignment between the Competiti on Act and any provincial laws that may contain 
competition type provisions is ensured.   
 
[EU Question 64]:  According to the report, "/…/Canada's competitive marketplace could be further 
enhanced by instruments, such as guidelines or memorandums of understanding, that clarify the 
working relationships between the Competition Bur eau and the various industry regulators operating 
at federal and provincial levels." Is Ca nada considering such an initiative? 
 Canada's Response:   Canada does have in place various instruments that govern the working 
relationship between the Competition Bureau (the "B ureau") and various industry regulators at the 
federal and provincial levels. 
Following is an example to illustrate: Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commi ssion ("CRTC")/Competition Bureau Interface 
The two agencies that are active in policing te lecommunications markets are the CRTC and the 
Bureau.  The Bureau administers the Competition Act , which is framework legislation of general 
application, while the CRTC regulates telecommuni cations companies/markets by virtue of its 
jurisdiction under the Telecommunications Act .  There is no exemption under the Competition Act  for 
telecommunication firms, and thus, there is a level of jurisdictional overlap between the Bureau and 
the CRTC with respect to reviewing anticompe titive conduct in the Canadian telecommunication 
sector. 
 
In 2001, the CRTC and the Bureau issued an in terface document that outlines where the CRTC has 
authority (to forbear or exempt telecommunications firms from regulation), where the CRTC and the Bureau both have authority, where the CRTC exer cises exclusive authority and where the Bureau 
exercises exclusive authority.  The CRTC/ Bureau In terface is available on the Bureau's Website at 
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/ site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/01598.html. 
 While the Bureau is not a party to formal MOUs or guidelines with industry regulators, the Bureau works closely and cooperatively as appropriate with  a range of provincial and federal regulators 
whose mandates and/or expertise overlap or touch upon the Bureau's work.  
[EU Question 65]:   Does Canada have any plans to reduce or eliminate domestic market distortions 
that may arise from the provision of public aid or preferential tax treatment?  Canada's Response:   The federal government's approach to creating a competitive business tax 
environment is focused on broad-based reductions in  corporate income tax rates, which has had the 
effect of reducing or eliminating tax rate differentia ls between sectors and businesses.  For example, in 
2000 the federal corporate income tax rate on manuf acturing income was 7 percentage points lower 
than the general rate of 29.12 percent (including the corporate surtax).  In 2012, as a result of a series 
of corporate tax rate reductions and the eliminati on of the corporate surtax, corporate income in 
general and that of the manufacturing sector will be taxed at the same low rate of 15 percent.  The 
federal government has also noted the importance of  improving the efficiency and neutrality of the 
business tax system.  To that end, certain prefer ential tax provisions have been phased-out.  For 
example, Budget 2007 announced the phase-out of th e accelerated capital cost allowance for tangible 
capital assets used in the oil sands sector.  
[EU Question 66]:   The WTO Secretariat's report provides information on the intellectual property 
rights (IPR) related developments;  we would in addition like to ask for further information on IPR 
enforcement.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 130  
 
 Could Canada explain how border measures according to articles 51 to 60 of TRIPS are enforced, by 
which authority and also indicate the national legislation of reference? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada has implemented TRIPS articles 51 to 60 through section 44.1 of the 
Copyright Act  and section 53.1 of the Trade-marks Act .  These provisions permit a copyright or trade-
mark holder to apply to the Federal Court or provinci al superior court for a court order to direct the 
Canadian Border and Services Agency (CBSA) to  take reasonable measures to detain suspected 
infringing goods.  After the goods are detained, the CBSA informs the right holder about the detention 
of the goods, to facilitate a ci vil court enforcement action.  
 
[EU Question 67]:  Could Canada provide more  information about procedures to enable right holders 
to lodge an application for ac tion with competent authorities? 
 Canada's Response:  Section 44.1 of the Copyright Act  and section 53.1 of the Trade-marks Act 
permit an intellectual property right holder, through an application to the Federal Court or provincial 
superior court, to apply for a court order to direct that the Canadian Border and Services Agency 
(CBSA) to take reasonable measures to detain su spected infringing goods.  Once the court order is 
obtained, notice of the court order is provided to th e CBSA who then transmits the order internally, to 
ensure that reasonable measures to  detain suspected infringing goods  is undertaken.  To provide 
assistance to the CBSA, further information can be  provided to better identify the suspected goods 
including a complete description of the goods; the classification of the goods under the Harmonized 
System for Customs tariffs;  the quantity and valu e of the goods; the identity of the importer, e.g. 
name, address (location), business number; the iden tity of the exporter and vendor; the country of 
export; the country of origin;  the place of importation or release;  the approximate date of arrival; and 
the mode of transportation (e.g. sea, rail, land).  
[EU Question 68]:  Could Canada provide info rmation on how competent authorities proceed to 
suspend release into free circulation of  goods suspected of infringing IPR? 
 Canada's Response:  The Canada Border Services Agency does not have the authority to interdict 
goods suspected of infringing IPR.  Under the authority of section 101 of the Customs Act , officers 
may detain goods that have been im ported or about to be exported until the officer is satisfied that the 
goods have been dealt with  in accordance with the Customs Act  or any other Act of Parliament.  
However, this does not apply on goods suspected of infringing IPR.  
[EU Question 69]:  Could Canada confirm if competent authorities can act upon their own initiative 
in detaining goods suspected to infringe IPR a nd suspend their release into free circulation? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canadian customs services are not entitled to seize infringing goods on their 
own initiative.  Under the Copyright Act  and the Trade-marks Act , customs officials are authorized to 
detain suspected infringing goods only pursuant to a court order th at is secured by the right holder. 
 
[EU Question 70]:  Could Canada inform whether its national legislation provide for statistical data 
collection for goods detained because of infringing (or suspected of) IPR? 
 Canada's Response:  Canadian legislation does not have such a provision. 
 
[EU Question 71]:   Could Canada explain whether it consid ers that section 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-
marks Act is consistent with the national tr eatment obligation under WTO Agreements, most 
particularly under Article 3 of the Agreement on Tr ade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
(TRIPS) and Article III: 4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994)? 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 131 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  In the case of Canada Post Corporation v. United States Postal Service  (2005 
FC 1630), the Federal Court interpreted the language in paragraph 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act 
to mean that a "public authority" must be under Canadian governmental supervision to avail itself of the provisions under this paragraph.  The court also  discussed the applicability of Article 2(1) of the 
Paris Convention which states:  "Nationals of any c ountry of the Union shall, as regards the protection 
of industrial property, enjoy in all the other count ries of the Union the advantages that their respective 
laws now grant, or may hereafter grant, to nati onals; all without prejudice to the rights specially 
provided for by this Convention.  Consequently, they  shall have the same protection as the latter, and 
the same legal remedy against any infringement of their rights, provided that the conditions and 
formalities imposed upon nationals are complied with."   The court found that the interpretation of 
paragraph 9(1)(n)(iii) was not incons istent with Article 2(1) of th e Paris Convention.  The Federal 
Court of Appeal agreed (2007 FCA 10), and also men tioned that this interpretation did not offend the 
TRIPS Agreement. 
 
[EU Question 72]:   The WTO Secretariat's report states that "/…/For a subset of products subject to 
WTO tariff-quota commitments (mainly chicken, turk ey, eggs and related pr oducts, broiler hatching 
eggs, and chicks), Canada establis hed under bilateral agreements with  the United States (including the 
Canada-U.S. FTA, subsequently incorporated into  the NAFTA), tariff quotas with in-quota volumes 
defined as a share of domestic production, rather than  in absolute terms as is the case under Canada's 
WTO commitments.  Therefore, the levels of in- quota volumes under preferential agreements vary 
from year to year, and may be lower or higher than  the levels in Canada's WTO commitments.  In 
these cases, the Minister of International Trade w ill generally set in-quota volumes (which can be 
filled with both preferential and non-preferential imports ) at the level that is highest.  For example, in 
the case of chicken and broiler hatching eggs and chicks, Canada's preferential commitments exceed 
those made in the WTO." 
 
How does Canada justify the application of furthe r bilateral preferences within existing multilateral 
WTO tariff quotas?  In order to avoid erosion such  bilateral preferences create within the WTO quota, 
for what reason does Canada not grant these prefer ences within separate bilateral quotas embodied in 
the preferential trade agreement? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's tariff quota volumes for the tariff quotas referred to in the question are 
generally set on an annual basis at the higher of the WTO or global tariff quota volume specified in 
CUSTA.  These tariff quotas are administered on a global basis and are open to all WTO Members.  
[EU Question 73]:   The WTO Secretariat's report informs th at "/…/ While government assistance to 
wheat and barley has generally been limited, th e Single Commodity Transfers (SCT) for wheat and 
barley increased substantially in 2009, reflecting mainly an increase in AgriInsurance payments 
(Table IV.3)./…/". 
 
Could Canada explain the substantial increase in 2009 of the Single Commodity Transfers for wheat 
and barley?  
 
Canada's Response:  The majority of the support to wheat and barley reflected in the SCT figures 
comes from crop insurance.  Total indemnities paid  through crop insurance in 2009 were forecasted 
and the allocation by commodities was estimated.  The 2010 SCT calculation is expected to show the 
level of support for wheat and barley at its norma l level.  2010 calculations will be published by the 
OECD in its 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation report. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 132  
 
 Table I  
Indicators for selected ag ricultural commodities, 2006-09 
(Can$ million) 
Commodity  2006 2007 2008 2009 
Wheat (incl. durum) SCT 32 55 65 101 
 % SCT 1 1 1 2 
Barley SCT 44 60 37 40 
 % SCT 3 2 2 5 
 
[EU Question 74]:  The WTO Secretariat's report states that the Canadian Government of Canada 
was in 2008 seeking legislative changes to repeal the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk monopoly for the marketing of barley, but was not successful. Would the Canadian government envisage seeking once again legislative changes to repeal the CWB's 
single desk monopoly for the marketing of barley?  
 
Canada's Response:  The Canadian Government stated in th e June 2011 Speech from the Throne that 
it will introduce legislation to ensure that western farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley 
on the open market, effectively removing the CWB monopoly.  
[EU Question 75]:   The Class 4(m) milk price heavily subs idises the sale of Canadian origin milk 
protein at a level substantially below both the inte rnational commodity and Ca nada's support price, the 
latter embodied in skim milk powder.   Could Canada please explain the reasons for this program?  
 
Canada's Response:  Class 4(m) for Milk Protein Concentrat es (MPCs) seeks to grow the market by 
stimulating demand for MPCs by Canadian dairy pr ocessors and further processors.  Imports of milk 
proteins in Canada are used in many different a pplications, including food products, nutraceuticals and 
non-food usages.  There is no evidence that the modi fications to Class 4(m) had any significant impact 
on Canada's overall imports of milk proteins concentrates and substitutes.  
 
[EU Question 76]:   The WTO Secretariat's report states that "Concerns have been raised by WTO 
Members about an ice-cream initiative by Dairy Farm ers of Canada. /…/".  The rebate for ice cream 
manufacturers when utilising domestic origin cream and butter (milk) fat appears to be a disguised 
subsidy.  
Could Canada provide informa tion on amount of this rebate? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a private contractual agreement, between 
the Dairy Farmers of Canada, a non-governmental or ganisation, and individual ice cream processors. 
Government authorities do not know the details of these commercial transactions.  
 
[EU Question 77]:   Two Canadian provinces, Quebec and Newfoundland, have in place restrictions 
on exports of raw fish products (Quebec Mari ne Products Processing Act and Newfoundland and 
Labrador Fish Inspection Operations Regulations  NLR 76/07) and three other provinces have the 
possibility to do so.  Could Canada provide further information on what is the federal legal basis for 
the provincial legislation on export restrictions? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's Constitution Act 1867, as ame nded as of 1982, regulates the division 
of powers between provincia l and federal governments.  
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 133 
 
 
 [EU Question 78]:  Furthermore, do provinces other than Quebec and Newfoundland, notably New 
Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, have plans to introduce similar legislation?  If so, 
could Canada pr ovide details? 
 Canada's Response:  No, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia do not have plans 
to introduce similar legislation.  
 
[EU Question 79]:   The WTO Secretariat's report notes the importance Canada places to renewing its 
Fisheries Act and refers to pending legislation, wh ere an important element will be the definition of 
the discretionary powers of the Minister.  Those powers are evident in the issuing of licences for 
commercial fishing.  Could Canada indicate the likel y date of entry into force of the new Fisheries 
Act?  Canada's Response:   Canada does not know yet when the new Fisheries Act will be re-introduced to 
the new Parliament.  For additional details on the proposed Fisheries Act, please see: 
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Pub lication.aspx?DocId=3153 379&Language=e&Mode=1. 
 
[EU Question 80]:  Could Canada explain the current criteria for issuing a fishing licence? 
 Canada's Response:  By virtue of the Fisheries Act , the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 
(DFO) has legislative responsibility for Canada's  seacoast and inland fisheries and unfettered 
discretion related to the issuance of fishing licences.   Canada's approach to licensing criteria policy 
favours managing the fishery in a sustainable manner and managing the fishery to provide for an orderly harvesting of the fishery resource, to promot e viable and profitable ope rations for participants 
and to preserve the independence of the inshore fleet by allowing inshore fish harvesters to maintain 
control over the inshore fishing licences.  Given Ca nada's vast geographic area and total number of 
differing fisheries, no one set of eligibility require ments would adequately cover the full suite of 
Canadian fisheries objectives.  However, while the criteria elements may vary the overarching 
principles are considered.  These include (1) conserva tion, (2) recognition of aboriginal treaty rights, 
and (3) equity.  These principles are measured agai nst other, more traditional criteria, such as 
adjacency, historic dependence and economic viability.  
 
[EU Question 81]:   Moreover, could Canada explain the crit eria for issuing fishing licence in the new 
Act, particularly with regard to foreign compan ies where the Minister has full discretion?  That 
discretion reaches to "countries in good standing"; could Canada please indicate criteria for "good 
standing" and provide a list of those countries?  
Canada's Response:   For details on the new Fisheries Act, please see: 
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publi cation.aspx?DocId=3153379& Language=e&Mode=1  
 
[EU Question 82]:   The WTO Secretariat's report informs that "The Canadian Freshwater Fish 
Marketing Corporation (FFMC), a state-trading enterp rise, enjoys exclusive rights in inter-provincial 
and export trade of the main commercial fish species and related products from the freshwater 
commercial fisheries of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ma nitoba, (parts of) Ontario, and the Northwest 
Territories (pursuant to the Fish Marketing Act and federal-provincial ag reements). /…/" Could 
Canada explain whether foreign Canadian-based priv ately-owned fish farm operations are also under 
the obligation of selling their production through the FFMC? 
 
Canada's Response:  While some fish species are listed in  the Schedule under the Freshwater Fish 
Marketing Act, FFMC does not consider th eir mandate to include cultured fish. 
 
[EU Question 83]:  Could Canada inform when does it expect to make a final announcement 
regarding its plans for the AECL's restructuring? WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 134  
 
 Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada continues confidential negotiations towards the 
divestiture of the CANDU Reactor Division.  A key objective has been to establish a more 
competitive CANDU Inc. under private ownership and to  protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers. 
The Government of Canada places a prior ity on a rigorous and efficient process. 
 
[EU Question 83]:   On page 115, para.89 , the WTO Secretariat's report informs that "The Solar and 
wind projects must meet local-content requirements, i.e. minimum content levels of Ontario-made 
equipment and/or Ontario labour./…/" Could Canada  elaborate on the criteria and methods used to 
assess the level of local content in these projects?  Canada's Response:  Other than those mentioned in the TPR, Canada is unaware of any other support 
initiatives contingent on local content.  
[EU Question 84]:   The WTO Secretariat's report states that "Canada's shipbuilding policy is set out 
in the Shipbuilding and Industrial Marine Policy Framework of 2001.130 The main instruments of Canadian shipbuilding policy, to help sustain th e shipbuilding industry, have been a duty on the 
importation of large ships (eliminated in Oct ober 2010), accelerated capital cost allowance, the 
Structured Financing Facility (SFF), and a Bu y Canada policy for federal procurement." 
 
[EU Question 84]:   Could Canada develop in detail on the content and scope of this "Buy Canada" 
policy? Is this a temporary measure?   Canada's Response:  The 2001 Shipbuilding and Industrial Ma rine Policy includes a Buy Canada 
policy that helps to maintain shipyard capacity to meeting Government of Canada fleet requirements.  
This policy is consistent with WTO obligations.  The federal government excludes all procurement in 
respect of shipbuilding and repair from its intern ational trade agreements.  This policy has no set 
expiration date.  
[EU Question 85]:  While foreign investment restrictions have been removed for Canadian Satellite 
Carriers, the WTO Secretariat's report informs that barriers are still in place for terrestrial facilities 
based operators and currently, three options are under discussion on further opening the telecoms 
industry to foreign investment.   Could Canada provide further info rmation on its future intentions with regard to increasing the 
opportunities for foreign investment in the telecommunications sector?  
 
Canada's Response: The government of Canada is examining this issue.  No announcement has been 
made regarding the timing of a decision.  
[EU Question 86]:   According to the WTO Secretariat's report, "To stimulate competition in the 
wireless market, in Canada's AWS spectrum auc tion held in 2008, spectrum was set aside for new 
entrants./…/".   
With another wireless spectrum auction expected to be  held in the future, could Canada say when this 
auction will occur and how  it will be conducted?  
 
Canada's Response:   Consultations on policy issues for the auction are now concluded.  There will 
be further consultations on the auction design and c onditions of licence later this year.  At this point 
the auction is expected to be held in late 2012 or early 2013.  
 
[EU Question 87]:  Could Canada elaborate on if  it is considering measures to address the lack of 
competitiveness in its financial sector?   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 135 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  The Canadian financial sector is vibrant,  with a variety of players, large and 
small, domestic and foreign.  The Canadian market is open for business and foreign players are welcomed for the competitiveness and innovation that they bring.  
 To encourage foreign entry, there are no limits on th e number of foreign players that can establish in 
Canada, either as branches or subsidiaries; if esta blished as a subsidiary, a foreign bank has the same 
rights as a Canadian financial institution.  Curren tly operating in Canada, there are:  22 domestic 
banks, 26 foreign bank subs, 29 foreign bank branches (6 lending branches, 23 full service branches).   
 The insurance industry (life and property and casualty) is just as open with a very high degree of 
foreign competition in the market.  In 2010, th ere were 45 Canadian incorporated insurance 
companies and 39 foreign branches operating in Canada.  Canada continues to encourage innovation and compe tition in our financial services sector, by striking 
a balance between competition and regulation.  Sma ller financial service providers, both domestic and 
foreign, have made a strong contribution to the dive rsity of consumer choices in this sector, and these 
providers have brought innovative products and price competition to the market.  Furthermore, 
provincially regulated cooperatives are a strong comp etitor in terms of the variety of products and 
services offered, and are the dominant provider of  retail financial services in some parts of the 
country.  
Canada has a strong base of coope rative financial institutions, with almost one third of Canadians 
belonging to a credit union or a caisse populaire.  No twithstanding their generally smaller asset base, 
credit unions and caisses populaires successfully compet e with banks in the non-residential mortgage 
market; they also have strong positions in residen tial mortgages and deposits.  While business credit is 
largely dominated by banks, financial cooperativ es are very active in segments such as commercial 
loans of less than Can$250,000 and between Can$250,00 0, and Can$1,000,000.  In 2007, their shares 
of these two segments were 24% and 23%, respectively.  Canadians are well served by a myriad of financia l institutions and products and our doors are open to 
further competition. 
 
[EU Question 88]:   Is Canada aware of the intrinsic problems posed by diluting responsibility over 
securities regulation among the provincial authorities?   
[EU Question 89]:  Will Canada press for a more homogene ous and unified securities regulatory 
system for all the provinces? 
 
[EU Question 90]:  With the Supreme Court of the Canada cu rrently considering whether the federal 
government has the jurisdiction to create such a re gulatory body, when does the federal government 
expect the Court's opinion to be delivered?  How will the federal government work with provincial 
governments to create such an entity?  
Canada's Response to EU Questions 88 to 90:  The federal government is working with the majority 
of provinces and territories towards establishing a single national securities regulator to replace the 
provincial and territorial securities regulators in part icipating jurisdictions.  While participation in the 
Canadian securities regulator initiative is voluntar y, the Government continues to encourage all 
jurisdictions to partner and help shape th e future of this new Canadian institution.  
 
In May 2010, the federal government tabled for information in Parliament a proposed Canadian 
Securities Act , which proposes significant improvements in terms of governance, adjudication, 
financial stability, and regulatory and criminal enfo rcement, and provides a wide scope of authority to 
regulate financial instruments and participants in capital markets.  At the same time, the federal WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 136  
 
 government referred the proposed Act to the Supr eme Court of Canada for a ruling on whether 
Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation.  The proposed regime 
would lead to significant improvements in terms of governance, adjudication, financial stability, 
investor protection, and regulatory and criminal enforcement.  
In July 2010, the Canadian Securities Transition O ffice, which is leading the transition, released a 
Transition Plan, which sets out a roadmap for the est ablishment of a national securities regulator and a 
vision for its regulatory approach, as well as reco mmendations regarding the governance structure, 
organization design and implementation. Implementation of a Canadian securities regulator is targeted for 2012.   
 
Hearings on the constitutional refere nce were held at the Supreme Court of Canada in April 2011 on 
whether Parliament has the constitutional au thority to enact the proposed Canadian Securities Act .  
The Supreme Court's decision on the matter is pending and is expected sometime in the fall of 2011.   
 
Should a favourable ruling be received from the S upreme Court of Canada, the federal government 
intends to introduce for adoption in Parliament a Securities Act, which would then go through the 
normal parliamentary legislative process.  The fe deral government will take the necessary steps to 
support a transition that minimizes disruption and uncertainty.  
[EU Question 91]:  Does the Government of Canada have any plans to work with provincial 
governments to amend these requirements?  
 Canada's Response:   Throughout the Doha round of negotia tions, the federal government always 
consults with important stakehol ders, such as provincial authorities, to discuss possible avenues to 
further liberalise the trade in services in particular  sectors.  In the case of accounting services, Canada 
would have been prepared to consider the removal of some scheduled GATS limitations in this sector 
in the context of an ambitious and balanced outcome of the whole round.  
 
India  
[India Question 1 (first set)]:  The Canadian government from 1s t October 2011 ended the National 
Pilot Program under which skilled IT professionals fro m Indian have been getting a special category 
visa for short duration of work on legitimate busine ss projects at a pre-set salary range to work in 
Canada.  It has been reported that from 1st Ja nuary 2011 Canada insists on Labour Market Opinion 
(LMO) visa category salary requirement for all ICT category visa for Indian professional to work in Canada.  The process of obtaining Labour Market Opinion is cumbersome and time consuming. 
Canada is requested to restore the IT category visa and to allow free movement of specialized 
knowledge/managerial category people through a liber al interpretation of eligibility criteria.  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada views this question to have two distinct elements, which deal with two 
separate processes. 
1) With respect to India's question regarding "IT category visas," labour market conditions in 
the 1990s prompted the development, on a pilot basis in 1997, of a procedure that provided for a determination at the national level that there were no likely negative impacts associated 
with the entry of temporary fo reign workers in the seven info rmation technology specialities.  
Therefore, employers wanting to hire forei gn workers were deemed to have an implied 
positive labour market opinion.  Applying a la bour market opinion to all applications for 
foreign information technology workers do es not constitute the imposition of a new 
restriction.  It is a procedural change applicab le to occupations that have always been subject 
to a labour market test.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 137 
 
 
 2) With respect to India's question regardi ng "specialized knowledge/managerial category" 
Canada already has robust commitments on intra-corporate transferees, which have similar eligibility requirements as India's for intra-co rporate transferees.  Canada continues to 
reference the salary as one of several indicators of specialized knowledge. 
 
[India Question 2 (first set)]:  Traditional Knowledge Digital Librar y (TKDL) is an Indian digital 
knowledge repository of the traditiona l knowledge, especially about medi cinal plants and formulations 
used in Indian systems of medicine.  Such tr aditional knowledge is classified as per international 
patent classification systems.  The objective of the library is to protect traditional knowledge of the 
country from illegitimate exploitation through bio-pi racy and erroneous patent.  We request the 
Canadian Patent Office to consider entering in to an access agreement for accessing the TKDL of 
India, as the USPTO and EPO have already done. Canada's Response:  On October 1st, 2010 the Canadian Inte llectual Property Office announced that 
it had signed an agreement with India's Council for Sc ientific and Industrial Research that allows 
patent examiners to access the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. 
 
[India Question 3 (first set)]:  Export Inspection Council of India ensures quality of commodities 
exported from India. EIC´s certificate has been  recognized by number of countries for diverse 
products.  It would be useful to conclude an equi valence agreement in order to have a safe and smooth 
export of agricultural commodities into Canada.  It is informed that the draft agreement has been 
forwarded to the Canada for consid eration.  Canada is requested to  kindly provide update on the status 
of the agreement and indicate by when  Canada would be ready to sign it. 
 Canada's Response:  The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (C FIA) received a copy of this draft 
agreement in December 2008.  After conducting a prel iminary review of this draft agreement, the 
CFIA requested the contact name and complete coor dinates of the individual(s) to whom the response 
should be addressed to.  This information was r eceived from the Canadian High Commission in New 
Delhi on June 7
th, 2011.  The CFIA will draft a response to  facilitate further communications on this 
matter shortly.  
[India Question 4 (first set)]:  We have been informed by the I ndian Spice that exporters find it 
difficult to comply with Canadian Labelling requireme nt as products often include very long lists of 
ingredients.  We request Canada to look into the possibility of having an exemption by allowing for 
inclusion of a leaflet inside the packaging as an alterna tive.  It is learnt that some bilateral exchange on 
this have taken place, we would appreciate to  receive Canada's response on this proposal.   
Canada's Response:  Canada notes that it received a letter from the Indian government related to 
Canadian labelling requirements in September 2008.  As  stated in Canada's response in October 2008, 
all pre-packaged foods must meet certa in minimum requirements listed under the Food and Drugs Act  
and Regulations  and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and Regulations .  All in-going 
ingredients on multi-ingredient foods must be declar ed and must appear on the outside of the package 
on the label.  The list of ingredients declaration may appear on any label panel, except the bottom of 
the package.  When spices are so ld singly, they must be declared by their specific common name. 
While Canada would not be able to allow for an exemption to these requirements, there are certain 
ingredients that may be listed under class names when in a multi-ingredient food in order to simplify 
the list.  This includes spices, seasonings or herbs.  In the list of ingredients, where the class name 
‘spice' is used, a component list of the spices in the product is not required to be shown, with the 
exception of some components such as salt, monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed plant protein, flavour 
enhancers, peanuts or their derivatives, priority food allergens, such as sesame seeds, and any 
ingredient that has a functional effect on the final food.  For example, a curry powder made of many 
spices, flour as a thickener and salt, may have the following ingredients declaration, Ingredients:  
spices, wheat flour, salt.  When spi ces are sold in a blend, such as sp ice blends, spice and herb blends WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 138  
 
 or seasoning blends, it is permissible to use the class name option of spices, herbs or seasoning in the 
list of ingredients.  This could help allevi ate the concerns raised by Indian Spice. 
 
[India Question 1 (second set)]:  The Investment Canada Act  (1985, as amended) and its 
implementing regulations govern the establishment of new businesses in Canada, and acquisition of 
control of existing business by non-Canadians.  The pur pose of the Act is to "provide for the review of 
significant investments in Canada by non-Canadi ans in a manner that encourages investment, 
economic growth and employment opportunities in Canada and to provide for the review of 
investments in Canada by non-Canadians that c ould be injurious to national security.  The 2009 
amendments introduced a national security review  process through a new Part IV.1 on "Investments 
Injurious to National Security".  This amendment allows for the review of investments on national 
security grounds if the Minister of Industry, after c onsultation with the Minister of Public Safety and 
Emergency Preparedness, considers that the investme nt could be injurious to national security and the 
Governor in Council, on recommendation of the Minist er of Industry, makes an order for review. The 
concept of national security is not defined. Can Ca nada be pleased to explain the specific grounds for 
deciding the investment decisions on the grounds of national security reasons as this concept has not 
been defined in the said Act?  
Canada's Response:  The national security review process bri ngs Canada in line with what other 
developed countries are doing to safeguard their na tional security.  Threats to national security are 
constantly evolving.  The legisla tion and the regulations do not define national security since it would 
limit flexibility to respond to future  threats, as is the practice of most other countries.  Canada will 
ensure that the application of the new national secur ity mechanism is consistent with its international 
trade obligations and the best practices of other i ndustrialized economies.  The national security test 
requires the Minister of Industry to consult with other safety and intelligence departments in order to 
identify cases where there are reasonable grounds to belie ve that an investment could be injurious to 
national security. 
 
[India Question 2 (second set)]: It is stated that Canada is c onsidering extending the scope of SPS-
related licensing requirements for importers for a wide  range of food products and ingredients. Canada 
is requested to elaborate as to why it is propos ing to extend the scope of SPS-related licensing 
requirements for importers for a wide ra nge of food products and ingredients? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is developing a regulatory propo sal for the licensing of importers that 
will enhance import controls of food products and ingredients that ar e regulated solely under the Food 
and Drug Act .  The purpose of this proposal is to stre ngthen the accountability of importers for the 
safety of the products they import, better iden tify and engage regulated parties importing food 
products and ingredients, enhance verification of  compliance with food safety requirements, and 
minimize the risk of unsafe products entering the Canadian marketplace. 
 
[India Question 3 (second set)]:  Official support to Canadian businesses is available in various 
configurations, with public funds being allocated a nd administered both at the federal and sub-federal 
levels.  Most initiatives tend to promote entrepreneur ship, innovation, and regional development.  In 
addition, there are a number of programmes that focus on social and cultural priorities or specific 
industries.  In some cases, federal and/or pr ovincial support may be c ontingent upon local-content 
requirements, or be targeted at Canadian-cont rolled corporations.  At end 2010, Canadian 
entrepreneurs could qualify for financial assistan ce under 441 programmes, of which 112 also support 
export-oriented projects.  Under the Business Cred it Availability Program, a component of Canada's 
response to the global financial crisis, access to financing for Canadian businesses has been improved 
through new resources and flexibilities to Export Development Canada (EDC) and the Business 
Development Bank of Canada (BDC), both Crown co rporations wholly owned by the Government. 
Canada may please provide the reasons for maintain ing these local-content requirement for investment  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 139 
 
 
 decisions and also explain how these are in conf ormity with their commitments under the specific 
provisions of TRIMS Annex Illustrativ e (1) (a) and List and GATT, 1994?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is in compliance with its WTO TRIMs obligations. 
 
[India Question 4 (second set)]:  Can Canada be pleased to clarify whether their Excise Act is in 
compliance with Article III of GATT, 1994?  Canada's Response:  Canada is fully compliant with GATT Article III.  Moreover,  the federal excise 
measure related to beer is modelled  after similar programs in other countries and has not had the effect 
of curtailing growth in imports of beer into Cana da.  Indeed, imports of beer (HS 2203) into Canada 
have increased 32% during the review period.  
[India Question 5 (second set)]:  It is mentioned that used or second-hand vehicles remain prohibited 
from importation into Canada (tariff item HS 9897.00.0 0 of the Customs Tariff) with the exception of 
those imported from the United States, provided they me et Canadian Safety Standards.  India will like 
to know whether this selective permission to USA is in line with Canada's MFN obligation. 
 Canada's Response:  Canada provides a liberalized vehicle market but does so within a framework 
that will not jeopardize the safety of Canadian road users.  
The treatment referred to was negotiated as part of NAFTA, a preferential free trade agreement, but 
within a regulatory framework that still main tains the precedence on Canadian vehicle safety 
regulations.  The GATT recognizes the desirability of  such closer integration between economies. 
 Most vehicles sold at the retail level in the Unite d States are manufactured to nearly identical safety 
standards to Canadian specification vehicles and most  are capable of being modified to meet Canadian 
requirements.  This 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 minor changes that do not im pair the existing safety features) to meet the few 
additional Canadian safety standards that they may no t 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.  
[India Question 6 (second set)]:  The Secretariat Report had indicated  that the Standard Council of 
Canada (SCC)-accreditation criteria are based on IS O Standards and include additional requirements 
to fulfill the needs of Canadian regulatory aut horities.  But Canada had not specified these 
requirements. Canada is requested to provi de the details regarding these requirements. 
 Canada's Response:  The additional requirements are specified  in a document produced by the SCC, 
entitled, Canadian-procedures (CAN-P) 1500M: 
 
http://www.scc.ca/en/c/document_library/g et_file?uuid=dd2f9406-8386-4aaa-9ee4-
63ce63ffecae&groupId=10174 (English).  
http://www.scc.ca/fr/c/document_library/get _file?uuid=522ecf8a -b73c-4603-8f33-
90cada3c3874&groupId=10174 (French).  It outlines requirements for certification bodies (CBs) to: 
 establish working relationships with Canadian regulatory authorities to help CBs to confirm 
regulatory requirements such as corrective action, dual language requirements, etc.; WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 140  
 
  demonstrate to SCC how they have taken steps to  protect and control their certification marks; 
 advise the relevant Regulatory Authority Advi sory Committee of any safety-related product 
incidents or safety related recalls involving products that were certified for the Canadian marketplace and to copy SCC on all such corr espondence for inclusion in the SCC Product 
Advisory database. 
[India Question 7 (second set)]:  The Secretariat Report had indicated that Canadian measures for 
protection of youth from industry marketing prac tices that encourage smoking prohibits the 
manufacture and sale of cigarettes, little cigars and blunt wraps, containing certain additives including 
flavorings, that are considered to make these products more appealing.  Canada is requested to furnish 
details regarding what scientific evidence has been  relied upon for enacting th ese measures especially 
when considering the fact that many additives (including menthol) has been excluded from this 
prohibition. 
 
Canada's Response:  There is sound evidence that certain add itives, including flavours, do increase 
tobacco product attractiveness.  The amendments to the Tobacco Act  include a Schedule of Prohibited 
additives that bans the use of ingredients such as flavours that tobacco manufacturers can use to make 
cigarettes, little cigars and blunt wraps more entici ng to youth.  Canada would like to note that at the 
TBT Committee meeting held in June 2010, it had prepared a selection of references among numerous 
publicly available studies that have examined the u se of additives that increase  the appeal of tobacco 
products.  Canada made available a 14-page list of selected references as a room document.  Canada 
would be pleased to forward a copy of this document. 
 
[India Question 8 (second set)]:  The Secretariat Report had indicated that the regulation providing 
for compositional requirements for cheese, has to be in accordance with the Codex Alimentarius, 
which is provided for as the International Standa rd in the SPS Agreement with respect to food 
additives, veterinary drug and pesticide residues, c ontaminants, methods of analysis and sampling, and 
codes and guidelines of hygienic practice;  Any devi ation from the same is required to be backed by 
scientific evidence. Mere complian ce of cheese imports according to th e revised standard cannot be a 
justification for such a measure.  Canada is requested to provide details regarding the same. 
 Canada's Response:  Canada would like to note that the Secretariat's report states that other Members 
have raised concerns regarding the cheese compositiona l standards in relation to  Codex.  Canada does 
not consider these amendments to be an SPS meas ure.  The purpose of the regulatory amendments 
was to harmonize two sets of regulations that pr eviously governed the composition of cheese – the 
Food and Drug regulations and the Dairy Products Regulations.  Wh en developing these regulations, 
Canada took international standards, as well as the comments received during the World Trade 
Organization notification period.  
[India Question 9 (second set)]:  SPS-related import requirements ar e not uniform in Canada, as 
certain subject matters as listed in the Provincial gove rnment's jurisdiction.  Hence the standards laid 
down will be different.  The obligations required under the SPS Agreement are such that the measures 
so enacted shall not be an unnecessary obstacle to in ternational trade.  The SPS requirements which 
are different for different states may be trade restri ctive owing to the long procedural and differential 
standards requirements.  Canada is requested to provide reasons why some states maintain different 
and additional SPS measures in relation to food produ cts.  Canada may also provide information on 
cases where there was a conflict between the Fe deral and sub-Federal SPS measures and which 
measure was finally allowed to prevail.  Further, Canada may also like to elaborate on the mechanism 
of handling such different and a dditional SPS measures at the point of import and subsequent inland 
transport. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 141 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  Canada would like to note that the specific examples of provincial measures 
listed in this paragraph of the Secretariat's report are not examples of SPS measures.  The Federal government has jurisdiction with regards to interna tional and inter-provincial trade for SPS issues. As 
stated in the WTO Secretariat's report, the Govern ment of Canada is not aware of any SPS measures 
adopted by sub-federal authorities that have a trade impact. 
 
[India Question 10 (second set)]:  It has been stated that a number of provinces and territories (e.g. 
Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nunavut, Yukon) o ffer fuel tax exemptions or rebates for certain 
commercial activities. Canada may please state the cr iteria used by different states for determining 
eligibility for fuel tax exemptions or rebates?  C ould Canada provide the annual amount of fuel tax 
exemptions or rebates provided for the fish eries sector since its previous review? 
 Nova Scotia's fuel tax provides a variety of exemptions under regulations to the Revenue Act which 
are: 
 Naphtha gasoline (S. 22(1)(b)); 
 Furnace oil and stove oil (S. 22(1)(b)); 
 Vehicles operated by the Department of Tr ansportation and Infrastructure Renewal (S. 
22(2)(a));  
 Vehicles and equipment owned by a city, town, municipality or service commission or 
corporation operated as a public work or servi ce by or for a city, town or municipality (S. 
22(2)(b));  
 Vehicles operated solely for firefighting (S. 22(2)(c));  
 Fishing vessels, while the fishing vessel is being used for the purpose of fishing or 
harvesting of marine plants, provided that such fishing vessel is a Canadian fishing vessel or 
is leased to a Canadian corporation and lands its catch in Canada, or transfers all or part of 
its catch to another vessel while inside Canadi an fisheries waters or to operate machinery 
and apparatus utilized in aquaculture (S. 22(2)(d));  
 Used to operate drilling equipment used in the drilling of wells for the supply of water, but 
not including motor vehicles (S. 22(2)(e));  
 Ship, boat or vessel while it is being used as a commercial ferry on a regularly scheduled 
route (S. 22(2)(f));  
 Railway locomotives (S. 22(2)(g));  
 Heating buildings (S. 22(2)(h));  
 Machinery used in a commercial farming operation by a farmer (S. 22(2)(j)(i));  
 Machinery used in the production or harvesting of forest products for sale (S. 22(2)(j)(ii));  
 Machinery used in the manufacture or production of goods for sale (S. 22(2)(j)(iii));  
 Machinery used to develop electricity to power  machinery and apparatus when used in the 
manufacture or production of goods for sale (S. 22(2)(j)(iv)); 
 
For details on personal exemptions to Nova Scotia's income tax, see:  http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance/ 
en/home/taxation/personalincometax/default.aspx. 
For details on personal exemptions  to Nova Scotia's Harmonized tax (HST), see:  http://www.gov. 
ns.ca/finance/en/home/taxation/harmonizedsalestax/hstrebates.aspx. 
For details on exemptions to Nova Scotia's corporate tax, see:  http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance 
/en/home/taxation/businesstax/corporateincometax/default.aspx. 
 Nova Scotia estimates that approximately 6.8 per cent of the total diesel sold in Nova Scotia can be 
attributable to fishing, based on available data s ources. Based on this, Nova Scotia estimates the value 
of the fuel exemption for the fisheries sector in Nova Scotia to be $6.1 million in 2007;  $6.1 million WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 142  
 
 in 2008;  $5.8 million in 2009;  and $5.6 million in  2010. For further information, see: "Overview of 
the Nova Scotia Tax System" p. 22. 
 
The NWT does not offer fuel tax exemptions.  
 
The exemptions/rebates from British Columb ia motor fuel tax are as follows: 
 
 Natural gas is exempt from motor fuel tax wh en used in compressors  that are used to 
transmit waste gas within a gas processing plant or from a gas processing plant to a well or used in compressors located at a well head and used to inject waste g as into a depleted well 
for disposal; 
 Marine bunker fuel is exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 Marine gas oil is exempt from motor fuel tax wh en used in a marine gas turbine that propels 
a commercial passenger or cargo carrying ship; 
 Fuel with at least 85% methanol is exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 Natural gas used as motor fuel is  exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 Propane is exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 Hydrogen (except when produced using coal-g enerated electricity unless emissions from 
coal is captured and stored or captured and sequestered) is exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 A First Nation public body performing a government function under a First Nation Tax 
Treatment Agreement is entitled to refund of  motor fuel tax in accordance with the 
Agreement; 
 A member of a Treaty First Nation under a Treaty is exempt from motor fuel tax in 
accordance with the Treaty; 
 A Status Indian is exempt from motor fuel tax in accordance with section 87 of the Indian 
Act (Canada); 
 Diplomats and Consular officials who are not c itizens or permanent residents of Canada are 
exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 A visiting force as defined in Section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act (Canada) is exempt from 
motor fuel tax; 
 Farmers are exempt from tax on coloured fuel; 
 A person is entitled to a refund of tax on jet fuel  used for an international (flight must begin 
or end outside of Canada or the continental United States) cargo flight; 
 A person is entitled to a partial refund of tax on je t fuel used for an international (flight must 
begin or end outside of Canada or the con tinental United States) mixed cargo and passenger 
flight; refund is limited to ca rgo portion of the total payload;  A person with a disability who 
is 16 years of age or older and owns or leases a motor vehicle entitled to a maximum annual refund of motor fuel tax of $500;  and 
 A licensed carrier operating under the Interna tional Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) is entitled 
to a refund of tax paid on motor fuel where the purchases of motor fuel in British Columbia 
exceed the fuel used in British Columbia. 
 There is no specific exemption or rebate from British Columbia motor fuel tax for the fisheries sector. 
 Saskatchewan provides fuel tax exemptions and reba tes for fuel use by farmers and primary producers 
(commercial fishers, trappers and loggers), for u se in mineral exploration activities and for use as 
heating fuel.  The total value of these exempti ons is estimated to be  $141 million in 2011. 
 Under Alberta's Fuel Tax, there are two programs that exempt consumers from the fuel tax:  (i) Alberta Farm Fuel Benefit - this exempts farmers fro m paying the fuel tax;  and (ii) Tax Exempt Fuel 
Use (TEFU) - this program exempts fuel used for commercial purposes in  unlicensed vehicles, 
machinery, and equipment at off-road locations from the Alberta fuel tax.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 143 
 
 
 The following roads and areas qualify as off-road locations:  any area that is  not a highway as defined 
in the  Traffic Safety Act  (T-6 RSA 2000) (see below), a licence- of-occupation road, a private road on 
private or Crown land, or a highway under constructi on if the road is closed to travel by the public 
 
Applicant Eligibility:  
 
Commercial entities – Subject to successful enrolment,  any sole proprietor, pa rtnership, trust, or 
corporation may apply for an exemption of Alberta fuel tax for fuel used in eligible unlicensed 
vehicles or equipment for commercial purpo ses in off-road operations in Alberta. 
 
Non-commercial entities – Subject to successful enrolm ent, an exemption of fuel tax may also be 
granted to the following non-commercial entities:  city, town, village, summer village, municipal 
district, specialized municipality or town under the  Parks Towns Act ;  school board; public college or 
university as defined in the  Post-secondary Learning Act ;  Metis settlement;  or regional health 
authority. 
 
The "Tax Plan" in the 2011 Alberta Budget outlines recent changes that have been made to fuel tax 
exemptions in Alberta.  Effective February 24, 2011, the Tax Exempt Fuel Use (TEFU) rebate for 
licensed vehicles, including Prescribed Rebate O ff-road Percentages (PRO P) was eliminated.  
However, as noted above, the marked fuel com ponent of TEFU for licensed Alberta Farm Fuel 
vehicles is still in effect, and was not affected by  this change.  More information can be found here: 
http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/budge t/budget2011/tax-plan.pdf, at page 146. 
 For information on fuel tax exemptions in Manit oba, please visit: http://web2.go v.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ 
ccsm/f192e.php. 
 
[India Question 11 (second set)]:  Canada as a signatory of the GPA is stated to have awarded 13% 
of the total value of the contracts at the Fede ral Government level above the committed threshold 
value.  Canada is requested to provide informa tion on the total value and the number of contracts 
awarded covered by the GPA.  Further, Canada is  requested to provide information on how many of 
these contracts were awarded to foreign entities a nd how many of such contracts were awarded to 
entities from the United States, European Un ion, Japan and the value of the same. 
 
Canada's Response:  The total value and number of contr acts awarded covered by the GPA for 
calendar year 2007 (most recent data) is: Value – $1.899 billion Number – 1.759 contracts 
 
Regarding specific information on the number and va lue of contracts awarded to the U.S., EU and 
Japan, there is no complete or reliable information available.  
[India Question 12 (second set)]:  The Secretariat report has brought out  details about the working of 
the Competition Policy in Canada.  What mechan ism exists for foreign entities to move the 
Competition Tribunal against misuse or abuse of dominant position by other entities? 
 Canada's Response:  The Commissioner of Competition (the "Commissioner") is responsible for 
inquiries under the Competition Act , and is provided with significant powers with which to carry them 
out.  The Competition Tribunal is responsible for adjudication of the civil provisions of the 
Competition Act , including the abuse of dominance provisions.  Only the Commissioner can make an 
application to the Tribunal for a remedial orde r under the abuse of dominance provisions of the 
Competition Act .  If a foreign entity complains to the Bureau about abuse of dominance by another 
entity, Bureau staff will evaluate the situation and market conditions ag ainst the three following 
criteria: WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 144  
 
  one or more persons substantially or complete ly control, throughout Canada or any area 
thereof, a class or species of business; 
 that person or those persons have engaged or  are engaging in a practice of anti-competitive 
acts;  and 
 the practice has had, is having, or is likely to have the effect of substantially preventing or 
lessening competition in a market. 
If the criteria have been met, Bureau officers will be gin interviews and a review of records, documents 
and other sources of information.  The Bureau can al so apply to the courts for subpoenas or use other 
compulsory means to continue its investigation.  Th e Bureau conducts its investigations in private and 
keeps confidential the identity of the source and the information provided.  However, if someone has 
important evidence about an offence under the Act, that  person may be asked to testify in court.  For 
information on the Competition Bureau of Canada's (the Bureau) approach to abuse of dominance, 
please consult the Bureau's Abuse of Market  Power Pamphlet (http://www.competitionbureau. 
gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03211.html) and the Bu reau's Enforcement Guidelines on the Abuse of 
Dominance Provisions (http://www.competition bur eau.gc.ca/eic/ site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/01251.html). 
 
[India Question 13 (second set)]:  The Secretariat Report talks of the exceptions in the legislation 
and procedural set up of the Competition Policy of Canada including the exception in favour of Crown 
Corporations whose commercial activities are not in actual or potential competition with other 
persons.  Canada is requested to explain how it seek s to ensure there is no abuse of dominant position 
in traded goods and services by Crown Corporations.  
Canada's Response:  Section 79 of Canada's Competiti on Act (the "Act") authorizes the 
Commissioner of Competition to apply to the Competition Tribunal for a remedial order where a person or firm that substantially or completely co ntrols a class of business, has engaged in, or is 
engaging in, a practice of anti-competitive acts, with  the effect or likely effect of substantially 
preventing or lessening competition in a market.  An order issued under this section enjoins the 
dominant firm from continuing its conduct, and ma y also include the imposition of an administrative 
monetary penalty to ensure future compliance.  Generally speaking, any entities in the marketplace, 
including Crown Corporations that engage in actua l or potential commercial activities, are subject to 
the abuse of dominance provision of the Act.  
[India Question 14 (second set)]:   The Secretariat Report reveals the current state of play in the field 
of IPRs in Canada including the recent developmen ts. The Report does not mention that Canada has 
been a major founder-member of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  When does Canada, if at all, intend to ratify the ACTA? Cana da may also explain what redress is available to 
foreign entities who are aggrieved by copyright viola tions in the manner of illegal copies of their 
digital works being available on websit es hosted on servers based in Canada? 
Canada's Response:  Canada is committed to modernizing its  intellectual property protection and 
enforcement regime, in order to combat counterfeiting and piracy. 
 
Canada participated actively in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement  (ACTA) negotiations and is 
supportive of international standards on enforcement.  Canada is still considering next  steps with regard to ACTA. 
 
In respect of copyright, if a reproduction is locat ed on a server in Canada, then rights holders, both 
domestic and foreign, would have the same types of remedies against the infringing copy as for any other type of infringing copies.  This could include :  access to injunctions to remove or delete the 
infringing material, damages, exemplary damages,  statutory damages, and accounting for profits.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 145 
 
 
 [India Question 15 (second set)]:  The Patent Rules notified in October 2010 are seen to have 
compulsory licensing provisions.  Canada may ki ndly elaborate under what conditions compulsory 
licensing provisions can be activate.  Canada's Response:  The amendments to the Patent Rules in 2010 do not amend nor impact Canada's 
compulsory licensing provisions.  Canada's patent laws provide that compulsory licenses may be 
granted by the Commissioner of Patents in the following situations:  Abuse of Exclusive Patent Rights:  The Patent Act , in section 65, provides that, anytime after three 
years from the date on which a patent was granted, the Attorney General or any interested person may 
file an application with the Commissioner of Patents alleging an abuse of patent rights.  A patent will 
be deemed to be abused when the demand for the pr oduct in Canada is not met, or where the patent 
holder refuses to grant a license or the conditions of the license results in prejudice to the trade or 
industry in Canada or persons in th e trade/industry, and it is in the public interest that the license be 
granted by the holder.  Also, there may be abuse where a patent is used to unfairly prejudice the 
manufacture, use of sale or any material in Canada. 
 Where abuse is alleged, the Commissioner h as the authority under section 66 of the Patent Act  to 
grant a license to an applicant, subject to certain  conditions, or grant a license to the applicant or 
his/her customers (where the patent has been used  by the patentee so as to unfairly prejudice the 
manufacture, use or sale of any material in Canada). 
 
Government Use of Patents:  The Patent Act , in Section 19, provides that the Government of Canada 
may apply to the Commissioner of Patents for authori zation to use a patented invention.  The use of 
the patented invention may only be authorized  for a limited time and only for the purposes of 
supplying the domestic market.  The Commissioner may not authorize government use of a patent 
unless it is shown that reasonable efforts had been made to obtain a license from the patentee, unless 
there is a national emergency or extreme urgency.  Use of Patents for International Humanitarian Purpos es to Address Public Hea lth Problems:  Canada's 
Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR), section 21.01 – 21.2 of the Patent Act , allows the 
Commissioner of Patents to grant a compulsory license authorizing the manufacture and export of a 
generic pharmaceutical product to an eligible im porting country that has notified the World Trade 
Organization of its need to combat a public health  problem such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria 
and other epidemics. 
 
[India Question 16 (second set)]:  The Secretariat report shows that government is giving assistance 
to encourage producer saving through AgriInvest.  This fund can be used to address small margin 
declines not covered by AgriStability or to make investment in operation.  Could Canada provide 
information on how the assistance under this pr ogramme will be dealt in Domestic Support 
notifications and what are the definition/criteria of  eligible producers who can participate in this 
programme?  Canada's Response:  The necessary data collection for the Table DS:1 notifications, in which 
measures under the Growing Forward Framework Agre ement will be included, is underway.  Canada 
will submit its domestic support notification to th e Committee on Agriculture when it is completed, 
classifying its measures in accordance with the rules of the Agreement on Agriculture. The 
definition/criteria of eligible producers are summarized as follows: 
 
 Individuals, partners in a partnership (except in Quebec), co-operatives, corporations, estates, 
trusts, limited partnerships (except in Quebec), a nd landlords in a joint venture are eligible to 
participate. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 146  
 
  To be eligible, producers must have report ed farming income (or loss) for tax purposes. 
 Status Indians farming on reserves in Canada who do  not file a tax return are also eligible to 
participate in AgriInvest. 
 
[India Question 17 (second set)]:  The Secretariat report indicates that the dairy sector in Canada is 
protected through various measures like tariff quotas,  prohibitive out-of-quota tariffs, support prices 
(butter and skimmed milk powder), production quotas (milk), and expor t subsidies.  Milk receives the 
high level of commodity-specific support (about Ca n$3.4 billion in 2009).  The applied MFN tariffs 
on dairy products, which averaged 237.3% in 2010,  are the highest among all major product groups. 
Since such high level of subsidies and tariff severely affects the access of dairy products from 
developing countries to Canadian market, Canada is  requested to indicate whether it has any plans to 
reduce such tariffs and subsidies in the futu re and the timeframe if any of the same. 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's is a strong supporter of an ambitious outcome of the agricultural 
negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda. 
 
Supply management is a system that ensures a stable supply of dairy, poultry and eggs to Canadian 
consumers and the agri-food industry.  It also promot es stable farm incomes.  The supply management 
system has served Canada well for many years,  and Canada has no plans to alter the system. 
 
[India Question 18 (second set )]:  It has been stated that in 2009, as part of the federal government's 
support of the auto industry, financial restructuri ng assistance was provided to both GM and Chrysler 
to prevent the disorderly collapse of  these companies.  Further in Tabl e IV.6 it has been specified that 
an amount of US$9.5 bn. was provided a support as loans to GM for restructuring.  Could Canada 
confirm that this amount would be treated as a subsidy under the ASCM?  If not, could Canada 
provide reasons for it?  Canada's Response:  In November 2008, the IMF called for a coordinated injection of economic 
stimulus equivalent to 2% of GDP, in order to m itigate the impact of the global economic crises.  The 
Government of Canada responded in  January 2009 with Canada's Ec onomic Action Plan that included 
Measures Supporting Industries and Communities.  Unde r this program and in coordination with the 
U.S. Automotive Financing Program, the Government s of Canada and Ontario provided financial 
support to General Motors and Chrysler to enable them to conduct orderly restructurings and achieve 
viability  
 
[India Question 19 (second set )]:  It has been noticed that most of Canada's SPS and TBT 
notifications for the period 1995 -2011 do not indicat e the HS Code of the products under notification. 
Canada is requested to provide details regarding the same . 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada would like to note that the Secretariat's report states that other Members 
have raised concerns regarding the cheese compositiona l standards in relation to  Codex.  Canada does 
not consider these amendments to be an SPS meas ure.  The purpose of the regulatory amendments 
was to harmonize two sets of regulations that pr eviously governed the composition of cheese – the 
Food and Drug regulations and the Dairy Products Regulations.  Wh en developing these regulations, 
Canada took international standards, as well as the comments received during the World Trade 
Organization notification period.  
[India Question 20 (second set )]:  Canada states that it is taking a series of foreign investment 
promotion and protection agreements (FIPAs) which is  in force with many countries.  It would be 
greatly appreciated if Canada provides inform ation regarding the measures taken to promote 
investment in the region.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 147 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada is committe d to energizing global investment and 
innovation, and to supporting Canadians pursuing investment and innovation opportunities abroad. 
Building on the progress being made in negotiating bi lateral investment and S&T agreements with key 
partners, as well as partnerships with Export Development Canada, the Canadian Commercial 
Corporation and with the provinces and territories and business stakeholders, the federal government 
is expanding its efforts to promote Canada's st rengths as a partner and destination for global 
investment, enterprise and innovation.  Under a new Foreign Investment Promotion Strategy, Canada's 
commercial network at home and abroad is focusi ng on building the Canada "brand" in key markets 
and priority sectors through a wide range of new initiatives with an allotted annual budget of C$4.5 
million budget.  Under the Champions Program umbr ella, investment promotion and services include: 
 
• Investment Champions Program:  Canadian business leaders are invited to reach out to prospective 
investors to highlight specific opportunities for part nering with Canadian companies, and the business 
cases for doing so.  Investment Champions help draw  potential investors to industry-specific events 
across Canada and enrich the itineraries of visits  to Canada by potential investors.  Investment 
messaging from a peer perspective is delivered at  major international business events attended by 
influential corporate decision-makers.  • Investment Promotion Tools:  New tools that articulate strong business cases for partnering with 
Canadian companies in key sectors and industries, such as Canada's Flagship Report and sector and 
industry-specific materials, are updated annually or bi-annually. 
 
• Investment Awareness Outreach:   Showcasing Canada's attractive business climate and thousands 
of innovative and highly competitive businesses to the world at events in priority markets. 
 • Investor Aftercare Services:  Services offered to help foreign i nvestors in Canada connect to the 
Canadian suppliers, professionals , labour, knowledge and innovation netw orks they need.  Investors 
are also be provided with help in identifying e xpansion opportunities and/or ways to address issues 
affecting their current operations. 
 
INDONESIA  
[Indonesia Question 1]:   As noted in the report of Secretariat, Canada provides official support to 
Canadian businesses in various configurations, with  public funds being allocated and administered 
both at the federal and sub-federal level.  The main  objectives of this official support tend to be to 
promote entrepreneurship, innovation and regional de velopment.  Official support in the form of 
financial assistance is provided to Canadian en trepreneurs through 441 programmes, 112 programmes 
of support export-oriented projects.  
 
Could Canada please clarify that the official support given to Canada entrepreneurs is not in fact a 
kind of subsidy and thus does not violate existing WTO rules?  Canada's Response:  All official support programs for Cana dian business, at the federal and sub-
federal level, are consistent with  Canada's existing international tr ade obligations. Canada's subsidy 
notification to the WTO is prepar ed in accordance with the obligati ons outlined in Article 25 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Ca nada's latest subsidy.  Canada's latest 
subsidy notification is available on the WTO website – document (G/SM/N/186/CAN). 
 
[Indonesia Question 2]:  According to Canada's policy on th e General Preferential Tariff, LDCs 
countries receive low tariff treatment on textile and textile products.  Meanwhile, textile and textile 
products are the most dominant Indonesian export to  Canada.  Therefore, as a developing country 
member, Indonesia hopes that Canada's GSP polici es on textile and textile products can also be 
applied for developing countries.  Could Canada please elaborate on the possibility of applying low WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 148  
 
 rates of import duties on textile and textile pr oducts for developing countries?  (Document: 
WT/TPR/S/246, page 121 Para  110 and page 122 Para 112) 
 Canada's Response:   As part of federal budgets 2009 and 2010, Canada has unilaterally eliminated 
its tariffs on all machinery and equipment and manuf acturing inputs.  As such, Canada eliminated 
tariffs on 43 percent of its remaining dutiable tariff  lines, covering some $7 billion in imports.  Among 
the areas covered by this unilateral action are raw te xtiles under HS chapters 50 through 60.  All tariff 
lines in these chapters will be reduced to  zero no later than January 1, 2015. 
 
[Indonesia Question 3]:   Mining and energy play a major role in the Canadian economy in terms of 
their contribution to GDP, employment, and trade a nd investment.  In Canada, the federal government 
has jurisdiction over imports and exports; intern ational and inter-provincial pipelines and electric 
power lines; uranium and nuclear power including mi ning/production.  Indonesia is of view that your 
policy on mining and energy has proven very succ essful.  Could Canada please share with us your 
experiences of how best to increase the added value of coal and mineral into your domestics? 
(Document:  WT/TPR/S/246, page 109 Para 61)  
 Canada's Response:  Canada is a net exporter of natura l resources.  Canada's and Canadian 
provinces' successes can be attributed to clear  legislation including a modern and competitive 
investment taxation regime for e xploration, predictable environmental assessment processes, and 
efforts by various levels of governments (federal,  provincial and territorial) to simplify and reduce 
procedures and permitting processes.  Canada's policy on foreign investment is simple, clear and 
contains very few exceptions, for instance on uraniu m, which represents Canada's obligation towards 
the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.   Companies have access to a skilled 
workforce, modern infrastruct ure, geoscience information. 
 
[Indonesia Question 4]:  The Federal Government's policy objectives for the minerals and metals 
sectors remain as set out in the 1996 Minerals an d Metals Policy, which aimed at sustainable 
development.  In the framework of Conservati on, Environmental protec tion and economic, how did 
Canada make arrangements and determine polici es regarding the scale of production and prices for 
each mining product? (Document: WT/TPR/S/246, page 109 Para 62)  
Canada's Response:  Canada does not intervene in productio n rate or mineral products pricing. 
Canada has adopted the Canadian Envi ronmental Assessment Act (CEAA, the Act) which contains 
criteria that can trigger a federal environmental assessment (EA) process. Provinces and territories 
have equivalent legislation to the CEAA.  Mining  being a provincial and territorial responsibility, 
most mining projects will be subject to a provincial EA .  For different reasons, some projects will also 
require a federal EA.  The most common reasons for this include a predicted production rate set above 
the threshold defined in the Act, or components that are listed under the  Act,  such as a Tailing 
Impoundment Area or an explosive factory.  Anothe r trigger could be that the project has brought 
general public attention and concerns .  As several licenses needed to open and operate a mine are with 
the provinces and territories, large mining projects mi ght be subject to a dual EA process as provinces 
and territories have their own EA process.  However,  Canada is working in close collaboration with 
provinces and territories towards one single EA serving both levels of responsibilities. 
 
[Indonesia Question 5]:   Canada is known as one of largest producers of mining products in the 
world. producing over 60 minerals and metals.  Th e country is also the world's largest producer of 
potash, and the second-largest uranium and nickel producer;  it ranks among the top five producers of 
aluminum, cadmium, cobalt, etc. major mineral exports are gold, nickel, copper, potash, and 
diamonds.  As the world's largest producer of many kinds of minerals, could Canada please explain in 
more detail their national policy and regulations concerning minera l domestic market obligations? 
(Document : WT/TPR/S/246, page 109 para 62). 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 149 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   Canada has a very limited and specific number of regulations for the mineral 
and metal extraction industry.  Ge neral regulations apply to all sect ors, such as health and safety 
standards, and may be specific for the type of  environment the operations are taking place in. 
 Since mining is a provincial jurisdiction under the Ca nadian Constitution, new and existing mines also 
have to comply with provincial regulations.  Th erefore, companies that are planning to develop, 
operate and in some cases expand a mine project will need to obtain licenses and permits from the 
province or the territory.  Very few provinces have adopted regulations limiting industry exports of raw and semi-refined ore 
body. 
 The federal government has developed a competitive taxation model that suppor ts industry investment 
into exploration.  Provinces a nd territories also have, as well, developed their own taxation and 
incentive models specific to their industry.  Envi ronmental measures have been implemented by all 
levels of government limiting mining project footpr int, protecting wildlife through state of the art 
planning, monitoring and reporting, and assuring s ite rehabilitation at the end of the operations.  
 
[Indonesia Question 6]:  Under the Canadian Constitution, pr ovinces have ownership over all the 
natural resources that lie within their boundaries and thus regulatory oversight rests primarily within 
the jurisdiction of the provinces, including with respect  to exploration, local distribution, storage, and 
royalty regimes.  In the event of a radioactive disaster, could you outline the steps which would be 
taken by your government either in policy or in regulation forms? (Document: WT/TPR/S/246, para 
109 para 61) 
 
Canada's Response:  The federal government is responsible  for emergency management at the 
national level in its exclusive jurisdictions and on lands and properties unde r federal responsibility. 
Provincial and territorial governments exercise resp onsibility for emergency management within their 
respective jurisdictions except where legislation allo ws for direct federal intervention or for shared 
responsibility.   If any emergency threatens to over whelm the resources of a province or territory, federal institutions 
may respond to the request or if an emergency h as a national implication.  A provincial request for 
assistance during an emergency indicates that the province requires federal support to achieve an 
objective.  While the province may indicate the sp ecific resources and capabilities required, in most 
instances federal departments and agencies will need to define the appropriate response.  Federal 
institutions can also make preparations in advance of anticipated need or request for assistance from a 
province or territory. 
 An integrated Government of Canada  response is therefore required when: 
 
 a province/territory requests federal support to deal with an emergency 
 an emergency affects multiple jurisdictions and/ or government institutions and it requires a 
coordinated response 
 an emergency directly involves federal assets,  services, employees, statutory authority or 
responsibilities, or it affects confidence in government 
 an emergency affects other aspects of the national interest. 
 In the case of a radioactive disaster the same principles would apply. 
 
At the federal level the Federal Nuclear Emergenc y Plan (FNEP) (Health Canada plan) provides the 
structure for federal nuclear emergency preparedness and response in order to: WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 150  
 
  protect the public from immediate and delayed health effects due to exposure to uncontrolled 
sources of radiation 
 minimise the impacts of a nuclear emer gency on property and the environment 
 maintain public confidence in the ability of res ponsible authorities to protect public health. 
The FNEP could be implemented in the event of a nuclear or radiological emergency involving: 
 a nuclear facility in Canada or in th e United States along the shared border  
 nuclear-powered vessels or vessels containing ra dioactive materials visiting Canada or in 
transit through Canadian waters  
 a nuclear facility in the southern United States or in a foreign country  
 any serious radiological event, such as: 
 malevolent acts involving improvised nuclear  devices or the use of conventional 
explosives at a facility that stores or uses radioactive materials;  or 
 the re-entry of a nuclear-powered satellite. 
The FNEP includes provincial operational annexes fo r Ontario, Québec, and New Brunswick as they 
have nuclear power stations, and w ith Nova Scotia and British Columbia  as they have ports which are 
visited by nuclear-powered vessels. 
The FNEP would not be implemente d in the following situations: 
 the military use of nuclear weapons ag ainst North America; that is, war 
 events at licensed nuclear facilities with lim ited or no radiological off-site impacts 
 events at licensed nuclear facilities that could lead or have led to a non-radiological hazard to 
the personnel at the facilities, the public, or the environment 
 events involving the transportation of regulated quantities of radioactive material on Canadian 
land, or that could affect Canadian territory. 
 
[Indonesia Question 7]:   Concerning the existence of foreign legal consultants operating in Canada, 
under the GATS, Canada agreed to binding commitments  on its regimes in existe nce, (as of December 
1994), for legal services provided by foreign legal c onsultants in the provinces of British Columbia, 
Ontario and Saskatchewan.  One of the requireme nts of GATS was to esta blish a foreign legal 
consultant's office in Canada in the form of a sole  proprietorship or partnership.  Since Indonesia is 
also interested in exploring th e possibility of establishing a sole proprietorship or partnership of 
foreign legal consultant in Ca nada, could you please explain further the specific requirements 
concerning a sole proprietorship or partnership fo reign legal consultants in  Canada?  (Document: 
WT/TPR/S/246, page 150 Para 219). 
 
Canada's Response:   Detailed information on pr ovincial and territorial rule s applying to foreign legal 
consultants, including on the aspect of establishing a fo reign legal consultant office in the form of a 
sole proprietorship or partnership, can be found at this internet-based document: 
http://www.flsc.ca/en/pdf/flc.pdf.  We would encourag e Indonesian officials to contact provincial law 
societies of interest directly to obtain further details from them, if need be. 
 
[Indonesia Question 8]:   As noted in the report by Secretariat in page 148 number (8) Professional 
Service, there are three professional services whic h are regulated by the Canadian Government, 
namely, Legal Services;  Accounting Services;  a nd Architectural and Engineering Services.  Since 
Canada's need in certain employment sectors su ch as nursing, construction work, hospitality, care 
giving and agriculture, have increased, could you expl ain further what steps, either in the form of  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 151 
 
 
 policy or action, and the Canadian government have taken to attract Indonesia workers to jobs in the 
fields mentioned above? (Document: WT/TPR/S/ 246, page 148 number (8) Professional Service) 
 Canada's Response:  Canadian employers may hire foreign nationals from any country in the world 
to work in any legal occupation, provided that  both the employers a nd the workers meet the 
requirements outlined in the  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its Regulations.  
Recruitment agencies or employment agencies are so metimes retained by employers to help them 
recruit foreign nationals to fill vacant positions  for which they cannot find workers in Canada.  
 
[Indonesia Question 9]:  Further in relation to Canada's growing need for migrant workers in certain 
sectors, the Government of Indonesia is interested to  meet this need through the G to G channel, in 
addition to what has been done so far through pr ivate channels.  Therefore could you please confirm 
whether it would be possible for our governments to discuss this matter?  For your information, the 
Government of Indonesia already established a G to  G channel in some countries such as South Korea 
(manufacturing sector), Japan (nursing) and East Timor (midwifery). (Document: WT/TPR/S/246, 
page 148 number (8) Professional Service) 
 Canada's Response:  Canadian employers may hire foreign nationals from any country in the world 
to work in any legal occupation, provided that  both the employers a nd the workers meet the 
requirements outlined in the  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its Regulations.  It is for this 
reason that there is no need for bi-lateral agreemen ts to be signed between Canada and other countries 
to facilitate the entry of foreign workers. In 1995, World Trade Organization (WTO) members were 
provided a once-only opportunity to list exemptions  from the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle 
of non-discrimination between members trading part ners.  At that time, Mexican and Caribbean 
workers under the SAWP were the only workers entering Canada under a bilateral agreement 
managed by the Temporary Foreign Worker Prog ram (TFWP).  As such, Canada listed a MFN 
exemption under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for countries who had signed 
an MOU under the SAWP.  Following that one-time ex emption, no member WTO country is allowed 
to give preferential treatment to another country. 
 
JAPAN  
[Japan Question 1]:  Canada refers to the Canada-U.S. Regul atory Cooperation Council.  In this 
connection, what is the scope of activities and delib erations of this Council?  Have the Terms of 
Reference been drawn up for the Council?  Canada's Response:  The Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council brings together 
senior representatives of both governments with r esponsibilities for domestic regulation, international 
trade and foreign affairs under a two-year mandate  to increase regulatory cooperation between both 
countries.  Through the Regulatory Cooperation Council, th e two governments will focus on simplifying and 
aligning regulations, where possible.  Aligning re gulatory approaches would lead to lower costs for 
business and consumers, increased trade and investment, and ultimately to more jobs on both sides of 
the border.  The RCC Canadian Secretariat is working with its American counterparts, and the input of 
stakeholders, to develop a joint Action Plan.  This  Action Plan will outline work that will be done in 
the short and long-term to align regulatory appr oaches in a range of sectors for Canada and the 
United States.  It will also address planned regul ations and anticipate new and emerging areas where 
alignment can be achieved prior to new initiatives being introduced. The action plan will be made 
public and posted on the Council's website once it is approved.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 152  
 
 The Terms of Reference for the Regulatory Co operation Council establishes the mandate and 
principles for this initiative.  They are availabl e on the Council's website at borderactionplan.gc.ca  
 
[Japan Question 2]:  With regard to the 7 FTAs concl uded so far by Canada (mentioned in 
paragraphs 55-61), please explain wh y none of them include a Chapter on Intellectual Property (IP). 
As for the FTAs currently under negotiation, is an IP Chapter expected to be included? Please explain 
Canada's FTA policies concerning the IP area, in cluding whether Canada believes it important to 
establish in FTAs an IP Chapter which includes TRIPS- plus provisions.  If an IP Chapter is provided 
in an FTA, what kinds of TRIPS-plus pr ovisions would be important for Canada? 
 
Canada's Response:   With the exception of the North-American Free Trade Agreement, Canada has 
not included an IP chapter in its FTAs.  Canada ha s, however, included text on IP in the preamble of 
certain FTAs, in order to meet its objective of a ffirming the TRIPS agreement and its flexibilities. 
Going forward, Canada is seeking the inclusion of an intellectual property (IP) chapter, which 
includes the following provisions: 
 
 re-affirmation of the WTO Agreement on Trad e-related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights (TRIPS); 
 re-affirmation of flexibilities under the TRIPS Ag reement, including those for public health; 
 provisions on cooperation on IP "in areas of mutual interest";  and 
 provisions on IP rights enforcement. 
Canada has also been amenable to the inclusion of specific articles proposed by the other negotiating 
party.  For example, in one agreement articles on sp ecific geographical indications for wines or spirits 
were included at the request of the other party. 
 Inclusion of TRIPS-plus provisions will  be considered on a case-by-case basis. 
 
[Japan Question 3]:   Environmental assessment in Canada's  report is described as being conducted at 
the federal and provincial levels.  In some cases, these assessment processes seem to be behind 
schedule.  What are the reasons for these delays?  Has Canada considered integrating both federal 
level assessment and provincial level assessment into one assessment system?  Canada's Response:  As outlined in the Report by the Gove rnment of Canada, the Environmental 
Assessment of trade negotiations is conducted by the Federal Government.  As indicated in the 
Report, the progress of the Environmental Assessme nt of the Doha Round will be conditioned by the 
progress in the negotiations themselves.  
[Japan Question 4)]:  With regard to paragraphs 17 and 18 in Secretariat's Report, could you outline 
what the Net-Benefit Review Process of Canada  is?  According to the announcement of Industry 
Canada in November 2010, it would launch ne w guidelines on the application of the Canada 
Investment Act. When will these guidelines be pub lished and what kind of information will be noted 
in them?  Canada's Response:   The Investment Canada Act , which guides the review of foreign investment into 
Canada, encourages investment that contributes to Canada's economic gr owth and employment 
opportunities, while providing for the review of si gnificant investments in Canada by non-Canadians 
to ensure realization of such benefit to Canada.  Section 20 of the Act provides six factors that the re sponsible Minister of the Government considers in 
determining whether an investment is of lik ely "net benefit" to Canada.  These include:  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 153 
 
 
  the effect on the level of economic activ ity in Canada, on employment; on resource 
processing; on the utilization of parts and ser vices produced in Canada and on exports from 
Canada; 
 the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new 
Canadian business and in any indus try or industries in Canada; 
 the effect of the investment on productivity, in dustrial efficiency, technological development, 
product innovation and product variety in Canada; 
 the effect of the investment on competition within any industry in Canada; 
 the compatibility of the investment with nati onal industrial, economic and cultural policies; 
and 
 the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets. 
 
When submitting an application for review, the inv estor is required to address each of these factors 
and provide supporting documentation and financial data.  Greater clarity in terms of investor's 
specific plans and/or undertakings in addressing th e above factors facilitates the review process. 
 
The Canadian government is examining options for the liberalization of foreign investment 
restrictions in the telecommunications sector.  A dditionally, a parliamentary review committee has 
accepted amendments to the Act to implement a more  liberalized threshold for foreign investment 
reviews.  
Currently, the Minister of Industry is looking at ho w best to provide more information while assuring 
investors that confidential information will receive the same protection in Canada as it does elsewhere. 
An important aspect of this review  will be to develop guidance on th e kinds of investments that will 
be accepted or rejected.  Specifically, it is hoped th at more information about  the parameters of the 
Government's decision-making process on foreign in vestment reviews will be made available. 
 
[Japan Question 5]:   W i t h  r e g a r d  t o  t h e  Copyright Modernization Act  (Bill C-32), please explain 
Canada's position as to how to address the infringe ment of intellectual property in the digital 
environment, including technological protection me asures and limitation of Internet service providers' 
liability, and how this Act could contribute to achieving its goal. 
 
Canada's Response:  In June 2010, the Government of  Canada introduced Bill C-32, the Copyright 
Modernization Act , legislation that was aimed at moderniz ing Canada's copyright laws in a manner 
that would, among other things, implement the tw o World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 
Treaties dealing with digital copyright issues.   
Bill C-32 included new rights and protections for copy right owners to ensure they can protect their 
works in the digital age by allowing them to contro l and be compensated for the use of their material 
on the Internet.  Bill C-32 died on the Order Paper when an election was called in March 2011. 
 
In June 2011, in the Speech from the Throne the G overnment of Canada committed to "introduce and 
seek swift passage of copyright legislation that  balances the needs of creators and users." 
 The Bill proposed new rights and protections nec essary to implement the WIPO treaties.  Key 
provisions stemming from these Treaties that address infringement in the digital environment 
included: 
 
 The Bill would have added that where a right  to communicate a work to the public by 
telecommunication exists, it includes the right to  make it available by telecommunication at a WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 154  
 
 time and place individually chosen by members of  the public.  This would have included, for 
example, the posting of content online. 
 The Bill would have created a making availa ble right for sound recording performers and 
producers. (Note that making available a wo rk, sound recording or recorded performance 
almost always requires making a reproduction.  This is already covered by the exclusive 
reproduction right.) 
 With regards to technological protection measu res (TPM), the Bill proposed to prohibit the 
acts of circumventing access-control TPMs and prohibit the devices and services that would enable circumvention of TPMs. 
 In addition, the Bill would have introduced a new civil liability which would have allowed 
rights holders to take legal ac tion against those who "enable"  online infringement, and would 
have complemented existing provisions under the Criminal Code.  Under this provision, it 
would have been an infringement of copyright for a person to provide through Internet or 
another digital network, a service designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement 
if an actual infringement of copyright resulted of it. 
 The Bill also included provisions regarding the roles and responsibilities of internet services 
providers (ISPs) and information location tools (I LTs). The Bill would have clarified that ISPs 
are exempt from liability when they act stric tly as intermediaries in  communication, caching 
and hosting activities.  It would have formali zed the voluntary "notice and notice" regime 
currently used by Canadian ISPs. 
 
[Japan Question 6]:   The Secretariat's report notes that the tariff consists of 3.4% (or 282) non-ad 
valorem lines:  87 carry specific tariffs, 43 com pound tariffs, 143 mixed/alternate rates, and 9 have 
other types of tariffs.  Could the Canadian govern ment kindly explain what the "other types" are 
specifically? 
 Canada's Response:  In Canada's Customs Tariff , there are 152 tariff lines categorized as mixed 
duties (M).  Of these, nine items have mixed duty rates of the form "¢/kg but not less than X% plus 
X%"
10. 
 
[Japan Question 7]:  According to the Secretariat's report, Canada uses a suppliers' declaration of 
conformity for some telecommunications produc ts.  Japan would like to know the details of 
telecommunications products for which a suppliers' decl aration of conformity are used.  Additionally, 
Japan would like to know if Canada is willing to expand the coverage of telecommunications 
products. 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada uses Supplier's Declaration of  Conformity (SDoC) for Category II radio 
and broadcasting equipment. Category II equi pment is listed in the following web page: 
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/h_sf01340.html.  Also, Canada uses Declaration of Conformity (DoC ) for telecommunications apparatus that connect 
directly to the public switched tele phone network. DoC differs from SDoC in that it requires that the 
telecommunications apparatus must be tested by a domestic testing laboratory or a foreign testing 
laboratory recognized by Industry Canada.  For more details on the tools that Canada uses to ensure 
compliance of telecommunications equipment with  technical regulations, please visit the following 
web page: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mra-arm.nsf/eng/h_nj00055.html.  
 
At this time, Canada does not have any plans to expand the use of SDoC to other telecommunications 
products. 
                                                      
10 These tariff lines are:  0704.10.11, 0704.20.11, 0705.11.11, 0705.19.11, 0706.10.11, 0706.90.21, 
0708.20.21, 0709.40.11, 0709.90.31  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 155 
 
 
 [Japan Question 8]:  1. In May 2009, the Ontario provincia l government established a fixed-price 
subsidy program on electricity generated from renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind 
power (Feed-in Tariff program).  2. Under the FIT program, the government also requi res electricity generators participating in the 
program to achieve certain percentages of added va lue (including assembly and material procurement) 
in their solar and/or wind power generating equipment.   3. Solar panels or other equipment exported by Japanese companies to Ontario are less favorably 
treated than those locally produced. 
 
4. Japan's view is that such a measure is incons istent with Article III of the GATT which stipulates 
national treatment obligations and Article II of the TRIM Agreement, and furthermore, it would fall 
under the definition of "prohibited subsidies" (s ubsidies contingent on the use of domestic over 
imported goods) as specified in Article 3 of th e WTO SCM (Subsidies and Countervailing Measures) 
Agreement.  
 5. Therefore, Japan has requested consultati ons through the WTO with Canada on September 13
th, 
2010.  From the above-mentioned point of view, Jap an would like to ask the following questions: 
 
How is the measure consistent with the obligati on under Article III:4 of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") to "accord treat ment [to imported produc ts] no less favourable 
than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and 
requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or 
use"? 
 How is the measure consistent with the obliga tion under Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Trade 
Related Investment Measures ("TRIMs Agreement") not to "apply any TRIM that is inconsistent with 
the provisions of Article III or Article XI of GA TT 1994", as further illustrated by paragraph 1(a) of 
the Annex to the TRIMs Agreement? 
 
How is the measure consistent with the obligation under Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agre ement") to "neither grant nor maintain" 
"subsidies contingent, whether solely or as one of  several other conditions, upon the use of domestic 
over imported goods"? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada cannot comment on measures subject to a WTO panel proceeding. 
 
[Japan Question 9]:  Note 249 to paragraph 195 of the Secretariat's Report states that Canadian 
customs services are not entitled to seize infringing im ports ex-officio.  Please explain whether, and if 
yes, how, Canada intends to strengthen its borde r measures concerning goods infringing intellectual 
property. 
 Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada remain s committed to strengthening Canada's 
intellectual property rights enforcement regime at th e border, in a manner consistent with Canadian 
interests. 
 
[Japan Question 10]:  According to the recent notification (G/AG/N/CAN/83), the Canadian 
government doesn't specify import volume of in-quota  fluid milk (0401.10.10) because they "are not 
counted.  By virtue of General Import Permit #1, wh ich regulates the importation of dairy products for 
personal use, any resident of Canada may import fluid milk.  The General Import Permit may be WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 156  
 
 invoked an unlimited number of times".  According to IDB files, however, there was a fluid milk 
import volume (0401.10.10), of 506,710 kg in 2008.  Do es this amount correspond to the import of in-
quota fluid milk?  Moreover, there are also figures of out-of-quota import volume.  Could the Canadian government kindly explain why im ports of fluid milk are unable to be counted 
and how tariff quotas are administrated in particular? 
 Canada's Response:  By virtue of General Im port Permit #1, which regulates the importation of dairy 
products for personal use, any resident of Canada ma y import fluid milk.  The fill rate for this is not 
available since there is no formal counting of cross border imports.  Canada's administration of this 
TRQ is consistent with its commitments. 
 
[Japan Question 11]:  According to the Secretariat's Report (Page104, Para41), "In 2008, the 
Canadian Government sought legislative change s (unsuccessfully) to repeal the CWB's export 
monopoly for the marketing of barley.  Nonetheless,  the Canadian Government is working with 
Canadian grain farmers to promote marketing freedom."   As a consistent importer of Canadian wheat 
and barley, Japan would like to know the following points regarding its marketing freedom, including: 
 
a) Regarding "working with Canadian grain farmer s" as described in the Secretariat Report 
(Page104, Para41), what is the Cana dian Government actually doing? 
b) Are there any possibilities for the Canadian Gove rnment to seek legislative changes again to 
repeal the CWB's single desk monopoly for the mark eting of barley on the basis of the result 
of May 2, 2011 General Election? 
c) Would a repeal of the CWB's export monopoly for the marketing of wheat be included in the 
above legislative changes? 
d) If the CWB's export monopoly power for the mark eting of wheat and barley were to be 
eliminated, what would be the influence (on vo lume, price, and quality) on Canadian wheat 
and barley exportation?  Could the Canadian Gove rnment maintain its stable level of exports 
of wheat and barley? 
e) What problem, other than that mentioned above, would the Canadian Government have if the 
export monopoly power of its STEs were eliminated? 
 
Canada's Response:  
a) The Canadian Government recently announced its intention to introduce legislation to ensure 
that western farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the open market. 
b) Yes. The Canadian Government announced in the 2011 Speech from the Throne that it would 
introduce legislation to ensure that western farm ers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley 
on the open market, effectively removing the CWB monopoly. 
c) Yes, this is the intention. 
d) The Canadian Government expects that Canadi an farmers will continue to grow wheat and 
barley as long as buyers continue to offer comp etitive prices.  We expect that a number of 
marketers will be exporting Canadian wheat and barley in an open market. 
e) The Canadian Government intends to make the change in an orderly way so that market 
uncertainty can be avoided. 
 
[Japan Question 12]:   The Secretariat's report says that Indus try Canada held a public consultation on 
three options for further opening the telecom industr y to foreign investment.  Japan would like to 
know the results.  Could Canada explain expected steps or plans prior to making a decision on these 
three options? Based on the three options, Japan would like to know the possibility of relaxation of the 
foreign investment restriction.  Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada is examin ing this issue.  No announcement has 
been made regarding the timing of a decision.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 157 
 
 
 [Japan Question 13]:   According to paragraph 131of the Secretariat's report, the CRTC is 
considering merging the Class A licenses and Class B li censes for the provision of Basic International 
Telecommunications Services (BITS) since they are subject to the same conditions.  Could Canada explain why Class A and B were originally separated ?  Were there formerly any distinctions on each 
condition?  
 
Canada's Response:   With the opening of international telecommunications to competition, Basic 
International Telecommunications Services were lic ensed in two categories because there were two 
types of international telecom service providers  (TSPs):  TSPs who operate telecommunications 
facilities and TSPs who resell services.  The first have been licensed under Class A, the second under 
Class B.  CRTC Telecom Decision 2008-70, Review of the Basic International Telecommunications 
Services Licensing Regime, found there to be competition in both classes of international licence and that decision combined the two classes into a single category of licence.  
[Japan Question 14]:   Japan would like to know the concre te criteria of the service suppliers which 
are necessary for the approval for tariffs for inte rconnection agreements by CRTA and the number of 
those ILECs that exist that CRTC had approved.  Canada's Response:  An industry committee develops st andard procedures and terms for 
interconnection as a consensus agreement among inte rconnecting service provi ders.  The terms for 
interconnection are submitted to the CRTC for revi ew and approval.  In addition to interconnection 
agreements, cost-based rates fo r interconnection services provided by Incumbent Local Exchange 
Carriers (ILECs) are submitted by the ILECs for approval by the CRTC.  There are four major 
regional ILECs in Canada.  Example of an interconnection agreement including terms of interconnection:  Master Agreement for 
Local Interconnection: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/cisc/bp/ BPAGMALI291.doc. 
 Tariffs for competitor access to ILEC interconnecti on services are found on the web sites of the major 
Canadian providers.  The following CRTC decision lists competitor services and provides references 
to the ILEC approved tariffs.  
Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-17: 
Revised regulatory framework for wholesale se rvices and definition of essential service:  
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/dt2008-17.htm.  
[Japan Question 15]:   Japan would like to know what inte rconnection agreements of ILECs subject 
to CRTC approval contain terms and conditions other than tariffs.  
 Canada's Response:   The Master Agreement for Local Interconnection provided in response to 
Question 14 indicates the broad range of terms that  are contained in inte rconnection agreements. 
 
[Japan Question 16]:   If there are any future plans on how to deal with the issue of network 
neutrality, Japan would appreciate if Canada could explain it. 
 Canada's Response:  The most recent actions taken by Cana da regarding network neutrality are 
described in the following CRTC deci sions.  No further policy initiatives are being considered at this 
time. 
 
Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009 657 - Review of the In ternet traffic management practices of Internet 
service providers.  Viewed at:  http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/ 2009/2009 657.htm.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 158  
 
 Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010 632, Wholesal e high speed access services proceeding.  
Viewed at:  http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010 632.htm.  
[Japan Question 17]:  Japan would like Canada to explai n information on areas where Number 
Portability is introduced. Additionally, if ther e are uncovered areas, Japan would like to know the 
future plans for those uncovered areas.  Please al so explain about the changes in the number of 
Number Portability users since its introduction.   Canada's Response:  Wireline and wireless number portability is  available in Canada as indicated in 
the Secretariat report.  In some rural and remote areas of Canada served by small telecommunications 
providers where competitive providers have not  entered the market, number portability is 
implemented only when a request for number portability is made by a competitive entrant.  
 
[Japan Question 18]:  The Secretariat's report says that th ere is a quota system for Canadian 
broadcasting content. Japan would like to know the reason why Canada imposes this kind of 
restriction in addition to foreign investment restrictions on broadcasters.  
 
Canada's Response:  Canadian broadcasting policy is set out in the Broadcasting Act .  The 
Broadcasting Act  seeks to enhance Canada's national identit y and cultural soverei gnty.  It provides 
that the Canadian broadcasting system shall be e ffectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and 
that programming must be predominantly and dis tinctively Canadian and be of high standard, 
respectful of equality rights, and reflective of Ca nadian values.  The Act also states that the 
broadcasting system should contribute to Ca nada's social, economic and cultural fabric. 
 The Broadcasting Act  sets out the mandate and powers of the Canadian Radio-television and 
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).  The CRTC is  an independent public authority responsible 
for the licensing, regulation and supervision of all asp ects of the Canadian br oadcasting system, with a 
view to implementing the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act .  Quotas for Canadian content are 
designed to respond to the policy objectives of the Act.   It should be noted however, that the Canadian 
content quota system does not prohibit the br oadcast of foreign programming on conventional 
television.   
One of key features of the Canadian broadcasting system is its openness to foreign television services. 
A large number of foreign television programming services have been author ized by the CRTC for 
distribution in Canada.  Broadcasting distribution un dertakings (i.e., cable distributors, direct-to-home 
satellite services) have benefited from being able to  offer subscribers diverse packages of Canadian 
and foreign services, and consumers have be nefited from a significant degree of choice. 
 
[Japan Question 19]:   Japan would like to know what th e "New Canadian-content rules for 
conventional television broadcasters" are in detail.  Have there been any cases in which broadcasting 
has been prohibited by the quota system?  And Japan would also like to know how Canada deals with selling TV program formats and programs developed through intern ational cooperation under this 
quota system. 
 
Canada's Response:  Pursuant to the Broadcasting Act , the Canadian Radio-television and 
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), described in  Canada's reply to Japan's question number 
18, has established a regulatory scheme, where each of the different components of Canadian broadcasting system must contribute to the devel opment of Canadian programming.  In March 2010, 
the CRTC established a new group-based licensing  framework for the English-language private 
conventional and discretionary ownership groups.  Beginning Sept ember 1, 2011, English-language 
corporate TV broadcast groups, with more than $1 00 million in revenues, are required to devote no 
less than 55% of the broadcast year to exhibit Canadian TV programs on all their over-the-air TV 
stations.  There are also local programming oblig ations.  English-language  over-the-air stations  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 159 
 
 
 operating in the top five metropolitan markets are exp ected to provide at least 14 hours per week of 
local programming; for smaller markets,  the expectation is 7 hours per week. 
 The Canadian content quota system does not pr ohibit the broadcast of foreign programming on 
conventional television. 
 
In Canada, treaty television co-productions qualify for Canadian content quota for broadcasting.  A 
co-production is a film and/or television producti on that has been created by pooling creative, 
technical and financial resources of Canadian and fo reign producers.  Governed under the terms of a 
treaty between partnering countries, these productions are granted national status.  The CRTC will 
also certify as "Canadian" intern ational co-ventures/co-productions involving Canadian and foreign 
producers, as well as foreign programs dubbed in an o fficial language of Canada or a native Canadian 
language.  These include all ventures with co-producer s of foreign countries that either do not have a 
film or television production treaty with Canada or , if there is a treaty, the co-production is not 
specifically covered by the treaty. 
 
[Japan Question 20]:  Canada has developed a set of criteria to  define a "Canadian" program.  Japan 
would like Canada to explain the current criteri a.  Furthermore, Japan would like to know the 
relationship and difference between the criteria of Canadian programs and the criteria of agreement on 
international co-production of audio visual progr ams which Canada signs with other countries. 
 
Canada's Response: According to the Secretariat's report, Ca nada has developed a set of criteria to 
define a "Canadian" program.  Japan would like Canada  to explain the current criteria.  Furthermore, 
Japan would like to know the relationship and diffe rence between the criteria of Canadian programs 
and the criteria of agreement on international c oproduction of audio visual programs which Canada 
signs with other countries. 
 
The main organizations that administer Canadian content for film and television productions are the 
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunicati ons Commission (CRTC), described in Canada's 
reply to Japan's question number 18, under the terms of Canada's Broadcasting Act  and the Canadian 
Audio-Visual Certification Office (CAVCO), unde r the regulations of the Income Tax Act. 
 
The Canadian content system is used for two main  purposes: i) to determine access to federal support 
programs;  ii) to measure television broadcasters' conformity with CRTC regulations.  In order for a production to be considered Canadi an content, it must be produced and owned by a 
qualified Canadian corporation.  As well, the pr oducer must be Canadian, the film or television 
production must obtain a minimum of six "Canadian c ontent" points for key creative personnel and it 
must meet certain production and post-production requirements. 
 The following "Canadian content" points scale for li ve-action film or televi sion production are used 
by CAVCO and the CRTC.  Canadian funding prog rams such as the Canada Media Fund (CMF) and 
the Canada Feature Film Fund (CFFF) also use the same points scale but require a higher minimum of 
points to be eligible to their funding: 
 Director    2 points 
 Screenwriter    2 points 
 Highest paid actor  1 point  
 Second highest paid actor 1 point 
 Head of Art Department  1 point 
 Director of Photography  1 point 
 Music Composer   1 point 
 Picture Editor   1 point WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 160  
 
 Two mandatory criteria must be respected:  i) the di rector or screenwriter must be Canadian;  and ii) 
the highest or second highest paid actor must be Canadian.  The cost requirements provide that:  i) 75% of total amounts paid in the production services category 
is paid to Canadians; and ii) 75% of all expen ses incurred in the laboratory and post-production work 
category is incurred for services in Canada. 
 Treaty coproductions receive national status designa tion in their respective countries and as such, are 
able to access federal and provincial funding prog rams, and are recognized as Canadian content for 
the purposes of broadcast quotas. 
 
The point system does not apply to treaty coproduc tions.  However, one of the key requirements for 
the producers is that the creative and technical par ticipation must generally be in proportion to the 
financial contribution.  In other words, if a Canadi an producer is responsible for 30% of the financing 
of a coproduction, 30% of the creative and techni cal personnel of the production must be Canadians 
and 30% of the production expen ses must be spent in Canada.  
 (see:  http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/en/coproductions /coproductions/guidelines for more details.) 
 
[Japan Question 21]:   With regard to paragraph 164 of Financ ial Services in the Secretariat's Report, 
the Business Act ordering all companies to have Canadian residents make up at least 25 percent, on 
the other hand, there is a federal law (Canada Bank Act, Article 159(2)) ordering foreign banking 
branches to have Canadian residents make up the ma jority of their executive members.  What is the 
reason for differentiating this ratio in Banking S ectors by 25 percent from all business?  Will the 
federal government deregulate these rules in the fu ture schedule following the decrease in the number 
of new entries in 2010 compared to 2009? (Table IV.11) 
 
Canada's Response:  Part VI of the Bank Act deals with Cor porate Governance.  The policy intent of 
this part is to provide a legislative and regulatory framework that promotes strong corporate governance and appropriate management practices fo r federally regulated financial institutions. 
Section 159 (2) sets out requirements for banks to have at least seven directors and the majority need to be resident Canadians.  There is an exception for foreign bank subsidiaries where only one half of 
the directors must be resident Canadians. 
 Banks are critical to the Canadian financial sy stem.  Ensuring sound management and prudential 
regulation are critical.  Residency requirements ensure that the best interests of the Canadian financial 
system are contemplated by bank management.  The requirement for residency is the same for foreign 
and domestic banks with the exception of the lighter  treatment afforded foreign bank subsidiaries 
discussed above.  At this time the government has no intent to amend this provision.  
 
[Japan Question 22]:  The Report by the Secretariat states th at "The OECD has flagged both the 
minimum deposit threshold for full-service branches  and the prohibition on direct bank sales of non-
authorized insurance products as barriers to fuller contestability in Canada's financial services sector." 
In Chapter IV, paragraph 164, it is noted that  the OECD has flagged both the minimum deposit 
threshold for full-service branches and the prohibition on direct bank sales of non-authorized insurance products as barriers to fuller contestabil ity in Canada's financial services sector. Could 
Canada explain the reasons and b ackground of such restrictions? 
 
Canada's Response:  In 1992, the power to own insurance subs idiaries was granted to banks to allow 
them opportunities to expand and dive rsify.  Banks themselves were permitted to undertake limited 
activities relating to the business of insurance.  Current government policy limits the types of 
insurance that deposit-taking financia l institutions are ‘authorized' to sell or promote, to those that are  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 161 
 
 
 considered ancillary to the core business of these institutions.  These products are generally related to 
travel and credit insurance.  The main objective of the restrictions related to the distribution, sale, and promotion of insurance 
products by banks is to provide a level playing field between ba nks and the insurance industry – banks 
cannot leverage their relationship with their custom ers to gain a competitive advantage in promoting 
insurance products.  Banks are allowed to own insurance subsidiaries.  These subsidiaries are permitted to offer a wide 
variety of insurance products, thereby ensuring th e promotion of competition and consumer choice in 
the marketplace for insurance. 
 Branches of foreign banks are more lightly regulat ed than subsidiaries or incorporated financial 
institutions.  As such they are restricted from engaging in certain activities, such as retail deposit-
taking.  Given this restriction, foreign bank branch es are not required to be members of CDIC, or to 
pay the deposit insurance premiums. 
 The policy rationale is that given the lighter re gulatory supervision and capital requirements Canada 
has sought to limit branches to sophisticated customer s and, therefore, restricted the size of deposits 
they could take.  
[Japan Question 23]:  According to paragraph 167 of the Secretariat's report, basic motor–vehicle 
insurance services are subjected to a public monopoly in some areas.  Would Canada explain the reason for monopoly and whether or not Canada is  going to consider opening up basic motor–vehicle 
insurance?  
Canada's Response:  Products offered by state-owned insurers  are well represented to the insurance-
buying public and customers are well served.  While state-owned insurers are the only providers 
permitted to offer basic vehicle insurance in some provinces, extended coverage is open to 
competition with other insurance providers.  In addition, products offered by state-owned insurers  are sold through a diverse group of agents and 
licenses are available to internati onal agents in some provinces. 
 Each Canadian province or territory is responsible  for administering the operation of motor vehicles 
on its roads, including driver licensing, vehicl e registration/licensing and mandatory insurance 
requirements.  Some jurisdictions allow the mandato ry insurance component to be provided through a 
fully competitive industry; while a few provinces operate in a public insurance system where the 
mandatory, or Basic, insurance must be pur chased through a single, regulated agency.  The following 
responses were provided by Canadian provinces and territories: 
 
Nova Scotia's Response :  Nova Scotia's open motor vehicle insu rance market is not subject to public 
monopoly  
 
British Columbia's Response:   The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) is the sole 
provider of Basic motor vehicle insurance in the province of British Columbia.  ICBC also provides 
additional, or Optional, insurance in full competition with other insurance companies. 
 
The question of whether ICBC would continue to be the sole provider of Basic insurance was 
addressed by the BC government in 2001, through a Core  Services Review.  The focus of this review 
was a comprehensive and systematic process for ev aluating options and possi ble future directions; 
examining ICBC's business; the insurance industr y in general; and the challenges and successes of WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 162  
 
 other insurance companies.  The review identified a range of options, including privatization, and 
looked at the potential impacts of each option.  Based on this comprehensive review, the BC governme nt implemented a significant change to ICBC, 
moving it under the authority of an independent, ar m's-length regulatory body – the British Columbia 
Utilities Commission (BCUC).  The BCUC is respons ible for setting insurance rates for ICBC, 
through sound and impartial business principl es and in an open and transparent manner. 
 BC's government continues to support the role of ICBC as the sole provider of Basic motor vehicle 
insurance to all motorists in the province, noting that there are significant public benefits to this 
system: 
 • With an independent regulatory body setting rates, the interests of policyholders are protected 
and rates are kept low and stable, without th e large fluctuations experienced in other 
jurisdictions in recent years. 
• BC drivers are protected by some of the best insurance coverage in the country, with higher 
benefits coverage than many other provinces. 
• Since ICBC is also the agency that handles vehi cle licensing, it can ensure each vehicle has at 
least the minimum insurance before it can be licensed for on-road use.  This system has 
resulted in an extremely low rate of uninsured  vehicles on British Columbia roads, compared 
to other jurisdictions. 
 
For these reasons, the British Columbia government  is not considering opening up Basic motor 
vehicle insurance to full competition.  Northwest Territories' Response:  There is no monopoly in the Northwest Territories. 
 
Saskatchewan's Response:  The Government of Saskatchewan's  policy is basic motor-vehicle 
insurance will be provided by a publicly-owned monopoly to ensure competitive rates and adequate 
coverage to all drivers in the province.  There is currently no consideration to open basic motor-
vehicle insurance to private companies.  
[Japan Question 24]:   According to paragraph 183 of this report, Porter Airlines has doubled its 
operations and rapidly gained market share.  Could you explain the reason of the rapid explanati on of Porter Airlines?  Have any deregulations 
been implemented related to this significant development? 
 
Canada's Response:  During the period in question, Porter had exclusive use of Toronto's City Centre 
Island airport, and also took deliveries of additional aircraft it had previously ordered that expanded its 
fleet.  No further deregulation activit y was implemented during that time. 
 
[Japan Question 25]:   In relation to Port Services in paragr aph 203 in the Secretariat's Report, at the 
federal-owned port (Prince Rupert) within British Colu mbia, more and more rejections and delays of 
shipments have been reported because of an in crease in ships from Asia entering the port.  The 
Government of Canada explained that these rejectio ns and delays are a result of over-capacity of the 
institutions of the port.  What does the Government of Canada think of its measures in light of the 
Additional Commitments on Maritime Transport services, which states that "no measures which deny 
reasonable and non-discriminatory access shall be  applied to the following port services"? 
 
Canada's Response:   Transport Canada is not aware of nor received complaints from Asian shipping 
lines that they are being treated in a manner inc onsistent with Canada's commitments under the WTO 
in Maritime Transport Services.  The Prince Rupert Port Authority leases land to a number of marine  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 163 
 
 
 terminal operators and it is these terminal operato rs who would be respons ible for any commercial 
arrangements with shipping lines.  Should the Gove rnment of Japan have additional information 
related to the treatment of Asian vessels at specific marine terminals operating at the Port of Prince Rupert, Transport Canada will endeavour to ma ke additional enquiries into this matter. 
 
[Japan Question 26]:  Please explain if Canada employs a so-called fly-in-fly-out system for foreign 
legal consultants.  If such a system is not in  effect, please provide information on what kind of 
requirements foreign legal consultants must meet , including residency requirements or experience 
requirements.  
Canada's Response:  Canada does not have a fly-in-fly-out sy stem for foreign legal consultants. 
Detailed information on provincial and territorial ru les applying to foreign legal consultants can be 
found at this internet-based document: http://www.flsc.ca/en/pdf/flc.pdf.  
[Japan Question 27]:  The legal professions of Canada, the United States, and Mexico have 
negotiated an accord containing recommendations and a model rule on the regulation of foreign legal 
consultants.  Please explain details of the accord and provide the reason why the accord has not been 
implemented in spite of the conc lusion of negotiations in 1998.  
 Canada's Response:  As noted, the three national orga nisations that negotiated these 
recommendations and model rules have not been ab le to agree to the practical aspects of their 
implementation.  
[Japan Question 28]:  Some provinces restrict the provision of public accounting services to a 
particular designation.  According to the author ities, accountants within Canada benefit from the 
labour mobility provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) (Chapter II(1)).  In 2001 and 
2005, panels convened u nder the AIT dispute resolution mechanism found that public accounting 
regulations in Ontario and Québec impeded internal trade and labour mobility, and recommended that 
certain changes should be made.  Since then Qu ébec has amended its legislation to remedy the 
situation.  However, as not all designations enjoy th e same mobility in Ontario, Manitoba initiated a 
dispute against Ontario on behalf of CGA Cana da in November 2010.According to paragraph 221, 
Province of Québec has received advice from panels  settling legal differences between provinces and 
it has amended its legislation.  Could you e xplain how the environment around accounting services 
has been after this amendment?  Canada's Response:  The Canadian accounting industry continues to strive to evolve and adapt, 
through such legislative changes, discussions be tween professional bodies and by other means, to the 
environmental changes brought on by the twin forc es of globalisation and technological changes in 
order to keep serving the public and their clients as best as possible. 
 
[Japan Question 29]:  Regarding mutual recognition agreemen ts (MRAs) signed between Canada 
and other countries are there any other professions b esides accounting, architecture, and engineering 
which have been signed or negotiated Mutual r ecognition agreements (MRA s)?  Why did Canada 
choose the particular licenses or qualifications to  mutually recognize them with certain countries? 
What kind of effect has Canada seen after impl ementing mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) for 
the particular licenses or qualifications?  How are mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) related to 
status of residence and work permit in Canada?  Does Canada require any additional requirements for 
obtaining residential status and a work permit in Canada? 
 Canada's Response:  There are no other professions which ha ve been signed or negotiated into 
MRAs.  These specific licences and qualifications we re mutually recognized by their relevant 
professional bodies who select international partners.  As the Government of Canada is not directly 
responsible for the implementation of such agreem ents (the professional bodies themselves are), we WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 164  
 
 understand that these MRAs have been most useful  to the more mobile categories of professionals 
such as engineers, ar chitects and accountants. 
 MRAs are not related to status of residence a nd work permits in Canada.  If a work permit is 
applicable, a labour market opinion (LMO) is norma lly required.  This requirement is waived, 
however, under various trade agreements.  For ex ample, no LMO is required for natural persons 
entering under Canada's horizontal Mode 4 GATS co mmitments.  For applicants of some countries a 
temporary resident visa and/or medical ex am may be required, see http://www.cic.gc. 
ca/english/visit/index.asp.  
[Japan Question 30]:  According to paragraph 224 of the Secr etariat's report, the engineering and 
architecture professions are regulated at the sub -federal level and licenses are valid only for the 
province or territory in which they have been issued .  It also says that the Canadian Architectural 
Licensing Authorities and Engineers Canada play the ro le of competent authorities.  With respect to 
engineering and architecture services, despite the national organization deal  with the regulatory 
matters including licensing, why has Canada not intr oduced a standardization of requirements at the 
federal level?  Canada's Response:  Both the Canadian Architectural Licen sing Authorities and Engineers Canada 
are national-level organisations but not federal en tities.  Rather, they ar e entities created by, the 
provincial and territorial professional authorities them selves.  Both organisations provide a national 
forum and a coordinating mechanism for provincial and territorial authorities to try to develop 
common standards for their profession that can be applied across the country.  The Federal 
Government is appraised of, but plays no role in, that process. 
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
 
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
[Republic of Korea Question 1]:  How does the Canadian Government evaluate the impact of 
Canada's Economic Action Plan on trade with othe r countries, given that the Plan predominantly 
focuses on providing assistance to domestic industries?  
Canada's Response:   There has been no formal evaluation of the impact of Canada's Economic 
Action Plan on trade with other countries.  In k eeping with G20 commitments made at the outset of 
the economic downturn, Canada's Economic Action Plan was implemen ted in a coordinated fashion 
with other nations in order to maximize impact s on global demand.  Mo reover, during the global 
crisis, Canada has shown its commitment to open mark ets.  In Budget 2010, Canada acted unilaterally 
to eliminate all remaining tariffs on machinery and equipment and manufacturing inputs.  This 
measure resulted in the elimination of 43% of Canada's remaining dutiable tariff items and the 
liberalization of over C$7 billion in imports. 
 
[Republic of Korea Question 2]:  Even though Canada's effort for regulatory reform is well 
manifested in the life-cycle approach of the Cabi net Directive on Streamlining Regulation which came 
into effect in 2007, it only applies to the federa l government.  Is there any mechanism to streamline 
regulatory measures of local governments or other public entities which are important agents of 
Canada's trade?  
 
Canada's Response:  Yes.  Through the Agreement on Intern al Trade, Canada's provincial and 
territorial governments work to facilitate trade, including through initiatives to  address a wide range of 
regulatory matters from electronic commerce to food.    WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 165 
 
 
 Provinces and territories are also engaged in a numb er of regional initiatives such as the New West 
Partnership Trade Agreement which came into effect  July 1, 2010 in British Columbia, Alberta and 
Saskatchewan and included a thorough review of regulations as part of a regulatory streamlining 
exercise.   
A number of governments are also engaged in their own regulatory streamlining exercises and, as is 
the case in New Brunswick, have created offices of "red tape reduction".  
[Republic of Korea Question 3]:  The Investment Canada Act, which was amended in 2009, 
provides the review processes on investment that may impose threat to national security.  However, 
the Act does not clearly define 'national security'.   Such uncertainty could make it difficult to 
determine the scope for review and also become a pot ential barrier to investment.  What is Canada's 
position on this matter?  Does Canada have a plan to define 'national security'? 
 
Canada's Response:  The national security review process bri ngs Canada in line with what other 
developed countries are doing to safeguard their national security.  A parliamentary review panel 
suggested that it is in Canada's b est interest in a post 9/11 world to have in place an explicit national 
security test to support its investment policies.  Th reats to national security are constantly evolving.  
The legislation and the regulations do not define national security since it would limit flexibility to 
respond to future threats, as is the practice of mo st other countries.  Canada will ensure that the 
application of the new national security mechanis m is consistent with its international trade 
obligations and the best practices of other indus trialized economies.  The national security test 
requires the Minister of Industry to consult with other safety and intelligence departments in order to 
identify cases where there are reasonable grounds to belie ve that an investment could be injurious to 
national security.  
 
[Republic of Korea Question 4]:  Canada prohibits imports of Kor ean food products containing pork, 
beef and other meat as supplementary ingredients.  How does Canada treat the same kind of products 
originating from other WTO members? 
 
Canada's Response:   Food products containing pork, b eef and other meat as supplementary 
ingredients fall under the definition of m eat products under Canadian legislation. 
According to the Meat Inspect  Act "Meat product" means: 
(a) a carcass, 
(b) the blood of an animal or a product or by-product of a carcass, or 
(c) a product containing anything  described in paragraph ( b); 
Currently,  a country must have its meat insp ection system approved by Canada before the 
importation of meat products can start.  Canada treats the similar products originating from other 
WTO members in the same manner.  If Korea wishes  to apply for system approval, they may refer 
to Chapter 10, Annex B, section 5 of the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures, viewed at: 
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fs sa/meavia/man/ch10/annexbe.shtml. 
 
[Republic of Korea Question 5]:  Many countries have begun to pay greater attention to 
environmental issues in public procurement. For ex porting companies, this could create new barriers. 
Has Canada introduced any new regulations for ‘g reen procurement' (for example, environmental 
performance requirements and/or environmental labeling, etc.)?  Does Canada have green 
procurement targets at the federa l and/or sub-federal government level, such as those found in the 
European Union? 
 Response from Canada :  The federal Policy on Green Procurement  came into effect April 1, 2006, 
with the objective of integrating environmental performance considerations into the procurement 
decision-making process.  The Policy on Green Procurement  only applies to federal government WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 166  
 
 procurement.  The federal government has taken a policy approach to the implementation of green 
procurement rather than introduce regulations.  
Federal departments are required to support con tinuous improvement in the integration of 
environmental performance in their procuremen t, including through the Federal Sustainable 
Development Strategy.  The current federal gove rnment green procurement targets found in the 
Federal Sustainable Development Strategy are available at: (http://www.ec.gc.ca/dd-sd/default.asp?lang=En&n=F93CD795-1).  
[Republic of Korea Question 6]:  Given that comprehensive land claim agreements (CLCAs) have 
quasi-constitutional status in Canada, do they alwa ys take precedence over all other international 
agreements, such as the NAFTA, the WTO GPA, and the AIT?  
 
Canada's Response:  The principles that apply in Canada concerning the negotiations, conclusion 
and implementation of international treaties are set out in Section II (Trade and Investment Regime), 
Part 1-General Principles, at page 10, para . 3 of the WTO Secretariat's Report on Canada 
(WT/TPR/S/246).  Canada's practice is to ensure  consistency between its  domestic law and its 
international treaty obligations.  Please note that the AIT is not a treaty in international law. 
 
[Republic of Korea Question 7]:  What is Canada's view regarding the concerns that certain policy 
measures included in the Growing Forward Framewor k Agreement, such as price support, may skew 
industrial competitiveness and trade?  Canada's Response:   When developing new policy initiativ es such as Growing Forward, Canada 
takes into account its international obligations and commitments, such as those resulting from the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  One of Canada's objec tives in the current round of multilateral trade 
negotiations is a substantial reduction of trade-distorting domestic support. 
 
[Republic of Korea Question 8]:  Canada maintains a supply management system for certain 
commodities such as dairy products, poultry, and eggs and imposes high import-prohibiting tariffs on 
them.  Furthermore, producers receive market pr ice support for these products, and the level of 
support is very high.  In particul ar, paragraph 35 shows that the total PSE in 2009 reached its highest 
level since 1986-88.  This is mainly because Cana da continues to provide price-related support to 
supply-managed commodities.  
 
As part of measures to lower the total PSE, are ther e any possibilities of a policy change in the supply 
management system?  Canada Response:   Supply management is a system that en sures a stable supply of dairy, poultry and 
eggs for Canadian consumers and the agri-food industry.   It also promotes stable farm incomes.  The 
supply management system has served Canada well fo r many years.  Canada is not considering any 
changes to the supply management system.  
 
[Republic of Korea Question 9]:  The Canadian Wheat Board has been operating mainly as a 
dedicated sales organization.  At the same time, it also implements measures such as Producer Quota 
System and two-tier price system.  Is there any pl an for the Canadian Government to change the 
Board's exclusive authority related to export of wheat?  
 
Canada's Response:   The Canadian Government recently stated that it will introduce legislation to 
ensure that western farmers have the freedom to se ll wheat and barley on the open market, effectively 
removing the CWB monopoly.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 167 
 
 
 [Republic of Korea Question 10]:  Construction of oil pipeline in the western region will facilitate 
Canada's energy export to Asian countries including Korea.  What is Canada's future plan? (Energy 
Sector)  
 Canada's Response:  In May 2010, Enbridge, a private sector energy company, applied to the 
National Energy Board (NEB) for approval to constr uct and operate the Northern Gateway Pipelines 
(NGP) project.  The proposed $5.5 billion project w ould consist of two para llel pipelines extending 
1,172 kilometres from north of Edmonton, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia as well as a marine 
terminal in Kitimat.  One pipeline would transport 525,000 barrels per day (b/d) of crude oil from Alberta to Kitimat, where the oil would be loaded onto tankers for export to Asian markets.  The other 
pipeline would transport 193,000 b/d of condensate fro m Kitimat to Alberta.  The marine terminal 
would consist of 2 ship berths and 14 storage ta nks and would receive approximately 220 ship calls 
per year.  Given the complexity of the NGP project and the an ticipated interest by the public and Aboriginal 
groups, the Government of Canada referred the project to a Joint Review Panel (JRP), which will 
satisfy the review requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act  and the National 
Energy Board Act .  In January 2010, three members were appointed to the JRP. 
 The JRP has a broad environmental assessment mandate , which covers the pipeline, the terminal, the 
docking facilities at Kitimat, and the marine trans portation portion of the project.  The JRP held 
preliminary consultation sessions over the summer of 2010 and issued a Hearing Order on May 5, 
2011.  The order indicated that community hearin gs will commence in January 2012, followed by 
final hearings in June 2012.  The review process is open to all interested parties and information 
regarding the review process is available on th e JRP's web site at www.gatewaypanel.review-
examen.gc.ca.  The Government of Canada will not  make a decision on th e proposed project until 
after the JRP has completed its review. 
 Regarding proposed pipeline projects, Canada re lies upon a market-based system that permits the 
private sector to develop proposals to build new pi pelines and related facilities.  These proposals are 
based upon the private sector's assessment  of the costs and benefits associated with proposed projects.  
The Government of Canada's role is to ensure that  pipeline projects, if approved, proceed in a manner 
that is environmentally sustainable, econom ically feasible and socially beneficial. 
 
[Republic of Korea Question 11]:  Canada permits imports  of vehicles only from the United States 
and Mexico, citing safety regulation reasons.  What is  Canada's view on the concerns that this policy 
of general restriction and exceptional permission may violate relevant WTO rules? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada provides a liberalized vehicle market but does so within a framework 
that will not jeopardize the safety of Canadian road users. 
 The treatment referred to in the question was negot iated as part of NAFTA, a preferential free trade 
agreement, but within a regulatory framework that  still maintains the precedence on Canadian vehicle 
safety regulations.  The GATT recognizes the desi rability of such closer integration between 
economies. 
 Most vehicles sold at the retail level in the Unite d States are manufactured to nearly identical safety 
standards to Canadian specification vehicles and most  are capable of being modified to meet Canadian 
requirements.  This 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 minor changes that do not im pair the existing safety features) to meet the few 
additional Canadian safety standards that they may no t meet at the time of importation, are eligible to 
be imported.  Manufacturers can self-certify their vehicles to meet Canadian safety standards if they WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 168  
 
 choose to, but many manufacturers building vehicles for other countries have decided not to do so as 
yet. 
 
[Republic of Korea Question 12]:  Does the Canadian Government ha ve a plan to establish a follow-
up program to the Canadian Apparel and Textile Industries Program (CATIP)?  
 
Canada's Response:  Currently, the Canadian Government does not have a plan to establish a follow-
up program to the Canadian Apparel and Textile Industries Program (CATIP).  
 
[Republic of Korea Question 13]:  The Structured Financing Facility (SFF), scheduled to expire in 
March 2013, offers financial assistance to buyers and lessees of Canadian-built ships.  Through the 
National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) , the Canadian Government is to establish a 
strategic relationship with two Canadian shipyard s and designate them as sources of supply for the 
Navy and Coast Guard's large ships.  The value of  these two work packages is  estimated to be over 
Can$30 billion over the next 30 years.  In which other areas of government procurement does the 
Canadian Government maintain Buy Canadian policies?  
 
Canada's Response:  The 2001 Shipbuilding and Industrial Ma rine Policy includes a Buy Canada 
policy that helps to maintain shipyard capacity to  meet Government of Canada fleet requirements. 
This policy is consistent with WTO obligations.  The federal government excludes all procurement in 
respect of shipbuilding and repair fro m its international trade agreements. 
 In addition, the federal government has other local content policies that fall outside the scope of  
Canada's international agreements.  These include  the federal Canadian Content Policy and the 
Industrial and Regional Benefits Po licy.  The Canadian Content Policy applies where Public Works 
and Government Services Canada is the contracting authority.  The Policy is available in the Supply 
Manual of Public Works and Gove rnment Services Canada at:  http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-
acq/ga-sm/chapitre03-chapter03-eng.html#sa3-6.  
The Industrial and Regional Benef its Policy generally applies to la rge value defence procurements. 
Further details on the Policy are available on I ndustry Canada's website at:  http://www.ic.gc. 
ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/home.  
[Republic of Korea Question 14]:  Canada is composed of 10 provinces and 3 territories and they 
maintain different systems for professional servi ce providers.  Could Ca nada provide an overall 
comparison table which includes information on rest rictions and/or requirements for foreign service 
providers (professionals and enterprises) by sector and region?  
Canada's Response:  This question relates to legal services.  Detailed information on provincial and 
territorial rules applying to foreign legal consu ltants can be found at this internet-based document: 
http://www.flsc.ca/en/pdf/flc.pdf.  MEXICO 
 
GENERAL TRADE POLICY QUESTION  
[Mexico Question 1]:   In the framework of Canadian trade policy and in both new and updated 
regional and bilateral free trade agreements, are specific consumer protection provisions being 
included as a result of the increase in freely circulating goods and services?  Canada's Response:   No, Canada does not seek specific provisi ons related to consumer protection in 
regional and bilateral free trade agreements. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 169 
 
 
 [Mexico Question 2]:  Is Canada working to create a catalogue of technical regulations? 
(paragraph 74)  
 
Canada's Response:   The federal government publishes a ta ble of federal regulations, statutory 
instruments (other than regulations) and other docume nts that were in force at any time in the current 
calendar year in a Consolidated Index of Statutory Instruments  in the Canada Gazette Part II .  This 
Index is published four times a year. 
 
[Mexico Question 3]:  With regard to this para graph, could you clarify whether there are differences 
in public procurement procedures when they are conducted by Public Works and Government 
Services Canada and when they are not? 
 Canada's Response:   Federal procurement procedures fo r procurement subject to Canada's 
international trade agreements are generally th e same whether it is conducted by PWGSC or by 
another federal entity subject to the agreements.  Fe deral procurements subject  to international trade 
agreements are posted on the Government Electroni c Tendering Service (GETS) by the current service 
provider MERX (http//www.merx.com/).  The solicita tion document will contain all of the terms and 
conditions applicable to the procurement.  
[Mexico Question 4]:  Could you clarify whether the means of announcing calls for public tenders is 
the same when they are conducted by Public Work s and Government Services Canada and when they 
are not? 
 Canada's Response:   When procurement is considered covere d by the trade agreements, all calls for 
public tenders are posted on the Government Elect ronic Tendering Service (GETS) by the current 
service provider MERX (http://www.merx.com/) whet her they are conducted by Public Works and 
Government Services Canada or by another department. 
 
[Mexico Question 5]:   According to paragraph 160, since 2006, environmental performance 
considerations have been integrated into procur ement processes.  Could you give some examples of 
how these considerations have been in tegrated into procurement processes? 
 
Canada's Response:   The Government of Canada Policy on  Green Procurement came into effect 
April 1, 2006 with the objectiv e to integrate environmental performance considerations into the 
procurement decision-making process in the contex t of value for money and life cycle approach 
management.  Using a life cycle approach to examin e costs associated with a commodity allows for 
consideration not only of the purchase price but also those costs associated with operating, 
maintaining and disposing of the good. 
 The policy is available on the Department of P ublic Works and Government Services Canada's 
(PWGSC) website:  http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc. ca/ecologisation-greening/achats-procurement/ 
politique -policy-eng.html.  
PWGSC has developed a green procurement tool kit to assist federal departments and agencies with 
the integration of environmental performance consid erations in their procurements:  http://www.tpsgc-
pwgsc.gc.ca/ecologisation-greening/achats- procurement/trousse-toolkit/index-eng.html. 
 The following Statistics Canada we bpage also provides information on green procurement targets and 
policy requirements: http://www.stat can.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/tbl/tbl3a-eng.htm  
 
Mexico Question 6]:   Could you clarify whether the aforem entioned environmental considerations 
have been integrated both into domestic procuremen t and into procurement c overed by international 
agreements? WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 170  
 
 Canada's Response:   The Government of Canada Policy on  Green Procurement, which came into 
effect April 1, 2006, applies to entities listed unde r Schedule I (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-
11/page-95.html#h-71), Schedule I.1 (http://laws-lois. justice.gc.ca/eng/ acts/f-11/page-96.html#h-72), 
and Schedule II (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ acts/f-11/page-97.html#h-73) of the Financial 
Administration Act.  The policy applies equally to domestic procurement and procurement covered by 
international trade agreements. 
 
[Mexico Question 7]:  How does Canada ensure that consider ations of this kind do not constitute 
unnecessary trade barriers or in some way compromise its obligations under in ternational agreements? 
 
Canada's Response:  Environmental requirements for federa l government procurement are aligned 
with the capacities of suppliers, both foreign and domestic.  Extensive market analysis, such as 
industry consultations and requests for informat ion (RFIs), are regularly conducted through the 
Government Electronic Tendering Service (GETS) by the current service provider MERX , which is 
available to domestic and foreign suppliers - to ensure the procurement process remains fair and 
competitive. 
 Environmental specifications and evaluation criteria are applied to all bidders equally, the same as any 
other specification or criteria.  These criteria are based on internationally recognized standards 
wherever possible. Specific sta ndards used for specific goods and services can be found by following 
the link.  http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/ae-gp/paer-cgpp-eng.html. 
 
[Mexico Question 8]:  Is the Code of Conduct for Procurement applicable to procurement covered by 
international trade agreements?  Canada's Response:   Yes.  For more information on the Statement of Values for the Procurement 
Community of the Government of Canada visit http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cmp/values/ 
statementvalues_e.asp.  
[Mexico Question 9]:   In Canada is there any pre-registra tion of suppliers for the standing offers 
mentioned in this paragraph?  
Canada's Response:   There is no requirement to pre-regist er prior to bidding on a standing offer 
opportunity that is conducted by PWGSC.  However,  in order to receive payment under a contract 
award by way of a standing offer (or any other method), the supplier must obtain a Business Number from the Canada Revenue Agency.  Fo r more information, please see:  
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/register and https://sris upplier.contractscanada.gc.ca/index-eng.cfm?af=ZnVz 
ZWF jdGlvbj1y ZWdpc3Rlci5pbnRybyZpZD0x&lang=eng. 
 
[Mexico Question 10]:   Is there a maximum time period for suppliers of goods or services who win a 
standing offer?  Canada's Response:   There is no maximum time  period for suppliers of goods and services that win a 
standing offer. 
 
[Mexico Question 11]:   Could you describe the characteristics of the position of Procurement 
Ombudsman and the process for selecting the person to fill this position?  
Canada's Response:   The Office of the Procurement Om budsman (OPO) is an independent 
organization with a government-wide mandate.  The Procurement Ombudsman reports to the Minister 
of Public Works and Government Services Cana da.  The position of Procurement Ombudsman was 
created by amendments to the Department of P ublic Works and Government Services Act enacted 
pursuant to the Federal Accountability Act which received Royal Assent on December 12, 2006. The  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 171 
 
 
 Office's overall objective is to strengthen the fairness, openness and transparency of federal 
procurement.  Regarding the selection process to fill the position of Procurement Ombudsman, a regular selecting 
process is launched by the Privy Council Office and th e best candidate is appointed by Governor in 
Council.  The most recent advertisement can  be found here:  http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-
pr/p1/2010/2010-05-15/html/notice-avis-eng.html.  The most recent notice of appointment can be found here.  http://www.appointments.gc. ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=SVCO&lang=eng. 
 
[Mexico Question 12]:   Could you explain what measures Ca nada has implemented or intends to 
implement to deal with the problems detect ed by the Ombudsman in procurement processes? 
 Canada's Response:   The business model of the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman is to use the 
power of persuasion and to work cooperatively with all stakeholders in the procurement environment. 
The Office must demonstrate in every aspect of its work its ne utrality as between suppliers and 
procuring entities.  A formal follow-up repor t on recommendations from the Office of the 
Procurement Ombudsman will ta ke place in 2011- 2012. 
 
[Mexico Question 13]:  Apart from setting aside spectrum, what additional measures has the 
Canadian government implemented or planned to  increase the mobile telephone penetration rate? 
 
Canada's Response:   In support of competitive entrants in  the wireless markets, Canada has 
implemented mandatory roaming and tower shari ng provisions, as well as number portability.  The 
Government of Canada is also examining the lib eralization of foreign ownership restrictions. 
 
[Mexico Question 14]: Regarding postal services, the report states that: "The courier services market 
has been fully liberalized and there are no forei gn ownership restrictions." Does Canada plan to 
consolidate its current regime applicable  to courier services at the Doha Round? 
 Canada's Response:  We can confirm that Canada's current  Doha GATS offer, tabled in 2005, 
reflects the courier services market described in the latest TPR for Canada.   
 
[Mexico Question 15]:  Does the Canadian government plan to  consolidate its legal framework 
applicable to air transport and eliminate the MFN exemptions in its final commitments at the Doha 
Round?  Canada's Response:  With respect to the elimination of Canada's MFN exemption for aircraft repair 
and maintenance, Canada does not intend to eliminat e the exemption.  This exemption is taken for 
reasons of civil aviation safety.  Canada negotiates agreements or arrangements with other countries or 
organizations of countries, aeronautical authorities or services providers to recognize their accreditation of repair, overhaul, and maintenance fac ilities and certification by such facilities of work 
performed on Canadian registered aircraft  and other related aeronautical products. 
 
[Mexico Question 16]:  Apart from eliminating the MFN tariff on foreign vessels, does the Canadian 
government plan to take other action to increase competitiveness in this sector?  Canada's Response:   On June 3, 2010, the Governme nt of Canada announced the National 
Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy  (NSPS).  Under a competitive procurement process, the NSPS is 
selecting two yards to build Navy and Coast Guard vessels over the next 30 years to bring 
predictability to federal ship procurement and elim inate cycles of boom and bust, providing benefits to 
the entire marine industry.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 172  
 
 [Mexico Question 17(a)]:  Does the Canadian Copyright Act provide for the protection of titles, 
names, denominations, distinctive physical and ps ychological characteristics, or original operating 
characteristics applied, according to thei r nature, in any of the following genres? 
 
1. Periodicals: Published in successive parts with  a variety of content and intended to be 
continued indefinitely; 
2. Periodical broadcasts: issued in successive parts with a variety of content and capable of being 
broadcast; 
3. Characterizing, fictitious or symbolic human characters; 
4. Individuals or groups engaged in artistic activities;  and 
5. Advertising promotions:  these include a novel mechanism without protection to promote or 
offer a good or a service with the additional incen tive of providing the general public with the 
possibility of obtaining another product or service under more favourable conditions than 
those normally found in the trade. 
 
Canada's Response:  The Copyright Act  provides protection for titles, names, denominations, 
distinctive physical and psychological characteristics,  or original operating characteristics applied, in 
all of the listed genres, to the extent that they are part of a fixed and original literary, dramatic, 
musical or artistic work.  To the extent that the titles, names, or denominat ions are used in the normal course of trade to 
distinguish goods and services of one enterprise from those of another, they may be protected under 
trade-marks law and could be registered under the Trade-marks Act . 
 
[Mexico Question 17(b)]:   If so, what legal instrument protects them? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Copyright Act  and its associated regulations are the legal instruments that 
protect them.  Trade-marks that are unregistered ma y be protected using unfair competition provisions 
under the Trade-marks Act , or under tort law, which is a provincial jurisdiction. 
 
[Mexico Question 18]:   Does the Copyright Act  provide for the protection of expressions of folklore? 
If so, what does the protection of those expressions cover? 
 
Canada's Response:  Expressions of folklore are protected under the Copyright Act  to the extent that 
these are fixed and constitute an original literary, dram atic, musical, or artistic work, or are a protected 
performer's performance or sound recording.  These would benefit from the full range of protections 
provided in the Act, including for reproduction, performance, communication to the public, moral 
rights, etc. 
 
[Mexico Question 19]:   Does the Copyright Act  provide for the protection of dance? 
 Canada's Response:  In Canada, the Copyright Act  protects choreographic works and musical works.  
Protection is also given to live performances and to certain residual rights in audiovisual performances 
recorded with the performer's consent.  An audiovi sual recording of a dance would be protected as a 
cinematographic work. 
 
[Mexico Question 20]:  Does the Copyright Act  provide for the protection of radio and television 
programs? 
 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the Copyright Act  provides protection for every original literary, 
dramatic, musical and artistic work, whether in dig ital format or otherwise.  Television and radio 
programs are works that receive copyright protection in Canada.  The Copyright Act  also provides for 
related rights to broadcasters' wireless communication signals, which includes the sole right to fix  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 173 
 
 
 their communication signal and to reproduce any fixation of it that was made without that 
broadcaster's consent.  
[Mexico Question 21]:   Does the Copyright Act  provide for the protection of computer programs? 
 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the Copyright Act  provides protection for computer programs, 
which are explicitly considered to be original literary works.  
[Mexico Question 22]:   How many collective management bodies or corporations exist in Canada 
and in regard to what branches of copyright or related rights holders? 
 
Canada's Response:  There are 37 collective management soci eties operating in Canada.  A list of 
these societies and the rights they administer is  available at: http://www. cb-cda.gc.ca/societies-
societes/index-e.html.  
[Mexico Question 23]:   Does the Copyright Act or any other legislation include provisions on legal 
protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of technological measures, as well 
as removal or alteration of electroni c rights management information? 
 Canada's Response:  The Copyright Act  does not currently deal with technological protection 
measures (TPMs) or rights management information (RMI). 
 
In June 2010, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act , 
legislation that was aimed at modernizing Canada's  copyright laws in a manner that would, among 
other things, implement the two World Intellectua l Property Organization (WIPO) Treaties dealing 
with digital copyright issues, including by providing legal protections for TPMs as well as RMI. 
 
Bill C-32 died on the Order Paper when an election was called in March 2011.  In June 2011, in the Speech from the Throne, the G overnment of Canada committed to "introduce and 
seek swift passage of copyright legislation that  balances the needs of creators and users." 
 
Under Bill C-32, prohibitions against circumventi on of TPMs would have included a prohibition on 
circumventing an access-control TPM, and against providing services to circumvent a TPM or dealing in a device that circumvents a TPM.  Some exceptions would have permitted circumve nting TPMs for the following purposes:  law 
enforcement and national security activities;  reverse engineering for software compatibility;  security 
testing of systems; encryption research;  personal information protection;  temporary recordings made by broadcast undertakings;  access for persons with perceptual disabilities;  and unlocking a wireless 
device. 
 
[Mexico Question 24]:   Does the government of Canada intend to accede in the future to the 
Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonogr ams against Unauthorized Duplication of their 
Phonograms  and the Convention Relating to the Distribu tion of Programme-Carrying Signals 
Transmitted by Satellite ? 
 Canada's Response:  Strong protection for phonogram producers has existed in Canada since well 
before the 1971 Geneva Phonograms Convention and pr otection is now incorporated into the TRIPS 
Agreement.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 174  
 
 Canada grants a reproduction right in phonograms an d remedies against the distribution or importation 
of infringing copies.  These rights and remedies ha ve been granted to all Berne Convention countries 
even through phonograms are not Berne Convention subject matter.  Canada also protects encrypted program carry ing satellite signals under current Canadian 
communications law. 
 Canada has no immediate plan s to accede to either the Convention for the Protection of Producers of 
Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms  or the Convention Relating to 
the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite . 
 
[Mexico Question 25]:   Does the Copyright Act provide for the protection of book publishers?  If so, 
for how many years does it protect them? 
 
Canada's Response:  To the extent that the publisher owns co pyright in a book (for example, if the 
author transferred his or her copyright to the pu blisher), it would benefit from protections in the 
Copyright Act  for literary works. 
 The general rule is that copyright for works lasts for the life of the author and for 50 years after the 
author dies.  
[Mexico Question 26]:   Concerning the discretionary powers of the Canadian courts to impose 
payment of damages, what are the core points or  circumstances that judges must observe when 
establishing legal compensation? 
 
Canada's Response:  The courts look at the extent and natu re of the harm and the intent and 
motivation of the infringer. 
 
[Mexico Question 27]:   In point 194 and in relation to the Pate nt Act, what is referred to in terms of 
the abuse of exclusive rights and in what cases  does the obtaining of non-exclusive licences for 
patented inventions to supply the domestic market apply?  
Canada's Response:  The Patent Act  (section 65) provides that, anytime after three years from the 
date a patent was granted, the Attorney General or any interested person may file an application with 
the Commissioner of Patents alleging an abuse of patent  rights.  A patent will be deemed to be abused 
when the demand for the product in Canada is not me t, or where the patent holder refuses to grant a 
license or the conditions of the license results in prejudice to the trade or industry in Canada or 
persons in the trade/industry, and its in the public in terest that the license be  granted by the holder.  
Also, there may be abuse where a patent is used to  unfairly prejudice the manufacture, use of sale or 
any material in Canada.  Where abuse is alleged, the Commissioner h as the authority under section 66 of the Patent Act  to 
grant a license to an applicant, subject to certain  conditions, or grant a license to the applicant or 
his/her customers (where the patent has been used  by the patentee so as to unfairly prejudice the 
manufacture, use or sale of any material in Canada).  Section 19 of the Patent Act  provides that the Government of Canada may apply to the Commissioner 
of Patents for a compulsory license to use a patented invention.  The use of the patented invention may 
only be authorized for a limited time and only fo r the purposes of supplying the domestic market.  The 
Commissioner may not authorize government use of a patent unless it is shown that reasonable efforts 
had been made to obtain a license from the patentee, unless there is a national emergency or extreme urgency.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 175 
 
 
 [Mexico Question 28]:  Notwithstanding the fact that Canada Customs does not have powers to 
automatically detain or seize imports that viol ate any rights of third parties, is there any 
communication between customs authorities and the pr ivate sector at the time at which any type of 
good bearing any brand or registered design is attemp ting to enter its territory and possibly affect its 
intellectual property rights? 
 
Canada's Response:  Under the Copyright Act  and the Trade-marks Act , the Canada Border Services 
Agency (CBSA) is authorized to detain goods only subject to a court order secured by the holder of the intellectual property right.  These court orders al so include the authorization for CBSA officials to 
disclose to the holder of the intellectual property right information about the suspected imported 
goods.  Without this court order, the CBSA officials cannot disclose information about suspected 
imports to the rights holder.  
[Mexico Question 29]:  Could it be said that the measures re ferred to in the Patented Medicines 
Regulations, which call for regulating the costs of patented pharmaceutical products indicated in point 
199, have been an important factor in increasing th e marketing as well as the protection of branches of 
that industry?  Canada's Response:  Brand name drug companies made a commitment in 1987 to increase their 
research and development (R&D) expenditures in Canada  to 10% of their sales revenue by 1996.  This 
commitment was made voluntarily by the industry and is not a requirement of the Patent Act .  
According to the Patented Medicine Prices Revi ew Board (PMPRB), which reports annually to the 
government on research and development (R&D) spe nding by pharmaceutical patentees in Canada, 
brand name drug companies expenditure for R&D in Canada in 2009 was $1.2 billion.  This reflects a 
2.8 percent decrease from 2008. 
 
[Mexico Question 30]:  With respect to point 201, apart from the attempts to strengthen the 
deterrence and enforcement measures contained in the Act, what other actions are called for in terms 
of public awareness-raising and what  results have been obtained? 
 Canada's Response:  The Canadian Intellectual Property O ffice (CIPO) has a general and ongoing 
mandate for promoting public awareness of the bene fits of IP so as to increase the generation and use 
of IP for Canada's economic benefit. This includes efforts to:  
 
 promote the economic value of IP among sm all and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); 
 
 promote IP awareness among postsecondary students; 
 
 build partnerships among key players in a position to disseminate IP awareness, knowledge 
and effective use; 
 
 engage intermediaries in IP promotion by providing them the necessary training;  and 
 
 build the capacity within CIPO that is necessary to deliver the outreach strategy. 
 In 2009-2010, CIPO's outreach effo rts delivered the following results: 
 
 CIPO delivered 36 IP case study sessions in 27 educational institutions, reaching more than 
1,000 students. 
 
 Working in partnership with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, CIPO 
developed training sessions for trade commissioners on the basics of IP. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 176  
 
  In 2009–2010, CIPO de livered three training sessions to 53 trade commissioners.  As a result 
of this training, trade commissioners will be  in a better position to refer SMEs and other 
clients to IP resources. 
 
 CIPO's four business development officers, ba sed in offices across Canada, delivered 66 
information sessions to 1,987 participants (m ostly SMEs), and 11 training sessions to 121 
participants. 
 
 Delivered 48 information sessions to 1,616 bus iness participants under the Bank of Speakers 
Program, an initiative managed in partnership with the Intellectual Property Institute of 
Canada which involves organizing workshops to  raise awareness on IP and facilitating the 
sharing of resources and expertise. 
 CIPO connected with 6500 SMEs and other me mbers of the business community at 39 trade 
shows. 
 
 CIPO's Client Service Centre handled 50,000 enquiries and over 20,000 requests for 
documentation. 
 The Government of Canada's ongoing efforts to modern ize copyright laws for the digital age have also 
served to increase awareness about copyright am ong Canadians.  In the summer of 2009, the 
Government launched an eight-week national consultation on copyright modernization.  Thousands of 
Canadians, businesses and stakeholder organizations shared their ideas on how to best adapt Canada's 
copyright framework to the digital age.  
[Mexico Question 31]:   Could you give a general explanation of the main initiatives that Canada has 
supported in the debates on the elimination of barri ers to trade in environmental goods and services? 
 Canada's Response:   In recent years, the Canadian governme nt has unilaterally reduced its applied 
MFN tariffs on a significant number of manuf acturing inputs and machinery and equipment 
(G/MA/W/101).  The products covered by these rounds  of unilateral tariff relief include numerous 
environmental goods.  Canada also continues to press for ambition in discussions to reduce and where 
appropriate eliminate barriers to trade in envir onmental goods and services as part of the Doha Round 
of negotiations.  In this regard, Canada has put  forward and supported numerous proposals aimed at 
liberalizing trade in environmental goods and services.   Canada is also fully engaged in trade and 
environmental discussions and activities, such as st udies and seminars aiming at the elimination of 
tariff and non-tariff barriers, in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperati on (APEC) forum.  For instance, 
it actively participated in the creation of the A PEC Environmental Goods and Services Information 
Exchange (EGSIE) website.  Finally, Canada conti nues to contribute to the work of the Organization 
of Economic Cooperation and Deve lopment (OECD) concerning trade and environment matters. 
 
[Mexico Question 32]:   What are the most recent free trade agreements that Canada has signed that 
have included environmental cons iderations?  Do any of these establish bilateral cooperation 
structures?  Canada's Response:   The Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreem ent (signed on the 14th of May, 2010), 
the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (signed on the 1st of August 2009), the Canada-Jordan Free 
Trade Agreement (signed on the 28th of June, 2009)  and the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement 
(signed on the 21st of November, 2008) are the mo st recent free trade agreements that Canada has 
signed.  They all incorporate environmental consider ations through the inclusion of a principles-based 
environment chapter within the text of the agreem ents as well as in separate environment agreements 
negotiated in parallel with the free trade agreem ent.  These parallel agreements also include 
frameworks for undertaking cooperative activities.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 177 
 
 
 [Mexico Question 33]:   In the framework of Canadian trade policy and in both new and updated 
regional and bilateral free trade agreements, are specific consumer protection provisions being 
included as a result of the increase in freely circulating goods and services?  Canada's Response:  No, Canada does not seek specific provision s related to consumer protection in 
regional and bilateral free trade agreements. 
 
[Mexico Question 34]:   The Domestic Trade Agreement (AIT) that entered into effect in 1995 and 
which is aimed at reducing significant differences between federal and provincial trade policies and 
practices, refers to the possibility of making ex ceptions for legitimate objectives such as consumer 
protection.  In this regard, are there many cases in which a provincial government has used the 
consumer protection argument to impose additional requirements that act as partial obstacles to the 
implementation of the AIT?  
 
Canada's Response:  Experience with the AIT disputes resolution process indicates that the vast 
majority of cases are resolved between the parties at some point prior to the panel decision.  Only nine 
complaints have been decided by a panel.  In  each of these nine cases, the responding party has 
defended the measure, at least in part, as serving a legitimate objective based on consumer protection.  
However, none of the panels have found the argument persuasive.  Instead, each panel decided that the 
measure in question was inconsistent with the AIT.  
 
[Mexico Question 35]:   In the implementation of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS), 
how do government authorities ensure effective cons umer participation when evaluating the impacts 
of a regulation?  
 Canada's Response:  The following extract from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Cabinet 
Directive on Streamlining Regulation  (CDSR) guides regulatory authorities when conducting 
consultations: 
 
Departments conduct analysis and develop the regulatory impact analysis statement (RIAS) that 
includes a description of the proposal, alternatives c onsidered, a benefit-cost analysis, results of 
consultations with stakeholders, compliance and en forcement mechanisms.  They obtain approval of 
the RIAS from TBS-RAS.  
Departments and agencies are responsible for identif ying interested and affected parties, and for 
providing them with opportunities to take part in ope n, meaningful, and balanced consultations at all 
stages of the regulatory process.  When undertaking consultations, departments and agencies are to: 
 
 inform and engage Canadians on the nature and implications of the public policy issue based 
on available evidence, science, or knowledge; 
 
 include Canadians in developing policy objectives; 
 
 set out the process and timelines in a clear manne r so that affected parties can organize and 
provide input;  and  
 
 provide timely feedback to Canadians and affect ed parties on the outcome of the consultations 
and on the priorities considered in decision making. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 178  
 
 Departments and agencies are also to work with  First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities and 
peoples; national, regional, and local Aboriginal organizations;  and Aboriginal governments and 
ensure that they meet all obligations that may exis t in relation to rights protected by section 35 of the 
Constitution Act, 1982 . 
 
Departments and agencies are to publish proposals in the Canada Gazette , Part I, to allow for a public 
comment period and to then take the comments receiv ed into consideration.  The standard comment 
period is 30 days, but it can vary based on legisl ative requirements, international obligations, and 
other considerations.  A minimum comment period of 75 days is required for proposals for new and 
changed technical regulations that may affect international trade. 
 
The following extract from the Treasury Board of  Canada Secretariat's Guidelines for Effective 
Regulatory Consultations provides further guidance to regulatory authorities when conducting consultations:  
The extent to which stakeholders are involved in a consultation process varies considerably, from 
simply providing them with information to engaging them in a true partnership with shared decision 
making. Regulatory consultations tend to fall somewh ere in the middle of this continuum, since the 
final decision regarding regulation rests with a specif ic individual (i.e. the Minister) or body (i.e. the 
Governor in Council).  These Guidelines focus prim arily on the consultation process, which entails a 
two-way exchange in which stakeholders are give n an opportunity to provide input and affect the 
outcome of a regulatory proposal.  A good consultation process assists in developing quality 
regulations and mitigates implementation risks.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach to regulat ory consultations.  The size and scope of the 
consultative process depend on the proposed regulati ons and the number of people or groups affected 
by them.  Regulations may be broad in scope and affect all Canadians (e.g. Canada Pension Plan 
Regulations), may affect a large stakeholder grou p (e.g. Canadian Aviation Regulations), or may 
affect relatively few individuals (e.g. Oaths of O ffice Regulations).  The process, therefore, may be 
broad (e.g. many stakeholders, across several regions ) or more targeted (e.g. specific stakeholders, 
specific regions).  
The Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  can be accessed online at:  
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/directiv e/directive00-eng.asp (English). 
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/directiv e/directive00-fra.asp (French). 
 
For more information, please see Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations  available online 
at:  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gl- ld/erc-cer/erc-certb-eng.asp (English). 
 
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gl- ld/erc-cer/erc-certb-fra.asp (French). 
 
[Mexico Question 36]:   Paragraph 70 states:  "In the Canadi an system of government, the federal, 
provincial, and territorial governments have the au thority to promulgate technical regulations (and 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures);  each has its own regulatory process."  Could you tell us 
whether the procedure for creating a technical regula tion varies greatly from one authority to another?  
 Canada's Response:  While authorities have their own intern al processes, the federal regulatory 
process is highly structured.  It is defined bot h by specific legal requirements set out in the Statutory  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 179 
 
 
 Instruments Act and by policy requirements that are articulated in the Cabinet Directive on 
Streamlining Regulation  (CDSR). 
 More information is available online in the Guide to the Federal Re gulatory Development Process : 
 
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gfr pg-gperf/gfrpg-gperf00-eng.asp (English). 
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gfr pg-gperf/gfrpg-gperf00-fra.asp (French). 
 
[Mexico Question 37]:   Paragraph 71 states that federal aut horities must give positive consideration 
to requests for recognition of foreign technical regul ations.  Does this apply to all sectors of industry?  
 Canada's Response:  Yes. Appendix B of the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  directs 
all federal departments and agencies to consider accepting as equivalent the technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures of other countries,  even if different, provided they achieve the 
intended regulatory objective and offe r an equivalent level of assuran ce of conformity with domestic 
technical regulations and standards.  
[Mexico Question 38]:   According to paragraph 74:  "Canada does not maintain a catalogue of 
technical regulations."  However, even though ther e is an electronic information system, it would be 
very useful if a website were available so that an y interested party could research or identify technical 
regulations.  
 Canada's Response:  Paragraph 74 of the Secretariat Repor t makes reference to the Standards 
Council of Canada's (SCC) maintenance of an onlin e searchable database (RegWatch) of standards 
incorporated into Canadian federal regulations.  Th e SCC plans to considerably expand this database. 
This includes plans to expand the searchable datab ase to include the provincial/territorial levels of 
government.  The SCC is currently assessing the requi red timeframe/resources that are necessary to 
complete this expansion.  
[Mexico Question 39]:   It is mentioned in paragraph 120 that the Canadian Government has 
expressed concern about investment and productivity le vels in its ICT industries, which have been 
lower than those of competitors, notably the Un ited States.  We would like to know whether the 
Canadian government has identified any meas ures to offset the drop in these levels. 
 
Canada's Response:   A Digital Economy Strategy is  being developed to address this. 
 
[Mexico Question 40]:   In paragraph 122, it is noted that the Canadian Radio-television and 
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) aims at reducing the regulatory burden by relying on 
market forces to the maximum extent feasible, a nd introduces a policy test (criteria) for developing 
new regulatory measures to ensure efficient and eff ective regulation.  One of the criteria is that 
measures with an economic rationa le should neither deter competitive entry nor promote inefficient 
entry into the market.  Mexico would like to know  what the results of implementing these measures 
has been.  
 
Canada's Response:   The application of the criteria has led to an acceleration in the removal of 
regulation for retail telecommunications markets a nd increasing penetration of markets by competitive 
providers. 
 
[Mexico Question 41]:  In paragraph 124, it is noted that in July 2010, Canada lifted restrictions on 
foreign ownership of Canadian satellite carriers, allowing the Canadian industry to gain access to 
foreign capital markets to finance its growth.  We wo uld like to know whether this measure has been 
reflected in the growth of the sector.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 180  
 
 Canada's Response:  The Canadian satellite industry is capita l intensive and benefits from improved 
access to capital markets.  The industry continues to invest and launch satellites serving Canada and 
international markets but no statistics are available of  growth in the industry in the short term since the 
removal of foreign investment restrictions. 
 
[Mexico Question 42]:   Paragraph 128 states that the fact that all three national wireless service 
providers are also owned by large telecommunicati ons service providers that also provide wireline 
services – may mean that there is less competition in  the Canadian wireless ma rket than in the U.S. 
market, which consequently has resulted in highe r prices, less innovation, lower uptake and lower 
rates of usage.  Mexico would like to know whethe r the Government of Canada plans to take measures 
to improve this situation. 
 
Canada's Response:   Several wireless-only carriers have entered the market following the 2008 AWS 
spectrum auction that set aside spectrum for new entrants.  Canada will continue to encourage 
competition in the wireless market.  Currently, th e policies for tower sharing, roaming, the 700 MHz 
auction, and foreign investment restriction are being examined. 
 
[Mexico Question 43]:  Paragraph 186 states that the Federal G overnment owns the land of 23 of the 
26 NAS airports but does not operate any of these ai rports.  We would like to know whether foreign 
companies can participate in the operation of these airports.  
Canada's Response:   22 of the federally owned airports in the National Airports System are currently 
leased to private corporations known as airport aut horities under long term leases.  The leases run for 
60 years with the option of a 20 year extension.  Under the government policy and the terms of the 
lease, the entity operating the airport must be a not-f or-profit, non-share capital corporation.  For the 
duration of the lease the airport authorities may contract our portions of their operation to other 
entities.  There is no restriction on the nationality of such contractors. 
 The remaining airport that is federally owned is l eased to a municipality under different terms than the 
airport authorities.  There are no federal restricti ons on the manner in which it may issue contracts for 
services.  
[Mexico Question 44]:   Paragraph 199 states that the Coasting Trade Act reserves certain commercial 
maritime activities to duty-paid, Canadian-registered ships in Canadian waters, and that foreign ships 
may perform these activities where no Canadian-registered  duty-paid ship is available or suitable to 
carry out the activity, and where the activity entails the carriage of p assengers, an identical or similar 
marine service is not available.  Could you te ll us the proportion of domestic and foreign vessels 
involved in these activities?  
 Canada's Response:   According to the statistics containe d in Transport Canada's Annual Report 
‘Transportation in Canada 2009' the participation rate of foreign vessels in Canada's cabotage has 
been:  
Year Tonnage (millions) 
(Canadian vessels) Tonnage (millions) 
(Foreign vessels) Participation Rate (%): 
(Canadian vessels) Participation Rate (%):  
(Foreign vessels) 
1999 51.6 0.6 98.8 1.2 
2000 53.9 0.6 98.8 1.2 
2001 52.8 1.1 98.0 2.0 
2002 59.8 2.8 95.5 4.5 
2003 65.8 2.8 95.9 4.1 
2004 67.4 1.7 97.5 2.5 
2005 68.3 1.8 97.4 2.6 
2006 65.4 2.8 96.0 4.0 
2007 60.1 7.4 89.0 11.0 
2008 (estimate) 63.0 3.0 95.5 4.5  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 181 
 
 
 [Mexico Question 45]:  Paragraph 216 states that, through its National Committee on Accreditation, 
the Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC) assesses and certifies the credentials of 
internationally trained individuals who wish to apply for membership in a Canadian law society.  We 
would like to know the requirements for a foreign na tional to become a member of a Canadian law 
society. 
 
Canada's Response :  The key steps, requirements and guidelines for this process can be found at 
http://www.flsc.ca/en/foreignLawyers/guidelines.asp.  
NEW ZEALAND 
 
[New Zealand Question 1]:   The Secretariat Report notes in para graph 6 that Canada's "trade and 
investment policy objectives are set out in its Gl obal Commerce Strategy, wh ich was launched in 2007 
(GCS) (2007)."  The Report by Canada states in para graph 13 that the GCS is "a sustained five-year 
action plan", which lists New Zealand as a prio rity market in the Asia Pacific region. 
 
When can we anticipate the strategy for New Zealand to be rolled-out formally, if the action plan is 
expected to expire in 2012?  Canada's Response:   The Global Commerce Strategy is an ongoing exercise and will not expire in 
2012. Canada has sought to engage with Ne w Zealand in certain regional initiatives. 
 
 
[New Zealand Question 2]:  The Secretariat's report (WT/TPR/S/246 para 35) notes that the overall 
market orientation of Canada's agriculture sector has improved since its last review.  However, the 
report also notes that producer support (as measured  by the OECD) reached in 2009 their highest level 
since 1986-88, mainly because Canada continues to provide price-related s upport to supply-managed 
commodities .  What steps is Canada taking to reduce its use of the most trade distorting forms of 
domestic support, in particular  on its supply managed sectors? 
 Canada's Response:   Canada has made substantial progress in reforming its agriculture policies. 
Canada is moving towards less trade-distorting form s of domestic support.  The noted increase in 
support measured by the OECD in 2009 was due to the decline in world milk prices.  While other 
policy parameters remain the same, the measured level of OECD price-related support varies from 
year to year, depending on the reference market cond itions (e.g., world price is an estimation based on 
Canadian imports and exports of butter and skim m ilk powder).  Expressed as a percentage of gross 
farm receipts, the level of support to milk in 2009 was comparable to the average level since 1986 at 
about 55%.  The supply management system is c onsistent with Canada's international trade 
obligations and Canada has no plans to take steps to alter it.  
[New Zealand Question 3]:  The Secretariat report (WT/TPR/S/246 para 43) notes that according to 
OECD PSE figures milk receives the highest level of commodity–specific support among Canada's major commodities.  Transfers accounted for about 33% to 60% of producer revenues from milk in 
2007-09.  These figures indicate a low level of market orientation which is likel y to have an adverse 
effect on the international competitiveness of the dair y industry.  Can Canada elaborate on the plan to 
address this systemic issue? 
 
Canada's Response:   The Canadian dairy system is designed to ensure that domestic demand is met, 
while ensuring a reasonable return for producers and stable prices for consumers.  Canada has no 
plans to change the system, which is consistent w ith Canada's international trade obligations and has 
served Canada well.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 182  
 
 [New Zealand Question 4]:  The Secretariat's report states that tariff protection remains highest for 
dairy products, averaging 237.3% in 2010;  this compares negatively with the average MFN tariffs for agricultural products (22.5%) and animals and animal products (52.8%).  There appears to have been 
little change to Canada's tariff quota regime for agri cultural products since the last review in 2007.  
Can Canada outline its plan to reduce prohibitive tari ffs in the dairy sector to a level proportionate to 
other products? 
 Canada's response:   Supply management is a system that ensures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food i ndustry.  It also promotes stable farm incomes. 
Canada has no plans to alter the system which is  consistent with Canada 's international trade 
obligations and has served Canada well.   
 
[New Zealand Question 5]:  The Secretariat's Report (WT/TPR/S/246 para 13) notes that a new tariff 
quota for milk protein concentrates was established in September 2009 as a result of the modification of Canada's concessions under Article XXVIII of th e GATT.  How does Canada see this move as 
matching with its goal in the agricultural nego tiations under the Doha Development Agenda of 
achieving a "substantial reduction of trade-distor ting domestic support, and real and significant 
improvements in market access for agricultu ral and agri-food producers and processors" 
(WT/TPR/G/246 para 17)?  
 
Canada's Response:   Canada is a strong supporter of an  ambitious outcome in the agricultural 
negotiations under the Doha Develo pment Agenda.  The renegotiation of tariff concessions through 
GATT Article XXVIII is a longstanding right under the WTO Agreements.  
 
[New Zealand Question 6]:  The Secretariat's report (WT/TPR/S/246 para 85) states that several 
WTO members have expressed concern regarding the technical barriers to trade resulting from 
Canada's compositional standards for cheese.  The compositional standards are inconsistent with 
Codex standards, which do not prescribe limitations on the sourcing of milk proteins for use in cheese 
manufacture.  Can Canada explain why these standards are overly restrictive in terms of permitted ingredient use?  Canada's Response:  The purpose of the regulatory amendments was to harmonize two sets of 
regulations that previously governed the compos ition of cheese – the Food and Drug regulations and 
the Dairy Products Regulations.  When developi ng these regulations, Canada took international 
standards into account, as well as the comments received during the World Trade Organization notification period.  These regulatory amendments resu lt in the further harmonization of the relevant 
federal regulatory instruments, clarify the ingredie nts which may be used to manufacture cheese, and 
provide for consumer interest and choice in the ma rket place, while allowing for industry innovation. 
The amendments permit both the flexibility in th e technology used to manufacture cheese and the 
preservation of the essential characteristics or basic nature of the cheese.  
[New Zealand Question 7]:   The Dairy Farmers of Canada have advocated strongly for a yoghurt 
standard, but like other WTO members, New Zealan d is concerned that compositional standards for 
yoghurt will also be inconsistent w ith Codex standards.  Will Canada  adhere to the Codex standard 
when making decisions on future federal da iry regulations/standards for yoghurt?   
 Canada's Response:   The Government of Canada has not initiated any regulatory process for 
establishing compositional standards for other dair y products.  Should Canada  consider establishing 
compositional standards for other products, Canada would take into account international standards 
such as Codex Alimentarius, as well as Canada's  trade obligations in their development. 
 
[New Zealand Question 8]:  The Secretariat's report (IV Trade Policies by Sector, para 52) notes the 
concerns raised by several WTO Members about an ice-cream initiative implemented by the Dairy  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 183 
 
 
 Farmers of Canada (DFC).  The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, calculates 
the pooling returns and sharing of promotion cost s related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative on 
behalf of DFC.  Given the role of this Crown corporation in administering the DFC programme, can 
Canada tell us the amount of CDC resources that ar e allocated to supporting this initiative e.g. FTE 
equivalents or budget allocation?  
Canada's Response:  The Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a private and confidential contractual 
agreement, between the Dairy Farmers of Canada , a non-governmental organisation, and individual 
ice cream processors.  The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) calculates the pooling returns and sharing of promotion costs related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative on behalf of provincial 
boards and agencies; however it does not admini ster Ice Cream Promotion Initiative.  These 
calculations are now automatically calculated on a monthly basis.  There are no FTE equivalents or 
budget allocated to this by the CDC.  
 
[New Zealand Question 9]:  The Secretariat's report (IV Trade Policies by Sector, para 49) notes 
several WTO members' concerns regarding Canada's  new measure to offer reduced prices under milk 
class 4(m) to stimulate demand from Canadian dairy processors to buy domestic milk protein concentrates (MPCs) rather than imported MPCs.  This measure effectively displaces and undercuts 
demand for MPC imports.  Can Canada provide WTO me mbers with material to substantiate Canada's 
claim that the modifications to Class 4(m) has not/will not have a negative impact on the overall imports of MPCs?  
Canada's Response:   The modifications to Class 4(m) seek to grow the market by stimulating 
demand for milk protein concentrates (MPCs) by Canadian dairy processors and further processors. There is no evidence that the modifications to Class 4(m) had any significant impact on the overall imports of milk proteins in Ca nada.  In 2010, overall Canadian imports of MPCs increased, from 
5,266M kg in 2009 to 5,325M kg in 2010.  
 
NORWAY 
 
[Norway Question 1]:  Norway welcomes the steps Canada took in 2010 to opening up free trade in 
ships by eliminating the duty on the importation of  large ships (vessels).  However, tariffs up to 25% 
have been maintained for the importation of many categories of vessels and are a disincentive to the 
importation of Norwegian vessels to Canada.  We w ould be pleased to learn the reasons for Canada's 
maintaining these tariffs.  We would also like to know whether Canada is planning to eliminate duties 
on other categories of vessels and, in that case, at  what time such elimination would take place.  
 
Canada's Response:  On October 1, 2010, the Government  of Canada announced a new duty 
remission framework for the importation of certain ships.  There are no plans at this time to modify the scope of coverage of this duty remission framework.  However, tariffs on all types of ships are 
subject to tariff elimination pursuant to the terms of Canada's recent FTAs, including with Norway. 
 
PAKISTAN 
 
[Pakistan Question 1]:  What measures have been taken by the Canadian Government to ensure that 
payments to the farmers under their insurance pr ograms remain within the ambit and classification 
used by the Canadian government for repor ting to the WTO committee on Agriculture? 
 
Canada's Response:  Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada regul arly monitors agricultural domestic 
support at the federal and provincial/te rritorial levels to ensure consis tency with Canada's international 
trade obligations. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 184  
 
 [Pakistan Question 2]:  Canada's approach to global food security is through innovation and 
technology adoption.  Could the Canadian delegati on highlight the main features of their innovation 
policy and transfer of technology?  
Canada's Response:  Food insecurity in many developing countries continues to be a serious 
problem.  It is estimated that there are about one billion people who are food insecure.  Canada 
responded to this, and announced at the July 2009 G- 8 Summit in L'Aquila, Italy, that it would double 
its investments in support of sustainable agri cultural development by committing an additional 
$600 million over three years, bringing Canada's to tal investment to $1.18 billion over a three-year 
period. 
As part of this package, Canada provided $2 60 million to the World Bank Global Agriculture and 
Food Security Program (GAFSP) and the Global F ood Crisis Response Program (GFRP).  Finance 
Canada oversaw Canada's funding for the priv ate sector window (PSW) of the GAFSP managed by 
the International Finance Corporation, the privat e sector arm of the World Bank Group, which seeks 
to fill financing gaps in private sector agriculture .  The Canadian International Development Agency 
(CIDA) also provided additional funds to key multila teral partners, including the International Fund 
for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Food Programme's Purchase for Progress, and two 
Challenge Programs of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). 
CIDA also continued to provide significant suppor t to the food security plans of our development 
partner countries, regions, and civil society organiza tions through bilateral and partnership channels.  
[Pakistan Question 3]:  CIDA is actively involved in several countries as a development agency 
promoting integration of small entrepreneurs into th e global supply chain.  Could Canada elaborate on 
its role, resource allocation policy and the percenta ge of budget spent on promoting rural development 
and agriculture in the developing countries?  
Canada's Response:  Through the research and development pi llar of its Food Security Strategy, 
Canada seeks to strengthen agricultural innovation systems so that agricultural researchers and 
research users can work together to develop tec hnologies, methods and processes for more productive 
and socially and economically benefi cial farming practices.  To this end, Canada has collaborated with 
the International Development Rese arch Centre (IDRC) to create the Canadian International Food 
Security (CFIS) research fund to support research partnerships with deve loping countries, and 
continues to work with the Consultative Group on International Agricu ltural Research (CGIAR) 
toward increasing the nutritional value of crops and enhancing the resiliency of agricultural systems to 
climate change.  In addition, Canada seeks to st rengthen national and regional agricultural research 
systems and ensure that investments in research in form its own and its deve lopment partners' future 
food security policies and programs. 
Canada spent approximately 17% of its aid budget on agriculture in FY 2009-2010. Examples of our 
programming includes the following: 
 Ethiopia: Smallholder Prosperity Initiative:  $500,000 2009-2011:  Along with its partners in 
Ethiopia, Canada has trained farmers in the use of effective and affordable micro-irrigation 
technologies (MITs), fertilizers and proven seed stocks, and provided them with access to 
microloans to initiate the diversification of th eir agricultural production to include high-value 
vegetables as a second crop. 
 
 Cambodia: Rural Prosperity Initiative : $350,000 2008-2011:  In Cambodia, Canada has 
supported its partners to help small farmer s increase their food security and make the 
transition from primarily subsistence agricultu re to more market-oriented production by 
delivering affordable agricultural technologies and agricultural and business services through 
farm business advisors trained as agriculture extension officers.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 185 
 
 
  Agricultural Sector Supply Chains in Mali: $14 million, 2008-2015.   This project aims to 
improve the performance of selected agricultura l supply chains in Mali by intervening in 
critical phases of production, processing, and ma rketing chains.  The project focuses mainly 
on producing Shea Nuts (aiming for 6,000 additi onal tons during this project), as well as 
shallots, onions, and garlic (aiming for 15,000 additional tons).  This increased production, 
combined with more efficient processing, is antic ipated to boost sales by 10,000 tons for the 
shallot, onion, and garlic supply chain, and by  4,000 tons for Shea Nuts.  To achieve these 
results, the project strengthens the production,  productivity, marke ting and organizational 
management capacities of 150 pa rticipating organizations. 
 
 Entrepreneurial Development of Cooperati ve Federations: $7 million, 2002-2011.  The goal 
of this project is to strengthen the manageme nt and administration capacity of two important 
federations of agricultural cooperatives:   FEDECOAG (Guatemalan Federation of 
Agricultural Cooperatives) and FEDECOVERA  (Federation of Cooperatives from the 
Departments of Alta and Baja Verapaz).  The project aims to (i) expand their production and 
exports and (ii) increase the income and living standards of the thousands of small family 
producers that are members of the co-operatives and their federations.  FEDECOAG focuses 
on the production and export of snow peas,  while FEDECOVERA focuses on the production 
and commercialization of cardamom.  In  2002, FEDECOVERA had no cardamom export 
capacity.  Today it is the number one exporter of organic cardamom in the world supplying 20 
countries.  It has lead to family income in creases of between 10% and 20% reaching out to 
approximately 2,400 families. 
 
[Pakistan Question 4]:  Para 14 of The Report by the Secretariat states that "the authorities confirmed 
that their risk management model has not changed:   all requests for release of commercial shipments 
are reviewed and the frequency of examinations depends on the importer's compliance record, as well 
as the type of goods being imported."  Could Canada  provide details of its risk management model? 
 
Canada's Response:   The CBSA has a comprehensive targe ting program whereby 100% of incoming 
cargo is risk scored through an automated process to identify high risk cargo.  Cargo is then further 
screened by targeters and may be referred for further examination at the port of entry.  The CBSA is in 
the process of revising its model for targeting through the centralization of targeting and the 
implementation of national targeting practices refining the process.  The agency is also now 
completing a review of its assessment methods to be in a position to identify, assess and rank all 
border risks.  
[Pakistan Question 5]:  The Secretariat Report at para 136 mentions the Investment Cooperation 
Program launched in 2010, which encourages Cana dian private sector engagement in developing 
countries that contributes to economic development and poverty reduction.  Activities eligible for non-
refundable cost-share contributions include investme nt viability studies, technology adoption, and the 
design and implementation of socio-economic and environmentally beneficial practices.  Could 
Canada share the details of the program in terms of areas of cooperation covered and the countries to 
which this cooperation is extended?  
Canada's Response:  The areas of cooperation covered under the Investment Cooperation Program 
include sharing the costs with private sector firm s of studying the commercial and technical viability 
of an investment in a developing country, and demo nstrating the benefits and costs of introducing or 
adapting a new technology into that country.  On ce the decision has been made to invest and 
implementation has begun, the program supports  activities aimed at enhancing the economic, 
environmental and social benefits a nd sustainability of the investment. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 186  
 
 The list of eligible countries for the Investment C ooperation Program includes all countries eligible to 
receive Official Development Assistance, with th e exception of countries where there are specific 
restrictions to providing commercial support services.  This list is subject to change, and the most 
current version is found at the Trade Commissione r Service website at www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca 
/eng/funding/home.jsp.  
[Pakistan Question 6]:  Canada's trade remedies legislation does not preclude the simultaneous 
imposition of anti-dumping, countervailing, and safe guard measures on the same product.  In case 
such measures are simultaneously invoked (a) how does Canada simultaneously determine the 
evidence of dumping, subsidies or increased imports in terms of causal analys is? (b) keeping in view 
the complexity of such an analysis, how does Canada  ensure that the procedure adopted is balanced 
and fair?  Canada's Response:  Canada has never imposed a safeguard measure on the same product to which 
an anti-dumping or countervailing duty applied an d has not applied a safeguard measure on any 
product in over 15 years.  In the case of c oncurrent anti-dumping an d countervailing duty 
investigations, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) is res ponsible for determining 
whether the dumping and/or subsidizing of the subject good has caused injury to the domestic industry.  The factors the CITT assesses in these de terminations are listed under subsections 37.1 (1) 
and (2) of the Special Import Measures Regulati ons.  In conducting these assessments, the CITT does 
not attempt to isolate the separate effects of du mping and subsidizing, as the injury they cause 
manifests itself as a single price effect in the market .  It is the CITT's experience that the effects of 
dumping and subsidizing are so closely intertwine d as to render it impossible to isolate discrete 
portions of injury to each.  All of the CITT's determinations are made in an impartial and transparent manner in accordance with 
Canadian and international law.  As a quasi-judici al body, the CITT guarantees participatory rights to 
all interested parties and makes public the reasons for all decisions.  Parties have a right to appeal the 
CITT's decisions if they believe that they have not been made in a fair and balanced manner. 
 
[Pakistan Question 7]:  Para 70 states that the federal, provinc ial and territorial governments have the 
authority to promulgate technical regulations.  Ho w can an exporter find out whether a given federal 
or provincial/territorial technical standard is a pplicable to a product being exported to Canada?   
 
Canada's Response:   Typically importers conduct their own due diligence before entering a market 
by contacting customs brokers or trade officials fro m their respective territory.  Importers can also 
contact Canadian officials at the embassy or cons ulate in their respective territory.  Canada's WTO 
Enquiry Point is another potential source of info rmation on provincial technical regulations that are 
relevant for importers.  
[Pakistan Question 8]:  Para 75 states that four organisations are accredited by the Standards Council 
of Canada to develop standards: the Canadian General Standards Board, the Canadian Standards 
Association, Underwriters' Laboratories of Cana da, and the Bureau de normalisation du Québec. 
Could Canada explain which rele vant standards are dealt with by each of these standardization 
bodies?  Canada's Response:  The four Canadian standards developm ent organizations ma y develop standards 
in any subject area, however they have generally  agreed upon areas of specialty that reflect the 
expertise of their technical committees.  Ge nerally speaking, their main sectors are: 
 CSA - Climate change, construction, electrical, en ergy, environment, health care, information 
technology, mechanical and industrial equipment,  occupational health and safety, public and 
community safety.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 187 
 
 
 ULC - Fire, life safety and security, crime prevention, energy efficiency, environmental safety, 
security of assets and facilities, live working and workplace safety and other areas.  BNQ - Agri-Food Industry, environment, urban Infrastructure, health and safety, hydrogen, technologies, tourism, transportation. 
 
CGSB - Building and construction, business (office)  equipment, supplies and furniture, electronic 
records as documentary evidence, food & organic ag riculture, geomatics, Government of Canada 
forms, non-destructive testing, paper & paper pr oducts, personnel qualifications & competencies, 
protective clothing, textiles, transportation fuels, transportation of dangerous goods. 
 
[Pakistan Question 9]:  The Secretariat Report has pointed out that in specific industries, however, 
positive tariff escalation is prevalent, meaning that th ere are high rates of effective protection.  This, 
for example, is the case of food and beverages; textiles and apparel; and, chemicals and plastics. 
Could Canada explain if it has plans in the near future to bring down tariff escalation in these sectors, 
esp. those of export interest to the developi ng countries, such as textiles and clothing? 
 Canada's Response:   As part of federal budgets 2009 and 2010, Canada has unilaterally eliminated 
its tariffs on all machinery and equipment and manuf acturing inputs.  As such, Canada eliminated 
tariffs on 43 percent of its remaining dutiable ta riff lines, covering some C$7 billion in imports.  
Among the areas covered by this unilateral action are chemicals under HS chapters 28 and 29, and 
textiles under HS chapters 50 through 60.  All tariff lines in these chapters will be reduced to zero no 
later than 2015.  
[Pakistan Question 10]:  Textiles and Clothing and Agricultural Products are subject to Import 
Controls.  Could Canada explain the rationale  for putting these two categories of products under 
Import Control? 
 Canada's Response:  As part of its WTO commitments, Ca nada maintains 21 tariff rate quotas, 
mostly on imports of goods subject to the supply ma nagement system (i.e. dairy, eggs, chicken, 
broiler-hatching eggs and chicks, and turkey).  These goods are placed on the Import Controls List 
under the Export and Import Permits Act  in Canada in order to:  1) satisfy our WTO commitments;  2) 
ensure the orderly management of these imports; and 3) provide a predic table environment for 
importers.  
Quantitative restraints (i.e. quotas) on imports of  textiles and apparel were eliminated for goods 
shipped after December 31, 2004, in accordance w ith the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 
(ATC).  Import permit requirements for such goods were eliminated on April 1, 2005. Textiles   and 
apparel that qualify for a benefit under the Tariff Preference Level program of the Export and Import 
Permits Act in Canada have remained on the Import Control List. 
 
Tariff Preference Levels were established pursuan t to the North American  Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA), Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA) and Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade 
Agreement (CCRFTA) in order to provide tariff pr eferences (i.e. duty-free treatment) for specified 
quantities of imports of non-origina ting textiles and apparel goods.  Im ports of textiles and apparel in 
excess of these specified quantities are subject to the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) rates of duty. 
 
[Pakistan Question 11]:  As at July 2010, state-owned enterp rises in Canada included 48 parent 
"Crown corporations" wholly owned by the Govern ment of Canada, adding that no information was 
available with respect to the areas of activity of  the respective federal Crown corporations, or any 
exclusive or monopoly rights that they may exercise.   Some 28 federal Crown corporations have been 
expressly conferred with the full privileges and imm unities of the Crown (agency status), including 
exemption from federal and provincia l taxes and charges.  In addition, the commercial activities of WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 188  
 
 Crown corporations may be exempt from Canada's  competition law if they are not in actual or 
potential competition with those of the private sector (section 4)(iii)).  Could Canada provide detail as 
to the areas of activity of these Corporations a nd why they are conferred such special status? 
 Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada classifies Crown corporations by their legal 
characteristics (parent, agent, separate employer, portf olio, etc.) rather than according to their areas of 
activity or any exclusive or monopoly rights they may have.  Currently, the Government of Canada is 
consulting Crown corporations to develop a co mmon approach for reporting such information. 
 As of June 2011, 29 federal Crown co rporations are "agent" Crown corporations.  Such agency status 
is generally intended by Parliament to confer the privileges and immunities of the Crown on the 
corporation.  One of these benefits or immuniti es is that agent Crown corporations are free from 
provincial and municipal tax statutes and charges.   However, the federal government, including 
Crown corporations, compensates other levels of gove rnment in the form of Payments in Lieu of 
Taxes
11, which approximate the taxes that would apply to the organization. 
 
Canada's Competition Act  (the "Act") applies to the commercial activities of all Crown Corporations.  
In the case of agent Crown corporations, the Act sp ecifies that they are subject to competition law 
when they are in a situation of actual or potentia l competition.  When there is no actual or potential 
competition, the Competition Act  does not apply because there is no possibility for anti-competitive 
behavior.  Section 2.1 of the Competition Act provides as follows: 
 
" 2.1. This Act is binding on and applies to an agent of Her Majesty in right 
of Canada or a province that is a corporation, in respect of commercial activities engaged in by the corporatio n in competition, whether actual or 
potential, with other persons to the extent  that it would apply if the agent were 
not an agent of Her Majesty." 
 
[Pakistan Question 12]:  Canada's competition regime is s till undermined by numerous exemptions, 
particularly in connection to regulated conduct, also  noting that Canada's competition legislation also 
fails to address domestic market distortions that may arise from the provision of public aid or preferential tax treatment.  Does Cana da have any plans to reduce or eliminate such exemptions with a 
view to reduce market distortions? 
 Canada's Response:  The federal government's approach to creating a competitive business tax 
environment is focused on broad-based reductions in  corporate income tax rates, which have had the 
effect of reducing or eliminating tax rate differentia ls between sectors and businesses.  For example, in 
2000 the federal corporate income tax rate on manuf acturing income was 7 percentage points lower 
than the general rate of 29.12 percent (including the corporate surtax).  In 2012, as a result of a series 
of corporate tax rate reductions and the eliminati on of the corporate surtax, corporate income in 
general and that of the manufacturing sector will be taxed at the same low rate of 15 percent.  The 
federal government has also noted the importance of  improving the efficiency and neutrality of the 
business tax system.  To that end, certain prefer ential tax provisions have been phased-out.  For 
example, Budget 2007 announced the phase-out of th e accelerated capital cost allowance for tangible 
capital assets used in the oil sands sector. 
 
PARAGUAY  
[Paraguay Question 1]:   Regarding the dispute settlement mech anism of the Agreement on Internal 
Trade, we would like to know whether this mechanis m is compulsory for the parties to the Agreement 
                                                      
11 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act : http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-13/index.html.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 189 
 
 
 and the private persons.  Could Canada elaborate on th e concrete steps taken by the parties when they 
engage in this mechanism?  Canada's Response:  Should an AIT Party or a person decide to challenge the AIT-consistency of a 
measure, the only process available to resolve the di spute is set out in Chapter 17, except for matters 
related to government procurement disputes (describ ed further below).  Details regarding the AIT 
details regarding the AIT dispute resolution m echanism may be found on the Internal Trade 
Secretariat website at: http://www.ait-aci.ca.  
Government-to government disputes: 
 
The process for government-to government disputes w as amended in 2009, begins with a mandatory 
consultation process between the parties.  Should c onsultations fail to resolve the issue within 120 
days, parties may move to the panel phase which is a two-stage process:  
a) the first phase is the hearing of the dispute be fore a panel which decides the issue and releases a 
report of its findings.  If the measure in question is  found AIT-inconsistent, the deadline for bringing it 
into conformity is either one year after the panel report or other period fixed by the panel. 
 Appeal:   The panel decision may be appealed to an AIT appellate panel based on errors of law, failure 
to observe a principle of natural justice or for ex ceeding (or failing to exercise) jurisdiction.  During 
the appellate process, the original panel decision is suspended until the appellate decision confirms, 
varies, rescinds, substitutes the panel report or refe rs the matter back to the panel for re-hearing. 
 b) the second phase involves compliance proceeding and monetary penalties.  If the respondent party 
fails to bring the measure into AIT compliance within the period stipulated, a compliance  panel 
(comprised of members of the first panel but now called the compliance panel) may be convened to 
determine whether the Party is in compliance with its AIT obligations.  Only if the compliance panel 
finds the measure remains non-compliant will mo netary penalties be imposed.  The maximum 
monetary penalty (per dispute) that may be imposed on AIT parties vary according to the population size of each party.  Monetary penalties are also enfo rceable either through th e courts or through an 
irrevocable standby letter of credit. 
 
Person-to-government disputes: 
 
AIT Parties are currently negotiating amendments to the person-to-government rules.  The description 
below reflects the existing process and will need updating when revisions are agreed upon, and the 
Protocol of Amendment signed, by all Committee on Internal Trade Ministers. 
 When a person (i.e. an individual or legal person) intends to challenge a measure maintained by, not 
its own AIT Party but another, the person must firs t request its own Party to pursue the complaint on 
the person's behalf.  Only if this request is refused may the person formally commence dispute 
resolution proceedings. 
 
The complaint is first reviewed by a Screener to ensure it is neither frivolous nor vexatious and that 
there is a reasonable case of injury.  Should the Sc reener allow the complaint to proceed, mandatory 
consultations then follow between the person and the Pa rty.  If consultations fail to resolve the dispute 
within 120 days, the complaint will then be heard by  a panel which will decide the issue and release a 
report of its findings.  Should the measure in question be found AIT-inconsistent, the Party 
responsible for the measure is expected to bring it into compliance.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 190  
 
 Government Procurement 
 
The procedure described above does not apply to complaints initiated under the Procurement Chapter 
(Five) of the AIT.  Instead, this Chapter details tw o sets of procedures: one for the provinces, the other 
for the federal government.  Details can be foun d at the following web addresses:  http://www.ait-
aci.ca/index_en/ait.htm (English) or http ://www.ait-aci.ca/index_fr/ait.htm (French). 
 For provincial complaints, the pro cess can be described briefly as follows .  First, the supplier must try 
to resolve its complaint using the complaint procedure of the entity responsible for the procurement.  
Should the supplier be unable to resolve the matter,  it can request the province or territory in which 
the supplier is located to pursue its complaint with the province or territory in which that entity is 
located.  Should consultations fail, the supplier's pr ovince or territory may ask for the establishment of 
a panel to review the matter.  Should a province or territory decline to take up the complaint on its 
supplier's behalf, that supplier can then use the person-to-government pro cess described in Chapter 
Seventeen (Dispute Resolution Procedures). 
 
For federal complaints, a supplier is  to take up its case with a review ing authority, which the federal 
government has designated to be the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.  
[Paraguay Question 2]:   Considering that Canada is one of the most frequent users of the WTO 
dispute settlement system, we would like to know the Canadian structure to deal with WTO litigation.  
 
Canada's Response:   The conduct of WTO dispute settlement pr oceedings on behalf of Canada falls 
under the responsibility of the Minister of Internatio nal Trade.  Lawyers of the Trade Law Bureau, a 
joint unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Justice, 
have carriage of such cases. 
 
PERU 
 
[Peru Question 1 (first set)]:  What criteria does Canada use to determine the need to develop a 
given technical regulation or standard? Are different  procedures followed at the federal and provincial 
level? 
 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, standards are voluntary but when referenced in a technical 
regulation, they become part of th e regulation and are thus enforceable. 
 It is the Standards Council of Canada (SCC), a Federal Crown corporation, that oversees 
standardization activities in Canada.  Incorporatio n by reference of standards in regulations does 
occur.  There are almost 900 standards referenced  in federal regulations and a growing number of 
references to regional and international standards with in them.  This is in part due to an increased 
recognition that effective regulations must reflect  globalization and inte rnational supply chains 
through appropriate standa rds.  Provinces have their own prac tices for determining when regulatory 
action is required under their jurisdiction. 
 
In terms of criteria that Canada uses to determine the need to develop a technical regulation or 
standard, one of the key requirements of the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  is that 
departments and agencies assess regulatory and non -regulatory options to maximize net benefits to 
society as a whole.  Hence, all regulatory departme nts and agencies are expect ed to show that the 
recommended option maximizes the net benefits to  Canadians, business, and government over time 
more than other types of regulatory or non-regulatory action.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 191 
 
 
 [Peru Question 2 (first set)]:  Paragraph 72 (WT/TPR/S/246):  How does Canada determine the 
impact of each regulation?  It is mentioned th at:  "The extent of the consultations should be 
proportional to each regulation's impact."  How do you determine that proportion? 
 
Canada's Response:  Regulatory authorities are asked to cons ider the potential impact of regulations. 
Under the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  (CDSR), regulatory proposals are subject to 
an early stage assessment—or triage—to determine where analytical resources should be focused and 
where approval processes can be streamlined.   The Triage Statement is a tool that assesses the le vel of impact of a regulatory proposal in its 
development stage and assists in aligning it at the outset with the varying requirements of the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS).  The overall significance level for the proposal is determ ined by the highest level triggered by any of 
the questions in the Triage Statement.  If one or more  of the questions in the Triage Statement contains 
a "medium" or "high" response, a "medium/high" RIAS must be completed.  If none of the responses 
is "medium" or "high," a low-impact RIAS may be used.  The levels of impact and significance in the 
development of a regulatory proposal are explained in further detail on the Triage Guideline document 
available online (link provided below)  The responses to the triage questions determine both th e level of effort that is expected in terms of 
analysis and RIAS contents.For more informati on, please see the following documents available 
online:  The Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation : 
 
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/directiv e/directive00-eng.asp (English). 
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/directiv e/directive00-fra.asp (French). 
 The Triage Statement at:   
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/triage/triage-eng.asp (English). 
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documen ts/triage/triage-fra.asp (French). 
 
Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations : 
 
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gl- ld/erc-cer/erc-cer00-eng.asp (English). 
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gl- ld/erc-cer/erc-cer00-fra.asp (French). 
 
[Peru Question 3 (first set)]:   What are the main sectors in which Canada has aligned its standards 
and technical regulations w ith international standards? 
 
Canada's Response:  It is a requirement of Standards Counc il of Canada (SCC) accreditation that 
Canadian standards development organizations (SDOs ) must consider using international standards 
before developing unique Canadian st andards.  This would apply to an y sector.  So it would be fair to 
say that Canada has aligned its national standards w ith international standards, where appropriate.  To 
get a sense of the main sectors of standards-deve lopment for the Canadian SDOs, please see below: 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 192  
 
 The four Canadian standards development organiza tions may develop standards in any subject area, 
however they have generally agreed upon areas of spec ialty that reflect the expertise of their technical 
committees.  Generally speaking, their main sectors are:  CSA - Climate change, construction, electrical, en ergy, environment, health care, information 
technology, mechanical and industrial equipment,  occupational health and safety, public and 
community safety.  ULC - Fire, life safety and security, crime prevention, energy efficiency, environmental safety, security of assets and facilities, live working and workplace safety and other areas. 
 
BNQ - Agri-Food Industry, environment, urban Infrastructure, health and safety, hydrogen technologies, tourism, transportation.  CGSB - Building and construction, business (office)  equipment, supplies and furniture, electronic 
records as documentary evidence, food and organic agriculture, geomatics, Government of Canada 
forms, non-destructive testing, paper and paper pr oducts, personnel qualifica tions and competencies, 
protective clothing, textiles, transportation fuels, transportation of dangerous goods. 
 
[Peru Question 4 (first set)]:  Does Canada have a mechanism to publish responses to comments 
received from WTO members regarding draft technical regulations or conformity assessment 
procedures? 
 Canada's Response:  The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) that accompanies 
regulations contains a summary, prepared by the regulatory agency, of comments received from 
interested parties as well as changes that were ma de to the regulation as a result of these comments.  
 
In addition, some regulatory agencies, such as I ndustry Canada in the case of Radiocommunications 
and Telecommunications, publish comments online from interested parties.  See:  http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/h_sf01845.html (English).  
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.n sf/fra/h_sf01845. html (French). 
 
[Peru Question 5 (first set)]:   Paragraph 74 (WT/TPR/S/246): Does Canada plan to develop a 
catalogue of technical regulations with a search mechan ism similar to that found at the SCC website?   
 
Canada's Response:  Not at this time. 
 
[Peru Question 6 (first set)]:  How are foreign interests taken into account when adopting new or 
revised standards in draft legislation published in Canada?  Canada's Response:  As described in paragraph 71 of the Secretariat Report, under the Cabinet 
Directive on Streamlining Regulation, federal author ities must give positive consideration to rerquests 
for recognition of foreign technical regulations to the extent that these fulfil the objectives of Canadian 
technical regulations. For more details, see Appendix B of the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining 
Regulation  provides clear guidance to regulatory authorities. See:  
 
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/directive/di rective02-eng.asp#_T oc162687250 (English). 
 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/directive/di rective02-fra.asp#_Toc 162752831 (French). 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 193 
 
 
 [Peru Question 7 (first set)]:  Paragraph 77 (WT/TPR/S/246):  What  approach does Canada take to 
ensure that conformity assessment results comply w ith technical regulations?  Is this supervision 
carried out at customs or in the domestic market?  Canada's Response:  In sectors in which Canada relies on s uppliers' declaration of conformity, the 
manufacturer is responsible for ensuring product conformity with the applicable requirements. 
Regulatory authorities conduct checks in the domestic market to ensure the products comply with 
applicable requirements.  In sectors in which Canada relies on third ‑party conformity assessment, the 
manufacturer must use the services of a recognized  conformity assessment body to ensure product 
conformity with the applicable requirements.  The conformity assessment body may authorize the 
manufacturer to affix its mark on the product af ter evaluating the manufacturer's products and 
facilities.  Regulatory authorities and the rec ognized conformity assessment bodies will conduct 
checks in the domestic market to ensure regulated products carry the recognized marks and to prevent 
fraudulently marked products.  At time of importa tion, the Canada Border Services Agency, in 
cooperation with regulatory authorities and other gover nment departments, verifi es that products bear 
the required attestation of conformity  and seeks out counterfeit attestations. 
 
[Peru Question 8 (first set)]:  Paragraph 81(WT/TPR/S/246):  Do all provincial and territorial 
regulatory bodies, including the provincial governments mentioned, comply with obligations under the 
WTO TBT Agreement, including the obligation to notify?  Canada's Response:  Canada complies with its WTO obligations. 
 
[Peru Question 9 (first set)]:   Which of Canada's bilateral trad e agreements include TBT provisions? 
What are the main features of these agreements and what do they contribute with regard to the existing 
rights and obligations under the WTO TBT Agreement?  Canada's Response:  While all nine of Canada's completed free trade agreements include provisions 
addressing standards-related measures and or technical barriers to trade, some, such as with Chile, are 
focused on specific issues (telecommunications) while others, such as Canada's Agreement with Peru, 
are more comprehensive.  Recent agreements have sought to build on and advance the WTO TBT 
Agreement by promoting good regulatory practices including: transparency, the use of international standards, the streamlining of conformity assessment procedures and the creation of a mechanism to address specific technical barriers to trade.  
[Peru Question 10 (first set)]:  Does Canada plan to make any kind of  inventory in order to eliminate 
regulations that have become obsolete over time?  Canada's Response:  Canada has made progress with regard to  identifying and eliminating regulatory 
requirements that are obsolete or overly burdens ome.  In 2007, the government announced a new 
federal regulatory policy, the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  (CDSR), and the 
Paperwork Burden Reduction Initiative (PBRI), to  improve the federal regulatory system and 
minimize regulatory burden on business.  The CDSR is a lifecycle approach to developing regulations and outlines key requirements that 
departments and agencies must follow when develo ping regulations.  In part icular, departments are 
required to rigorously assess the costs and benefits of regulatory proposals prior to approval and to 
limit cumulative administrative burden and costs.  Most of the proposals that come forward in any given year are amendments to existing regulations  and, therefore, the stock of regulations is 
continuously assessed for effectiveness and being renewed.  Departments and agencies are also 
required to evaluate proposals with significant im pacts after implementation to ensure they are 
meeting intended policy objectives. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 194  
 
 Under the government's Paperwor k Burden Reduction Initiative (PBRI), a commitment was made to 
reduce the administrative burden on small bus iness by 20%.  The initiative applied to all 
administrative requirements in law, regulation a nd policy and the 20% reduction target was met in 
March 2009.  The stock of regulations was assessed  under this initiative and spent or ineffective 
requirements were repealed. 
 
Section 4.6 of the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation  addresses the responsibility for 
review of regulatory frameworks but does not establish a centralized inventory of regulations requiring review.  SINGAPORE  
[Singapore Question 1]:   In paragraph 3 of Section III (page 23), the Secretariat reported that while 
the GST/HST is applied on a national treatment b asis, excise duty rates on certain domestically 
brewed beer, at the federal level, are lower than on imported beer.  In addition, Canadian wines are 
fully exempted from such excise duty rates, and al coholic beverages produced in Quebec benefit from 
lower provincial excise taxes under certain conditi ons.  We would appreciate it if Canada could 
explain how this is consistent with the pr inciple of National Treatment in the GATT. 
 Canada's Response:  The federal excise measures related to beer and wine are modelled after similar 
programs in other countries and have not  had the effect of curtailing grow th in imports of beer or wine 
into Canada.  Indeed, imports of beer (HS 2203) a nd wine (HS 2204) into Canada have increased 32% 
and 34% respectively during the review period.   
[Singapore Question 2]:   In paragraph 37 of Section III (page 31), the Secretariat reported the 
prevalence of positive tariff escalation in Canada's specific industries like chemicals and plastics, 
textiles and apparel, and food and be verages.  Given that tariff escala tion is widely recognised as one 
of the problems which hinder the effective participa tion of developing countries, especially in the case 
of Least Developed Countries, in higher stages of manufacturing, we would appreciate it if Canada 
could provide its views on this trend and whether it intends to address this issue, going forward. 
 
Canada's Response:  For LDCs, Canada extends duty-free tr eatment to all products except over-
access supply managed goods.  Therefore, there is no tariff escalation on inputs from LDCs.  
Moreover, under the General Preferential Tariff (GPT ), Canada extends duty-free or preferential duty 
rates to over 82% of all tariff items.  This benefits  imports into Canada from developing countries. 
 
[Singapore Question 3]:  In paragraph 50 of Section III (page 36), the Secretariat reported that in 
Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, the 
provincial sales tax has been harmonized with the GST (Ontario and British Columbia harmonized it 
with the GsST on 1 July 2010).  The resulting Harm onized Sales Tax (HST) comprises the 5% GST, 
plus a provincial component, the rate of which varies according to the province.  We note from Table III.6, the different HST and provincial sales tax rates across provinces, and would like to seek 
clarification on the treatment by Canada for the following: 
 
- Goods exported into Ontario will be subjected  to a GST of 5% and HST of 8%.  Would 
one be required to pay HST again if that good is shipped onwards to another province?  If 
yes, is it only on the provincial component of HST?  Or is it on the full amount of HST? 
- We would like to clarify the same queries above for the provincial sales tax as well.  
 
Canada's Response:  The GST/HST is a broad-based, value-adde d tax on consumption in Canada.  In 
order to obtain the correct tax result, place-of-suppl y rules have been devel oped to determine where a 
supply is made in Canada and what  the applicable tax rate is.  In some circumstances, a person can  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 195 
 
 
 claim a rebate of a portion of the tax paid or may be required to self-assess a portion of the tax in order 
to achieve the correct tax result. 
 
In the case of imports, the tax rate charged at the border depends on whether the goods are 
commercial.  For example, a GST/HST-registered business importing commercial goods would 
generally only be charged 5% GST at the border and not be required to  self-assess any provincial 
component of the HST if the goods are consumed or resold in a GST/HST taxable activity.  The 
business would also be able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid at the border for these goods. 
On the other hand, if the goods are non-commercial, the GST/HST rate applicable is generally that of 
the place of residence of the importer in Canada. 
 
In respect of goods shipped from one province to an other, the applicable tax depends on whether the 
goods are being shipped into a province that is part  of the HST framework.  For example, a business 
selling a taxable good to a person in a participating province would generally be required to charge the 
applicable HST rate. 
In respect of goods shipped to provinces that are not part of the HST framework, the application of tax 
would depend on the applicable provincial rules.  
[Singapore Question 4]:   In paragraph 144 of Section III (p age 68) the Secretariat reported that 
certain official support initiatives may be continge nt upon local-content requirements.  Could Canada 
please provide examples of what some of these local-content requirements are? 
 
Canada's Response:  Other than those identified in the TPR, Canada is unaware of any other support 
initiatives contingent on local content.   
[Singapore Question 5]:   In Table III.16 of Section III of the Secretariat's report (page 69), would 
Canada be able to provide clarification on the scope of support of the programmes notified to the 
WTO i.e. whether the support is specific to the sector or groups of sectors?  
Canada's Response:  Canada's subsidy notification to the WTO is prepared in accordance with the 
obligations outlined in Article 25 of the Agre ement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
(ASCM).  In particular, Canada notifies subsidies wh ich it believes fall within the definition of Article 
1 of the ASCM and are specific within the meaning of Article 2.  Details on specific programs can be 
found in Canada's most recent subs idy notification (G/SCM/N/186/CAN). 
 
[Singapore Question 6]:   In paragraph 126 of Section IV (page 125), the Secretariat reported that 
Canada held public consultations fo r the liberalisation of the telecoms industry to foreign investment.  
We would appreciate it if Canada could provide u pdates or further details on the consideration of 
these options, including the decision and its prospective implementation, if any.   
 
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada is examin ing this issue.  No announcement has 
been made regarding the timing of a decision. 
 
 [Singapore Question 7]:   Canada reported that "The Gl obal Commerce Strategy (GCS) was 
launched in 2007 to contribute to  Canada's long-term prosperity by increasing foreign direct 
investment in Canada and Canadian investment abroad; securing competitive terms of access to global 
markets; and forging stronger linkages between Ca nada's science and technology community and 
global innovation networks…" Coul d Canada please elaborate on some of the measures which Canada 
may be adopting in order to achieve this objective?  
Canada's Response:  Negotiating improved market access for Canadian businesses to global markets 
remains a priority for the Government of Canada .  Indeed, assuring the attractiveness of our economy 
by pursuing opportunity-generating agreements globa lly that cover trade in goods and services, air WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 196  
 
 transport, investment and Science and Technology all help contribute to Canada's overall economic 
performance and stability.  Some of the measures which Canada has already put in place include the creation of a United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council direct ed to increase regulatory transparency and 
coordination; a simplified Foreign Investment and Protection Agreement (FIPA) model; a liberalized 
Investment Canada Act;  and the continued infr astructure investments in our coastal gateways, 
recognizing the importance of our proximity to Asia and Europe. 
 In addition, Canada continues to pursue an amb itious free trade agenda.  Having already concluded 
agreements with 8 countries, Cana da is negotiating a number of ne w agreements.  Canada is also 
presently pursuing FIPA negotiations with 12 countri es, providing greater security and protection for 
Canadian investors abroad.  
SWITZERLAND 
 
[Switzerland Question 1]:  In para. 4 (sic)  , the Secretariat's report notes that  Canada's aid-for-trade 
funding increased from Can$ 465 million in FY 20 06/2007 to Can$ 513 million in FY 2008/2009. 
Could the Canadian authorities indicate whether the economic and financia l crisis has/or will 
negatively affect aid-for-trade funding beyond 2009 ?  Do we have to expect decreasing resources 
attributed to CIDA for aid-for-trade in the coming years?  
Canada's Response:  There has been no reduction in Canadian  Aid for Trade as a result of the 
financial crisis. Canada is mee ting the Seoul G20 commitment to ensure that beyond 2011 Aid for 
Trade levels will be maintained "at least" at the average of the 2006-2008 level. Preliminary estimates 
show that Canadian Aid for Trade increased from C$381.72 million in FY 2005-2006 to $513M in 
2008-2009 and increased again to C$715 million in FY2010-2011.  Most of CIDA's Aid for Trade 
(about 81%) goes towards helping developing count ries improve their prospects for growth and 
poverty reduction by building productive capacity to trade.  In FY 2010-2011, CIDA's AFT assistance to Africa reached C$355 million.  
[Switzerland Question 2]:  According to para. 32 (sic), Canada has other types of duties for 9 tariff 
lines. Could Canada provide the details for these 9 tariff lines (HS code, product description, type of 
duty and the AVE, where available)?  Canada's Response:   In Canada's Customs Tariff , there are 152 tariff lines categorized as mixed 
duties (M).  Of these, nine items have mixed duty rates of the form "¢/kg but not less than X% plus 
X%".  These tariff lines are:  0704.10.11, 0704.20.11, 0705.11.11, 0705.19.11, 0706.10.11, 
0706.90.21, 0708.20.21, 0709.40.11, 0709.90.31.  
[Switzerland Question 3]:  In para. 35, the Secretariat indicates that it could not calculate the AVE 
for 171 tariff lines due to the absence of imports.  Could Canada provide more  information as to the 
reasons why there have been no imports for these tariff lines?  
Canada's Response:  According to Canadian customs data provided to the WTO Secretariat, MFN 
imports existed under 88 of those 171 tariff lines.  It is not clear why AVEs could not be calculated for 
these lines, nor is it possible to sp eculate as to why there were no imports under the remaining tariff 
lines during the period under review. 
 
[Switzerland Question 4]:  In addition, according to table III.3, the number of non-ad valorem tariffs 
with no AVEs has increased from 0.5% in 2006 to 2. 1% in 2010.  Could Canada provide information 
on the reasons of such an increase? 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 197 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   This would appear to be a direct result of the situation outlined in question 3 
above. 
 
[Switzerland Question 5]:  According to para. 39, a few products ca rry an applied rate  slightly higher 
than the WTO bound rate, mainly because the type of duty is different.  Although the WTO does not 
prescribe the type of duty to be used, woul dn't Canada consider harmonizing its bound and MFN 
applied duties for these few lines? 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada's bound and applied rates on these items are virtually identical.  The 
differences are due to rounding. 
 
[Switzerland Question 6]:  According to para. 52 " beer made by domestic brewers is eligible for 
reduced, tiered excise duty; imported beer is not eligible ."  The Excise Duty Notice EDBN8 of July 
2006, only indicates the excise duty rates for domestic brewers.  Could Canada indicate the Excise duty rate for imported beer?  How can a reduced  excise duty only applicable for domestic beer 
brewers be consistent with GATT provisions? 
 Canada's Response:  In general, the excise duty rates on beer products that are manufactured in or 
imported into Canada are $CAN 31.22 per hectolitre for beer containing more than 2.5% absolute 
ethyl alcohol by volume (ABV), $CAN 15.61 per hect olitre for beer containing more than 1.2% but 
not more than 2.5% ABV, and $CAN 2.591 per hect olitre for beer containing not more than 1.2% 
ABV. 
 The excise duty relief measures available for beer produced by domestic brewers are limited to beer 
production up to 75,000 hectolitres per year.  Bey ond this annual production threshold, the same 
excise duty rates apply for beer products of th e same ABV content, whether manufactured in or 
imported into Canada.  These measures are modelled after similar programs in other countries and do 
not have any impact on imports of beer into Cana da. Indeed, imports of beer (HS 2203) into Canada 
have increased 32% since 2006.  
[Switzerland Question 7]:  Para. 71: of the Secretariat's notes that the Canadian federal authorities 
must use available international standards, gui delines, and recommendations as a basis for their 
technical regulation.  Does a specific legislation exist that would require provinces to follow this 
approach too? 
 
Canada's Response:  No specific legislation exists that requires provinces and territories to follow 
this approach.  However, as a signatory to the WTO-TBT Agreement, Cana da's federal government 
follows Article 3 of the TBT Agreement.  Article 3 contains a requirement for member states to "take 
such reasonable measures as may be available to th em" to ensure that local and non-governmental 
bodies within their territories comply with Article 2 of the Agreement, which contains the requirement 
to use international standards, guidelines and recomme ndations as a basis for technical regulations.   
Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and Intern ational Trade (DFAIT) engages in outreach efforts 
with Canadian provinces and territories in order to en sure that they are familia r with their obligations 
under the TBT Agreement.  Furthermore, as per th e transparency obligations in Article 10 of the 
Agreement, provinces and territories publish their st atutes and regulations and make them available 
online.  
[Switzerland Question 8]:  Para. 76 of the Secretariat's report indicates that from fiscal year 2005/06 
to 2009/10, 73.7% of the 754 National Standards of Canada approved by the SCC were adoptions of, 
or based on, international standards.  How many of those international standards have been elaborated 
by ISO, IEC, ITU or Codex Alimentarius?  
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 198  
 
 Canada's Response:  Of the 73.7 % of National Standards of Ca nada that were adoptions of, or based 
on, international standards during this period, 100% were adopted from either ISO or IEC standards.  
None of the NSC's were adopted from ITU or Codex standards.  NOTE to the WTO Secretariat:   The statistics that Canada originally provided to the WTO Secretariat 
at its request, were for the years 2006/2007 to 2009- 2010.  Paragraph 76 of the Secretariat's report 
refers to years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010.  
[Switzerland Question 9]:  Para. 81 of the Secretariat's report states that, according to the Canadian 
authorities, the vast majority of provincial regulat ions have no impact on international trade.  In 
Switzerland legislative powers are also shared betw een the Federal Government and the governments 
of the cantons.  In the field of product legislation, which certainly has an impact on international trade, 
all product areas are regulated at the Federal level.  Is this also true for Canada? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is a federal state where govern mental power is divided between the 
central ("federal") authority and several regional ("provincial") authorities.  Neither the federal 
Parliament nor the provincial Legislatures are subor dinate to one another.  With respect to the 
territorial application of legislation, the legislative competence of the federal Parliament applies to all of the territory of Canada.  The legislative compet ence of the provincial Legislatures applies to the 
territory of each individual province. With respect to  the subject matter of legislation, both the federal 
Parliament and the provincial Legislatures exercise  exclusive jurisdiction in a number of areas. 
However, in several areas, the federal Parliame nt and provincial Legislatures exercise shared 
jurisdiction.  In the event of an inconsistency betw een a valid federal law and a valid provincial law, 
the federal law will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.  Building codes, electrical safety, elevating devices and amusement park rides are examples of areas 
regulated by provincial and territorial governments. 
 
[Switzerland Question 10]:  According to  para. 100  of the Secretariat's report, Canada accepts the 
OIE classification for country BSE risk categorization,  therefore the CFIA does not routinely carry out 
independent assessments of a country's BSE categori zation.  In addition, Canada takes into account 
the lists of countries recognized by the OIE as free of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, and 
contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, but reserves th e right to conduct its own risk assessments on a 
case-by-case basis for all diseases. Regarding the classical swine fever (CSF), could Canada please explain how it intends to acknowledge Switzerland a nd Liechtenstein's CSF status?  Following a risk 
assessment performed in 2009, the USDA APHI S recognized on May 19 2011 Switzerland and 
Liechtenstein as being CSF-free regions. Would th is encourage the CFIA to perform a similar 
assessment?  
 Canada's Response:   A request for a risk assessment will have to be made in order for the CFIA to 
begin the process of recognising Switzerland and Liechtenstein as free from Classical Swine Fever (CSF).  As such, the CFIA encourages Switzerland a nd Liechtenstein to make a request to CFIA for 
formal recognition as being free from CSF. 
 
[Switzerland Question 11]:  In para. 185, the Secretariat's report notes that state owned enterprises 
(i.e. Crown corporations) whose commercial activities are not in actual or potential competition with 
other persons are not submitted to the Competition Ac t.  Could the Canadian authorities indicate how 
they can ascertain in practice that commercial activ ities of Crown corporations are not in actual or 
potential competition with other (private) entities?  Also, is such a determination of the absence of 
actual or potential competition limited to assessing the impact on domestic entities or would such a determination also consider cases where an antic ompetitive behavior of Crown corporations would 
limit foreign competition through imports?   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 199 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  In a given product market, if another (private) entity produces a product that is 
considered to be a substitute to the Crown Corporation's commercial product, then the Crown 
Corporation is determined to be in actual or potential competition with private entities.  
An analysis of the universe of existing competition al so has a geographic dimension.  As with defining 
a relevant product market, the Bureau will examine th e dimensions of buyer switching, by location, in 
response to a small but significant and non-transitory increase in price.  A relevant geographic market 
will consist of all locations or supply points regarded  as close substitutes by buyers.  As such, for the 
purpose of geographic market definition, what matter s is not the identity of the sellers (i.e., whether 
they are domestic or foreign), but buyers' ability or willingness to switch their purchases in sufficient 
quantity from one location to  another in response to changes in relative prices. 
 
For additional information on how the Competition Bureau defines and determines the product and 
geographic markets in a given case, please consult Part 3 of the Bureau's Merger Enforcement 
Guidelines.  
[Switzerland Question 12]:  Also, in para. 185, the Secretariat's report indicates that the Competition 
Act does not apply to cartels that set rates and cond itions for liner shipping (with certain exceptions). 
Could the Canadian authorities explain the rationale for excluding such cartels from the scope of the 
Competition Act?  
Canada's Response:  The Shipping Conferences Exemption Act  (SCEA), which is administered by 
Canada's Minister of Transport, is a law that exempts certain shipping conference practices from the 
provisions of the Competition Act . 
 
While the SCEA does not contain a specific purpose clause, on its face, it is designed to exempt 
conference agreements and practices from provisions of the Competition Act  on the basis that 
conferences play an important role in Canada's fo reign trade and provide a measure of stability and 
reliability in shipping services. It should be noted that the Competition Act  does remain applicable to 
conference agreements and practices that do not fall w ithin the scope of exemptions contained in the 
SCEA. 
 
Given the strategic importance to security and trade of  liner shipping, there has been a long history of 
exemption of conference agreements from the rules and regulations of compe tition law, and most of 
Canada's trading partners preserve some form of  antitrust protection for the operation of shipping 
conferences. 
 
[Switzerland Question 13]:  In Table IV.3, the Secretariat's report shows the evolution of the Single 
Commodity Transfers (SCT) for wheat and barley between 2006 and 2009.  Could Canada explain the 
impact of the SCT on Canada exports of wheat a nd barley?  How does Canada ensure that the amount 
of SCT does not affect the exported quantity? 
 
Canada's Response:  More than 90% and 60% of the SCT support to wheat and barley respectively 
in Canada for 2007-09 comes from a crop insurance pr ogram.  Crop Insurance is a financial tool to 
manage farm business risk, such as production losses due to natural perils.  It is not contingent on 
export performance of any kind for these commodities, and there is no evidence that the SCT impacts 
exports.  
Changes in the level of support for wheat and barley  over time are mainly explained by a variation in 
the indemnities paid to producers through the Crop insurance program in Canada.  There is no evidence that the policies providing the support represented in OECD's SCT affected 
Canada's exports of wheat and barley.  Canada is aw are of its international trade obligations and takes WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 200  
 
 them into account when designing new programs.  Canada will continue to manage its programs in 
line with its international trade obligations.  We note that percentage SCT for wheat in Canada in 2007-09 was 2.4 and for "other grains" (barley) 
it was 5.0, which significantly lower then that for some other OECD Members.  
 
[Switzerland Question 14]:  In para. 39, the Secretariat's report describes the functioning of the 
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB).  It appears that th e CWB operates a single desk function in the export 
sales of wheat and barley.  How does the Canadian  government ensure that the CWB does not abuse 
its monopoly position by controlling exported quantities in  times of price peaks?  In other word, how 
do the Canadian authorities ensure that the CWB does not carry out de facto export restrictions? 
 Canada's Response:  The CWB's sales activities are directed towards maximizing returns to Western 
Canadian grain producers.  Thus, the CWB has an  incentive to market as much grain as possible 
during periods of high prices.  THAILAND  First Set  
[Thailand Question 1 (a)]:  Could you explain how the excise duty rates at the federal level on 
"certain domestically brewed beer" and the exempt ion on "100% Canadian wine " are consistent with 
Canada's WTO obligations?  Canada's Response:   The federal excise measures related to beer and wine are modelled after similar 
programs in other countries and have not  had the effect of curtailing grow th in imports of beer or wine 
into Canada.  Indeed, imports of beer (HS 2203) a nd wine (HS 2204) into Canada have increased 32% 
and 34% respectively during the review period.   
[Thailand Question 1 (b)]:   Does Canada have any plans to reduce excise taxes for imported beer and 
wine? 
 
Canada's Response:   At present, Canada does not have plan s to change the federal excise duties on 
alcohol products. 
[Thailand Question 2]:  "Meat imports are subject to a special approval system based on 
equivalency, since Canadian legislation requires th at imported meat products meet the same standards 
and requirements as if they were produced in regi stered establishments in Canada (Meat and Meat 
Products Import Control Program).  Upon request, the CFIA reviews all pertinent statutes regarding a 
country's meat inspection system. If these are deem ed equivalent, the agency carries out an on-site 
audit of the meat inspection system of the expor ting country, including a sample of individual meat 
establishments.  Establishments approved by the CFIA  must submit recipes, formulations, and labels 
of meat products for registration before they can  export to Canada.  The CFIA conducts periodic 
audits of approved establishments.  The agency  has approved meat inspection systems from 40 
countries and territories.  All shipments of imported meat must be inspected at the border."  Could 
Canada explain in detail about ‘a special approva l system based on equivalency' to which meat 
imports are subject? 
 
Canada's Response:   The details of Canada's approval sy stem based on equivalency can be found in 
Foreign Country Meat Inspection Systems Evaluation Program, described in Meat Hygiene Manual of 
Procedure, Chapter 10, Annex B viewed at:  h ttp://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ 
ch10/annexbe.shtml. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 201 
 
 
 Paragraph 10 indicates that "Canada is a net exporter of agriculture and agri-food products and one of 
the leading exporters of wheat, coarse grains, o ilseeds (and related products), pork, beef, and live 
cattle. In 2009, it was the further-largest exporter and sixth largest importer of agricultural products, 
counting the EU as one."  Later, paragraph 11 illust rates: "Canada applied MFN tariffs on agricultural 
products (WTO definition) averaged 22.5% in 2010, almost unchanged compared to 2006 
(Table III.1).  Tariff protection remains highest fo r dairy products (avera ging 237.3%), followed by 
animals and animal products (averaging 52.8%) (Tab le AIII.1).  The peak AVE remains at 532.2% 
(HS350211 – dried egg albumin)."  
[Thailand Question 3(a]:  With international competitiveness in its  agriculture sector and as one of 
the leading agriculture and agri-food product expor ters and importers, wh y do Canadian domestic 
producers still need a comparatively high border protection?  Canada's Response:  the level of current MFN tariffs reflect s the results of previous rounds of 
multilateral trade negotiations in whic h Canada participated.  Overall,  Canada has one of the world's 
most liberal market acces s regimes.  For example, 33% of Canada's agricultural tariff items are bound 
at duty-free.   High over-quota tariffs are limited to supply ma naged commodities.  As the supply management 
system requires predictability in import levels, ther e is a need for higher over-quota tariffs for supply-
managed commodities.  
 
Supply management is a system that ensures a stable supply of dairy, poultry and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food industry.  It also prom otes stable farm incomes.  Supply management is 
based on matching domestic production to domestic demand.   Therefore, predictable levels of imports 
maintained through tariff rate quotas are necess ary to the functioning of the system. 
 
[Thailand Question 3(b)]:  Does Canada plan to reduce its tari ffs on agricultural products, especially 
dairy products and animals and animal products, in the future? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's tariff levels  for agriculture products, including dairy products, were 
agreed to during the Uruguay Round and are laid out  in Canada's Final Schedule of Agriculture 
Commitment. Canada applies the final bound  tariff rate for all dairy products.  
 Supply management is a system that ensures a stable supply of dairy, poultry and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food industry.  It also promot es stable farm incomes.  The supply management 
system has served Canada well for many years,  and Canada has no plans to alter the system.  
 
[Thailand Question 4(a)]:  "[t]here has been little change to Canada's tariff quota regime for 
agricultural products. Most of the 21 tariff quot as subject to WTO commitments are for supply-
managed products (i.e. dair y products; chicken, turkey, eggs a nd related products; and broiler hatching 
eggs and chicks)."  What is the rationale of main taining such tariff protection policy to assist supply-
managed products? 
 
Canada's Response:  Supply management is a system that en sures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food i ndustry.  It also promotes stable farm incomes. 
Supply management is based on matching domestic  production to domestic demand.  Therefore, 
predictable levels of imports maintained through ta riff rate quotas are necessary to the functioning of 
the system. 
 
[Thailand Question 4(b)]:  How long does Canada intend to maintain the supply-management 
system?  What are the rationales of maintaining such system?  Is it still necessary?  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 202  
 
 Canada's Response:  Supply management is a system that en sures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food indus try.  It also promotes stable farm incomes.  
The supply management system has served Canada well for many years, and Canada has no plans to 
alter the system.  
 
TURKEY 
 
[Turkey Question 1]:  Could Canada explain how the Bill C-32 will help protect youth from tobacco 
products by aiming only blended tobacco products wh ile the 98% of the tobacco products sold are 
non-blended?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's amendment to the Tobacco Act  (former Bill C-32) did not target any 
blend or style of tobacco products.  The aim was to  protect children and youth from tobacco industry 
marketing practices that encouraged them to use to bacco products. Canada's research shows that these 
marketing practices included the use of specific a dditives, such as flavourings, that contributed to 
making cigarettes, little cigars and blunt wraps more appealing; the packaging of little cigars and blunt 
wraps (sheets or tubes of tobacco) in singles or in small-quantity packages; and tobacco advertising in 
publications that may be viewed by children and youth.  
[Turkey Question 2]:  Is Canada planning to take similar measures for non blended tobacco products 
in order to protect youth from tobacco products?  
 
Canada's Response:  The measures introduced by the amendments to the Tobacco Act  were aimed to 
reduce youth inducements to tobacco use and were ai med at all cigarettes, little cigars and blunt wraps 
sold in Canada regardless of their blend or style.   The Health Canada website provides considerable 
information on tobacco and youth. See:  
 
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php (English). http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php (French).  
[Turkey Question 3]:  Could Canada confirm if it has given cons ideration to the potential effects, if 
any, of the possible ingredients on the final products?  What are those effects? 
 
Canada's Response:  The aim of the legislation was to prohib it the use of ingredients that had the 
potential to induce youth smoking by making cigarettes,  little cigars and blunt wraps more attractive. 
For example, Canada observed that a trend to a dd fruit and other flavours (such as grape, cherry, 
peach, banana split, tropical punch, and chocolate) to little cigars served as an inducement to youth 
smoking. 
 
[Turkey Question 4]:  Could Canada share with members; 
 
a. Scientific basis which show that blended produc ts are more attractive to youth than the non 
blended ones? 
 
b. Any scientific evidence on the ex emptions for certain additives? 
 
Canada's Response:   To clarify again, Canada's amendments to the Tobacco Act  did not target any 
blend or style of tobacco products.  A selecti on of references among num erous publicly available 
studies that have examined the use of additives that  increase the appeal of tobacco products was made 
available by Canada as a room document at the TBT Committee meeting held in June 2010.  Canada 
would be pleased to forward this document.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 203 
 
 
 The amendments to the Tobacco Act  include a Schedule of Prohibited Additives that bans the use of 
ingredients such as flavours that tobacco manufactur ers can use to make cigarettes, little cigars and 
blunt wraps more enticing to youth.  
 c. Could Canada also explain how the Bill C-32 is not more trade restrictive than necessary? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Canadian approach was deemed to be the best fit to address the public 
health problem faced by Canada.   
UNITED STATES 
 
[U.S. Question 1]:  The Secretariat Report notes that while there has been some improvement in 
Canada's regime for foreign direct investment ove rsight and control, the regime remains relatively 
complex and restrictive.  What plans does Canada have to simplify its regime and loosen oversight 
and control over it? 
 
Canada's Response:   Currently, the Minister of Industry is looking at how best to provide more 
information while assuring investors that confidentia l information will receive the same protection in 
Canada as it does elsewhere.  An important aspect of  this review will be to develop guidance on the 
kinds of investments that will be accepted or reject ed.  Specifically, it is hoped that more information 
about the parameters of the Government's decision-making process on foreign investment reviews will 
be made available. 
 The Secretariat reports that in November 2010, the Minister of Industry notified BHP Billiton of 
Australia that its proposed transaction to take over Po tash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. might not 
meet the criterion of "net benefit to Canada" under th e Investment Canada Act (ICA).  Subsequently it 
was reported that the government would seek to review the ICA. 
 
[U.S. Question 2(a)]:  Does Canada plan to review and/or revise the Investment Canada Act?  If so, in 
what aspects?  Canada's Response:  The Canadian government is examining options for the liberalization of foreign 
investment restrictions in the telecommunications  sector.  Additionally, a parliamentary review 
committee has accepted amendments to  the Act to implement a more liberalized threshold for foreign 
investment reviews.   
[U.S. Question 2(b)]:  What role do provincial governments ha ve in decisions under the Investment 
Canada Act?  Does the government consult with them  in the review process, either as a matter of law 
or custom?   Canada's Response:   In accordance with the Act, during th e review process consultations are held 
with the provincial governments in which the Canadi an business has significant activity.  The goal is 
to take into account the economic and other provincial policy objectives that are likely to be 
significantly affected by the investment. 
 
[U.S. Question 3(a)]:   The Secretariat reports that Canada has renegotiated several existing foreign 
investment promotion and protection agreements (F IPAs).  Table II.3 shows that the amended or 
renegotiated FIPAs are all in the European Union (Czech Republic, Latvia, Romania, Slovak 
Republic, Hungary, Poland).  Could Canada please e xplain the reasons for amending or renegotiating 
these treaties, and how the new versions differ from previous ones? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada initiated the renegotiation of th e Foreign Investment Promotion and 
Protection Agreements (FIPAs) with six of the ne w EU Member States (the Czech Republic, Hungary, WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 204  
 
 Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia) after th e European Commission conveyed to Canada its 
concern that certain provisions of these six FIPAs co uld conflict with EU law, following the entry of 
these countries into the union.   The six FIPAs fall into two separate categories – those that are based on the OECD model BIT and 
predate the NAFTA (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) and those that came into force 
after the NAFTA (1994) which include Romania and Latvia.  The two post-NAFTA FIPAs were 
amended to address the EU's concerns, while the four FIPAs that pre-dated the NAFTA, in the re-negotiation, Canada introduced important amendm ents from the 2004 Canadian FIPA model.  These 
amendments are reflected in the National Treatme nt, Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment, and Investor-
State Dispute provisions.  
 
[U.S. Question 3(b)]:   Does Canada have any plans to re view its model FIPA text?  If yes, 
please explain the rationale, a nd what changes are planned. 
 
Canada's Response:   At the moment, no revisions to the existing FIPA model are being considered.  
 
[U.S. Question 4]:   The Secretariat Report, Part II. Trade and Investment Regime:  (2) Investment 
Regime;  (i) page 18, Table II.3:  indicates Canada 's ongoing efforts to join the International Centre 
for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).  What is the status of this process, and when does 
Canada expect it to be completed? 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada signed the ICSID Conven tion on December 15, 2006 and passed 
implementing legislation in March 2008.  Canada has not yet ratified the ICSID Convention, largely 
due to on-going negotiations  on implementation with the provinces a nd territories.  To date, Ontario, 
British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories 
have passed implementing legislation. Canada hopes to be in a position to ratify the ICSID 
Convention in the near future. 
 
[U.S. Question 5]:   According to the Secretariat, "Can ada has maintained a solid record on 
notifications (Table AII.4).  However, notifica tions on agriculture and government procurement are 
lagging.  In addition, Canada has not notified its preferential rules of  origin for the FTAs reached with 
Peru and EFTA, nor the preferential access agreemen ts with Australia and New Zealand."  What are 
the Canadian government's WTO notification plans w ith regard to these issues?  For example, what 
are Canada's plans to fulfil its notification requirements under the WTO Agreement on Government 
Procurement with respect to statistics and changes in domestic legislation? 
 Canada's Response:   Canada notified both the Canada-EFTA  Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-
Peru Free Trade Agreement to the WTO Secretaria t in 2009.  While both notifications made by 
Canada included the respective preferential rule s of origin, Canada did not provide separate 
notifications of the Agreements' rules of origin to  the WTO Secretariat as per the WTO Agreement on 
Rules of Origin, Annex II, paragraph 4. Canada is currently undertaking the necessary steps to submit 
its notifications of its preferential rules of origin to the WTO Secretariat.  In the mean time, the rules of origin can be found here:  
Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement 
 
 http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreem ents-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/EFTA-
AnnexC-en.pdf. 
 http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreem ents-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/EFTA-
AnnexC-app1-en.pdf.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 205 
 
 
 Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement 
 
 http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreem ents-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Canada-
PeruFTA_chapter3-en.pdf. 
 http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreem ents-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Canada-
PeruFTA_chapter3a-en.pdf. 
 
As for the rules of origin for the New Zealand and Australia Tariff Treatments, please note that the 
preferential rules of origin under these agreem ents were notified. Please see G/RO/N/1/Add.1 
circulated on June 22, 1995.  Regarding notification on government procurement,  Canada is in the process of finalizing its 
notification of procurement statistics for 2008 and 2 009 and expects to submit them later this year. 
Canada will also submit its notification of any chang es to domestic procurement legislation in the near 
future.  
[U.S. Question 6]:   The Secretariat Report states that "Canad a is continuing to pursue an ambitious 
agenda of free-trade negotiations, both within the hemisphere and outside." Besides the NAFTA, how 
specifically do the FTAs that the Secretariat names in these paragraphs address intellectual property 
rights?  [CARICOM, Dominican Republic, Central Am erica 4, India, South Korea, the EU, Morocco 
and Ukraine]  Canada's Response:  In bilateral trade agreements, Canada's cu rrent approach is to seek the inclusion 
of an intellectual property (IP) chapter, which includes the following provisions: 
 
 re-affirmation of the WTO Agreement on Trad e-related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights (TRIPS); 
 re-affirmation of flexibilities under the TRIPS Agre ement, including those for public health;   
 provisions on cooperation on IP "in areas of mutual interest";  and 
 provisions on IP rights enforcement. 
 With the exception of the North-American Free Tr ade Agreement, which was negotiated prior to the 
international standards set by the TRIPS Agreement, Canada has not included an IP chapter in any of 
its FTAs.  
 Canada has included text on IP in the preamble of  certain FTAs, in order to meet its objective of 
affirming the TRIPS agreement and its flexibilities.  Canada has also been amenable to the inclusion of specific articles proposed by the other negotiating 
party.  For example, in one agreement articles on sp ecific geographical indications for wines or spirits 
were included at the request of the other party.  The FTAs mentioned by the United States are still under negotiation; therefore the manner in which 
these FTAs will address intellectual property rights has not been finalized.  
[U.S. Question 7]:  Please explain these excise duties and taxes (Secretariat Report Part III, 
paragraph III, page 23), in light of Canada's GATT Article III obligations 
 Canada's Response:   The federal excise measures related to beer and wine are modelled after similar 
programs in other countries.  The existing federal ex cise duty relief measures have not had the effect 
of curtailing in imports of beer or wine into Cana da.  Indeed, imports of beer (HS 2203) and wine (HS 
2204) into Canada have increased 32% and 34 % respectively during the review period.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 206  
 
 [U.S. Question 8]:   The Report by the Secretariat states that "[a]mendments to the Customs Act have 
given greater authority to CBSA officers to ex amine goods within designated Customs Controlled 
Areas in order to prevent contraband." Does this new amendment apply to trademarked and 
copyrighted goods?  Please describe what authoriti es currently exist to enable CBSA officers to 
prevent counterfeit goods.  
Canada's Response:   CBSA's ability to examine trademarke d and copyrighted goods does not change 
with Customs Controlled Area legislation.  The sam e procedure that applies today with regard to 
trademarked and copyrighted goods will continue to  apply if such imported goods are encountered in 
designated Customs Controlled Areas. 
 
Currently Canada Border Service Agency officers can detain goods only subject to a court order 
secured by the holder of the intellectual property ri ght.  This represents the limit of what Canada 
Border Service Agency officers are able to do today.  
[U.S. Question 9]:   The Secretariat states that intellectual pr operty "related legislation and regulations 
have been modified to enhance legal certainty a nd strengthen deterrence."  In what way do these 
modifications enhance legal certainty?  In light of  the courts' discretion in  imposition of penalties, 
described in Paragraph 193 (including the discreti on to impose damages below the prescribed lower 
threshold), in what way do they strengthen deterrence?  
Canada's Response:  To provide protection for Olympic symbol s and greater legal certainty to the 
marketplace during the Vancouver 2010 Winter  Olympic Games, Canada enacted the Olympic and 
Paralympic Marks Act , of which most provisions sunsetted on December 31, 2010.  This legislation 
provided special, time-limited intellectual property protection for Olympic and Paralympic words and 
symbols in the lead up to and during the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games. 
 
Two additional significant legislative and regulatory changes made during the review period serve to 
strengthen deterrence.  New criminal sanctions fo r the unauthorized recording of a cinematographic 
work or its soundtrack in cinemas have provid ed a significant deterrent to such activity.  
Modifications to the proceeds of crime regime in crease the likelihood that commercial infringers will 
lose the assets obtained through copyright infringeme nt, considering that few civil claims against 
criminal infringers have been made.  While courts  retain discretion in imposition of penalties, the 
mere existence of these provisions and the potential for serious penalties serves as a significant deterrent.  In June 2010, the Government of Canada introduced the Copyright Modernization Act  (Bill C-32), a 
bill that sought to modernize copyright legislation but that died on the Order Paper when the election 
was called in March 2011.  It seeks to enhance legal certainty and strengthen deterrence.  A new civil 
liability for those who enable infringement online wa s included to clarify that such activities infringe 
copyright, and such a measure, if passed, could have  been expected to deter the provision of such 
services in Canada.  Formalizing the "notice and notice" system currently implemented by several 
Canadian internet service providers (ISPs) on a voluntary basis would have also strengthened 
deterrence by ensuring that indivi duals are notified that allegedl y infringing activities have been 
detected and may contravene the Copyright Act , thereby discouraging the subscriber from engaging in 
such activities in the future.  Fo r ISPs and information location tools (or search engines), Bill C-32 
sought to clarify that they are exempt from liabi lity when they act strictly as intermediaries in 
communication, caching and hosting activities.  A new exception would have also clarified that the 
making of temporary, technical and incidental repr oductions of copyrighted material as part of a 
technological process was acceptable.  
 
[U.S. Question 10]:   The Secretariat states that "[b]etween 2007/08 and 2009/10 there were 7,318 
requests for a re determination of the tariff classifi cation, origin or value of duty".  Please explain  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 207 
 
 
 what is typically examined in these re-determination reviews.  What percentage of re-determinations, 
approximately, results in a recalculation of Normal Values? 
 
[U.S. Question 11(a)]:   When there is a finding that the amount of antidumping or countervailing 
duty paid exceeded the re-determined amount, does Canada refund the duties paid?  
[U.S. Question 11(b)]:   If the re-determination finds that actual Normal Values during the re-
determination period were less than the Normal Va lues imposed, is there any adjustment or credit 
granted to address the difference? 
 
[U.S. Question 11(c)]:   During the re-determination period, if one entry was made above the Normal 
Value and another below the Normal Value, does the authority grant an offset between the two?  If 
yes, please explain how it is done and whether it is done on an importer-specific or exporter-specific basis?  If no offsets are granted, please explain why.  
Canada's Response:  Canada operates two different types of re-determinations: one relates to tariff 
classification, origin and value for duty, as provide d for under the Customs Act, and the second relates 
to duties imposed pursuant to anti-dumping and co untervailing measures, as provided for under the 
Special Import Measures Act (SIMA).  Although the st atistics referenced in this question relate to 
tariff re-determinations, the focus of the questi on appears to be SIMA-related re-determinations. 
 
Canada's anti-dumping system operates on the basis of prospective normal value duty assessment, 
which provides importers and exporters with greater certainty  and predictability regarding the non-
dumped price for goods sold into the Canadian market  than would occur in a retrospective system.  
Exporters selling goods subject to an anti-dumping measure are able to increase their prices to their 
identified, non-dumped price in order to avoid paying duties.  Unlike most other trade remedy 
systems, therefore, anti-dumping duties are only collected on transactions occurring below the non-
dumped price.  As outlined under section 56 of SIMA, importers ma y request a re-determination of any SIMA duties 
paid if they believe those duties have been im properly assessed.  A request for re-determination may 
cover: 1) the normal value; 2) the export price; 3)  the amount of subsidy; 4) the amount of the export 
subsidy; or 5) whether the good is subject to the m easure.  If the amount of duties owing changes as a 
result of the re-determination, the Canada Border Services Agency will refund the amount collected in 
excess or may collect additional duties if the or iginal amount collected was insufficient.   
 Canada started reporting the numbe r of SIMA-related re-determina tion requests it receives in 2009, 
commensurate with changes to the semi-annual report format for the Committee on Anti-dumping 
Practices.  Since January 2009, Canada has receive d 1,904 requests for re-determination of SIMA 
duties.   
[U.S. Question 12]:  According to the Secretariat Report,  most Canadian provinces offer tax 
incentives to specific businesses.  Could Canada pl ease explain why most of these incentives were not 
notified in its most recent subsidy notification to the WTO? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada consults with its provinces and territories in preparing its WTO subsidy 
notifications. All identified provincial or territori al subsidy programs which are found to meet the 
definition of a subsidy which is specific unde r the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures are notified to the WTO. 
 
[U.S. Question 13]:  "Page 49, paragraph 81 of the Secretariat report states that "According to the 
authorities, the vast majority of provincial regulat ions, for example in the areas of building safety, 
electrical safety or elevating devices have no impact on international trade." Since Canada's last TPR WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 208  
 
 there have been several sub-national technical regul ations that have been implemented, which were 
not notified to the WTO Secretariat that did have a significant effect on international trade. Some examples include:  British Columbia's 2008 amendm ents to recycling regulation 449/2004, and 
Quebec's 2008 regulation for mortar mixers, # DC  100-1313, Amelioration de la Securite des 
machines par la utilisation des dispositifs de pr otection.  Would Canada please explain what 
mechanisms are in place to ensure that future sub- nation technical regulations are notified to the WTO 
Secretariat in accordance with Article 3 of the WTO TBT Agreement?"  
 Canada's Response:  Trade and regulatory policy is regularly discussed as part of the Federal-
Provincial-Territorial Committee on Trade managed by Foreign Affairs and International Trade 
Canada.  The work of the Committe e reinforces administrative systems in place at Canada's National 
Enquiry Point to collect and notify sub-national technical regulations. 
 
[U.S. Question 14]:   We note that many of the support pr ograms listed in paragraphs 133 – 135 of the 
Secretariat report appear to be contingent upon ex port performance.  Could Canada please explain 
these programs in light of its obligations under the SCM Agreement? 
 Canada's Response:  Global Commerce Support Program (GCSP) - Global Opportunities for 
Associations (GOA) component contributes up to 50% for eligible expenses incurred by national 
industry associations undertaking new or expa nded international business development and 
promotional activities for the benefit of an entir e industry.  The GOA program component is not 
aimed at actual exporters, but rather their business associations, and the funding involved 
($1.45 million CDN in 2009/2010) is spread over 32 industry associations. As a result, the amount and 
impact of any specific contribution is negligible.  The Going Global Innovation (GGI) program supports  Canadian companies and/or researchers in 
pursuing international R&D collaborative opportunities through the development of partnerships with 
key players in other countries and economies.  It does so by contributing up to 75% of eligible expenses related to travel and other non-research e xpenses, such as meeting costs and participation at 
exhibitions and conferences.  As such it  is not related to export performance. 
 The Invest Canada Community Initiatives (ICCI) prog ram is aimed at helping Canadian communities 
and locally-based non-profit organizations to attract, re tain and expand foreign direct investment. It is 
not related to export performance.  The International Science and Technology Part nership Program (ISTPP) promotes international 
collaborative research and development activities by fostering and supporting bilateral research 
projects.  It is intended to encourage domestic Canadian competitiveness through the transfer of 
technology and knowledge, as well as to pr omote Canadian R&D capacity and Canada as a 
destination for foreign technology base investments.  It is not related to export performance.  
 The Investment Cooperation Program (INC) supports responsible, developmentally beneficial, private 
sector engagement in developing countries, with the objective of creating employment and economic 
growth as well as sustained poverty reduction.  The program does not contribute to investment 
projects themselves; rather, it cost shares studies w ith private sector firms on the viability of proposed 
investments in developing countries, as well as stud ies to demonstrate the benefits and costs of 
introducing new technologies for a proposed investment  application.  Once the decision to invest has 
been made and implementation of the investme nt has begun, the program cost-shares activities 
complementary to the business that are aimed at enhancing the economic, environmental and social 
benefits of the investment.  The Canadian firm s hould operate in the developing country through:  (1) 
a wholly-owned foreign subsidiary;  (2) under a fo rmal business agreement such as a joint venture 
with a local partner;  or (3) a contract, lease or c oncession with a recognized authority to carry out an  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 209 
 
 
 infrastructure project.  Any benefits to Canada in  terms of value-added, jobs, and research and 
development are incidental.  It is  not related to export performance. 
 
[U.S. Questions 15(a)]:  The Report by the Secretariat states th at certain official support initiatives 
may be contingent upon local content requirements.   For instance, the feed-in tariff programme for 
renewable energy, established by the province of On tario in 2009 has prompted Japan to formally 
request consultations with Canada under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding.  Please explain 
which initiatives, other than the Ontario feed -in tariff program, contain such requirements.  
 
Canada's Response:  Other than those mentioned in the TPR, Canada is unaware of any other support 
initiatives contingent on local content.  
 
[U.S. Question 15(b)]:   Please explain Ontario's feed-in-tariff program in light of Canada's WTO 
obligations including under the SCM and TRIMS Agreements.  
Canada's Response:   Canada cannot comment on measures subject to a WTO panel proceeding.  
 
[US Question 16]:  According to the Secretariat report, most Canadian provinces offer tax incentives 
to specific businesses.  Could Canada please explain why most of these incentives were not notified in 
its most recent subsidy notification to the WTO?  
 
Canada's Response:   Canada consults with its provinces a nd territories in preparing its WTO subsidy 
notifications.  All identified provincial or territori al subsidy programs which are found to meet the 
definition of a subsidy which is specific unde r the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures are notified to the WTO.  
 
[U.S. Question 17]:  In 2007 (WT/TPR/M/179/Add.1), the United States asked Canada whether there 
had been any progress made on the possibility of gr anting Canadian customs ex officio authority. 
Canada advised that "an interdepar tmental working group, at the officials level, is examining ways to 
enhance the enforcement of IPR, including bor der measures."  Please provide an update on the 
progress made by this group.  
Canada's Response:  The Government of Canada remains comm itted to strengthening its intellectual 
property rights enforcement regime at the border in a manner consistent with Canadian interests.  The 
interdepartmental working group continues to suppor t this work, including through participation in the 
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement  negotiations that concluded in October 2010. 
 
[U.S. Question 18]:  How does the treatment of producers of generic pharmaceuticals and producers 
of innovative pharmaceutical products compare unde r subsection 55.2(1) an d related regulations 
(R.S.C., 1985, c.P-4)?  Canada's Response:  Government policy seeks to balance eff ective patent enforcement over new and 
innovative drugs with the timely market entry of  their generic competitors.  On the one hand, 
subsection 55.2(1) of the Patent Act , better known as the "early-working" exception, allows generic 
drug companies to use a patented, innovative drug  for the purpose of seeking regulatory approval to 
market a competing version of that drug without  infringement.  On the other hand, the related 
regulations, the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations , ensures that this exception is 
not abused, by ensuring that brand companies can challenge the generi cs market entry prior to patent 
expiry in a summary court proceeding.  
 
[U.S. Question 19(a)]:  Please provide data, to the best extent possible, regarding criminal copyright 
actions and results taken by Canadian law enforcem ent authorities and judicial cases during this WTO 
TPR period.  See TRIPS Articles 41 and 61. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 210  
 
 Canada's Response:  In August 2010, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) released Project 
Strider: A National Intellectual Property Crime Threat Assessment 2005 to 2008 .  The Threat 
Assessment notes that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) investigated nearly 1,500 cases of 
intellectual property crime between 2005 and 2008.  Fu rther details on the key findings and a copy of 
the Threat Assessment report may be obtai ned through the following internet address: 
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/ipta-piem-eng.htm. 
 Examples of criminal convictions and sentencing as a result of enforcement actions are provided 
below.  
1. 2008 – The accused pled guilty to charges under section 42 of the Copyright Act  following the 
seizure of 906 pirated DVDs offered for sale, and was sentenced to two months' 
imprisonment. 
 
2. 2009 – The accused was charged under subsection 38 0(1) of the Criminal Code and sentenced 
to 48 days' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine fo r selling pirated copies of music CDs at their 
music store. 
 
3. 2010 – The accused was given a 30-day intermittent jail sentence followed by one year's 
probation for one count pursuant to the Copyright Act  for 369 counterfeit DVDs.  The accused 
had no prior convictions.  
 
4. 2010 – After finding an online classified ad of an  individual advertizing the sale of suspected 
pirated DVD's, police seized over 2000 pirate d DVDs.  The accused was charged under 
subsection 42(1) of the Copyright Act  and was sentenced to conditional imprisonment of 
6 months and 9 months' probation.  The sentence also included incarceration in respect of 
drug charges stemming from the same event. 
 
5. 2010 – During an investigation by York Regi onal Police, a DVD-burning lab was discovered 
and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)  notified. The RCMP seized approximately 
100,000 pirated copies of movies, including some still being shown in theatres.  Also seized were 128 DVD burners capable of copying over  8,000 movies per day and 25,600 blank 
DVDs. Two large business photocopiers and one i ndustrial size paper cutter were located in 
the residence along with 200 toner cartridges.  The seized material had an estimated retail 
value of $2 million.  The accused were char ged with one count for possession of property 
obtained by crime contrary to section 354 of the Criminal Code, and four counts under section 
42 of the Copyright Act .  The two individuals were each sentenced to a $5,000.00 fine and 20 
days' imprisonment.  
 
[U.S. Question 19(b)]:  In addition, please also address results involving the two laws mentioned, 
specifically: (1) June 2007 amendments to the Crimin al Code that outlaw the unauthorized recording 
of cinematographic works in cinemas;  and (2) March 2010 modifications to its "proceeds of crime" regime in order to enable Canadian enforcement authorities to seize assets obtained through copyright 
infringement. 
 Canada's Response:  With respect to June 2007 amendments to  the Criminal Code that outlawed the 
unauthorized recording of cinematographic works, rights holders have publicly noted a significant reduction in pirated films sourced from Canadian theatres. 
 
Some examples of convictions and sentences impo sed under section 432 of the Criminal Code 
include:   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 211 
 
 
 1. 2007 - The accused, found guilty of unauthorized  recording of movies, was banned from 
movie theatres for one year and fined $1,495. 
 
2. 2009 - The accused was convicted on charges under the Criminal Code for the illegal 
recording of a film at a Montreal movie theatre.  He was sentenced to 24 months probation 
and was required to complete 120 hours of community service.  In handing down the 
sentence, the judge stated that this was not a victimless crime and that the actions of the 
offender had caused extensive lo sses to the movie industry.  
 
3. 2010 - The accused was charged for recording movi es in theatres.  He pled guilty and was 
sentenced to 2.5 months of incarceration, followed by 100 hours of community service and 
two years' probation.  
4. 2010 - The accused was charged for recording m ovies in theatres.  The subject was given a 
$750 fine, 18 months' probation, and 50 hours of community service. 
 
Regarding the October 2010 amendment removing the Copyright Act  from Canada's Regulations 
Excluding Certain Indictable Offences from the Definition of "Designated Offence"  in relation to the 
application of proceeds of crime provisions in the Crim inal Code, it is too early to have any results to 
report.  
[U.S. Question 20]:   Please provide an update on the new go vernment's intentions to modernize 
Canadian copyright law.  Canada's Response:   Bill C-32 died on the Order Paper when  an election was called in March 2011. 
 
In June 2011, in the Speech from the Throne  the Government of Canada committed to "introduce and 
seek swift passage of copyright legislation that  balances the needs of creators and users." 
 
[U.S. Question 21:  Paragraph 98 of the Secretariat repor t notes that AgriStability expenditures 
increased substantially in 2009/10.  How many a pplications were received/granted for the 
AgriStability program during that year and what products received the benefits?  
 
Canada's Response:  The AgriStability program operates on a program year basis, with each 
producer's 2009 program year being the fiscal year (tax year) ending betw een January 1, 2009 and 
December 31, 2009.  AgriStability administrations  received 104,070 completed applications for the 
2009 program year.  As of May 29, 2011: 93,850 of those applications had been processed, of which 
24,566 received a payment. AgriStability benefits are not attributable to products, as it is a "whole-
farm" program.  That is, benefit calculations ar e based on a farm's "production margin", which 
includes all revenues and expenses directly related to all agricultural production within the farm 
operation (i.e. all crops and/or livestock produced).  
[U.S. Question 22]:  The Secretariat report notes that in 2008, the Canadian government sought 
legislative changes (unsuccessfully) to repeal the Canadian Wheat Board's (CWB) single desk 
monopoly for the marketing of barley.  In light of recent political changes, is the government still committed to allowing producers to choose whether they  wish to market through the CWB or directly 
to other buyers?  Are there plans to  pursue legislative changes again? 
 
Canada's Response:  Yes. The Canadian Government recently  announced in the June 2011 Speech 
from the Throne its intention to in troduce legislation to ensure that western farmers have the freedom 
to sell wheat and barley on the open market, effectively removing the CWB monopoly.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 212  
 
 [U.S. Question 23]:   According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Atlantic lobster is one of the most 
important export-oriented fisheries for Canada.  We  note the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures 
Program is intended to provide $50 million in assistan ce to lobster harvester organizations to cover a 
portion of the costs associated with implementing su stainable fishery plans.  The deadline to submit 
proposals for the funding was September 30, 2010.  Please describe Canada's experience with this 
program.  For example, was this initiative successful in attracting proposals for sustainable fishing and 
is there an intention to extend it to other fisheries?  Canada's Response:   The global economic and financial crisis of 2007-2009 has negatively affected 
lobster harvesters.  Harvesters who are highly de pendent on lobster and who normally have relatively 
low overall harvest landed value have experienced a significant decrease in their landed values in 
2009. Up to $50 million is being invested over five year s in Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures to 
support those in the industry who develop and im plement long-term sustainability plans.  This 
program is in its second year a nd runs until March 31, 2014.  
 
This program is only for lobster and by virtue of its Terms and Conditions no other fisheries can be 
funded under this program.  
[U.S. Question 24]:  According to the Secretariat report, the Federal Government reaffirmed its 
commitment to provide repayable contributions of up to Can$350 million to support Bombardier 
development of the CSeries aircraft.  Could Canada please explain how much of that funding has been 
disbursed to date? 
 
Canada's Response:   Total disbursements for the Bombardier CSeries Program were $76,516,687 to 
the end of fiscal year 2009-2010.  The total disbursements include the previously reported amount of 
$39,660,669 for fiscal year 2008-2009 and the amount  of $36,856,018 for fiscal year 2009-2010 as 
reported at page 366 in Volume II of the 2009-20 10 Public Accounts of Canada (http://www.tpsgc-
pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/pdf/50-eng.pdf).  The 2009-2010 Public Accounts of Canada, which include the 
audited Financial Statements of th e Government of Canada, were re leased on October 28, 2010.  The 
Public Accounts are released on an annual basis.  The amount of repayable contribution provided to Bombardier for the CSeries during the 2010/2011 fiscal year will be reported in the 2010/2011 Public 
Accounts of Canada expected to be released in mid-to late 2011. 
 
[U.S. Question 25]:  The Secretariat reports states that the Government of Québec offers a refundable 
tax credit for the construction of vessels and a reduc tion of tax on capital on the acquisition of vessels 
made in Québec.  Please explain the tax credit, wh ich appears to be contingent upon local content 
requirements, in light of Canada's obligations under the SCM Agreement. 
 Canada's Response:  A response will be forthcoming pending further consultations with provincial 
authorities.  
[U.S. Question 26]:  The text in the Secretariat Report suggests that international law firms may only 
employ foreign legal consultants.  Is that the case, or may foreign firms also hire lawyers licensed in a 
Canadian jurisdiction to practice Canadian law?  Canada's Response:  International law firms may also employ  domestically licensed lawyers.  The 
reference at page 150, paragraph 21 8 refers to those lawyers specifically employed by an international 
law firm as FLCs, but who are not domestically licensed.  These lawyers must have obtained a 
temporary licence from the provincially competent author ity to do work for the international law firm.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 213 
 
 
 ADDITIONAL REPLIES 
 Costa Rica  
Costa Rica Question 41]:   How does Canada justify that Québ ec's application of lower rates to 
alcoholic beverages produced in that province does not violate Art. III.2 of the GATT 1994? (page 43, 
paragraph 56)  
 
Canada's Response: 
 
Selon les autorités québécoises, le Québec n'applique  pas une majoration à faible taux sur les produits 
locaux, lorsque vendus, à titre d'exemple,  dans un e succursale de la Société des alcools du Québec 
(SAQ).  
 
European Union 
 
[EU Question 25]:  The WTO Secretariat's report states "/…/Alcoholic beverages produced in Québec 
benefit from lower rates under certain conditions./…/"  Could Canada explain under which conditi ons the lower rates can be applied? 
 
Canada's Response: 
 
Selon les autorités québécoises, le Québec n'applique  pas une majoration à faible taux sur les produits 
locaux, lorsque vendus, à titre d'exemple, dans une  succursale de la Société des alcools du Québec 
(SAQ).   United States  
[United States Question 25]:  The Secretariat reports states that  the Government of Québec offers a 
refundable tax credit for the construction of vessel s and a reduction of tax on capital on the acquisition 
of vessels made in Québec.  Please explain the tax cr edit, which appears to be contingent upon local 
content requirements, in light of Canada 's obligations under the SCM Agreement. 
 
Canada's Response:  
 
Pour de plus amples renseignements sur le Créd it d'impôt remboursable pour les constructeurs de 
navires, veuillez consulter l'adresse suivan te:  http://www.mdeie.gouv.qc.ca/bibliotheques/ 
programmes/mesures-fiscales/indus trie-maritime/credit-dimpot-rem boursable-pour-les-constructeurs-
de-navires/.  En bref: 
 L'objectif de la mesure fiscale est de favoriser  le développement de l' expertise des chantiers 
maritimes vers de nouveaux pr oduits en réduisant les coûts d'apprentissage sur de nouvelles 
séries de navires ou et de nouvelles technologies écologiques.  Le crédit d'impôt est donc dégressif et porte uniquement sur les 4 premiers navires d'une série (ayant une jauge de plus 
de 50 tonneaux).  
 Les entreprises admissibles ont une place d'affa ires au Québec et elles doivent disposer des 
infrastructures requises pour réaliser le projet (un chantier naval).  
 Le montant maximal de l'aide est de 18,75% du coût admissible (pour le prototype et non pas 
20% tel qu'indiqué sur la page Web et de moins en moins pour les premier, second et 
troisième de série)  
 Le calcul du crédit d'impôt est fonction des dépenses admissibles WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 214  
 
 A) les salaires des employés affectés directement à la construction du navire (au taux de 
37,5% ou moins); B) le service de préparation de plans et devis lorsqu' effectué au Québec (au taux de 37,5% ou 
moins); C) les contrats de services sous-traités ayant un contenu élevé en main d'œuvre québécoise (au 
taux de 18,75% et moins).  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 215 
 
 
 REPLIES PROVIDED BY CANADA 
TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED AFTER 6 JUNE 2011 
 
ARGENTINA 
 
[Argentina Question 1] The paragraph 12 of the Secretariat Report states that, in 2010, over 440 
programmes provided financial support to Canadian companies; around one-quarter of these may help 
companies to boost export sales.   
A) Could Canada indicate the main programs referred to in the Report? 
 Canada's Response:   A complete list and detailed inform ation on these programs can be found on the 
Canada Business Network at:  http://www.canadabusiness.ca/eng/.  
B) What kind of companies benefit from them and what kind of products do they export? 
 Canada's Response:   The Canada Business Network provides a single point of access to relevant 
information on assistance programs available to indus try. The Network promotes entrepreneurship and 
innovation, and provides assistance through an organized network of service centres across Canada. In most cases, these programs target Canadian small an d medium-sized enterprises. Eligibility for some 
of these programmes may be conditional on the company' s province or territory of incorporation, its 
ownership characteristics, or the nature of its ac tivities. Specific eligibility requirements for a program 
are available through the administering entity charged with its oversight. The funds are administered by a wide range of entities, including federal a nd provincial Crown corporat ions, regional economic 
development agencies and provinc ial government departments. 
 
Canada, like many countries, maintains certain pr ograms that support businesses in their efforts to 
expand and grow. Canada takes great effort to  ensure that these programs are designed and 
implemented in consistency with its trade obligat ions and commitments, such as those resulting from 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies a nd Countervailing Measures (ASCM). 
 
[Argentina Question 2]  The paragraph 13 of the Report states that excise tax reductions or 
exemptions are available to producers of locally produced beer and wine.   
 
A) Could Canada indicate under what circumsta nces excise tax reductions or exemptions are 
available to producers of locally produced beer and wine?    
Canada's Response:  The reduced excise duty rates available for beer produced domestically are 
limited to beer production up to 75,000 hectolitres pe r year.  Beyond this annual production threshold, 
the same excise duty rates apply for beer products of the same ABV content, whether manufactured in 
or imported into Canada.  With respect to wine, an excise duty exemp tion is available for wine made from 100% 
Canadian-grown agricultural products.  
 
B) Could Canada indicate what kind of products they export? 
 
Canada's Response:  See table.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 216  
 
 Canada export stat istics to world 
Canadian exports of beer and wine, 2008-2010 
Commodity Description 2008 
Litres 2008 
$CAD 2009 
Litres 2009 
$CAD 2010 
Litres 2010 
$CAD 
22.0300.00 Beer made from malt 367,851,722 325,490,903 291,772,948 237,375,668 336,779,556 251,416,636 
22.0410.00 Grape wines, sparkling 41,642 438,208 103,433 1,323,001 312,334 2,874,885 
22.0421.10 Icewine in containers 
holding 2 litres or less 193,464 11,602,806 130,192 8,681,357 172,288 12,087,147 
22.0421.90 Other grape wine nes., 
incl. fort.and grape 
must., unfermented by 
added alcohol, in containers holding 2 litres or less 500,759 5,766,104 689,383 6,019,550 603,620 7,538,050 
22.0429.00 Grape wine nes., incl. 
fort. and grape must., 
unfermented by added 
alcohol, in containers holding more than 2 litres 7,818,348 3,968,673 10,139,796 5,172,883 14,045,269 6,515,830 
22.0430.00 Grape must., nes., 
unfermented, other than that of heading 20.09 0 0 0 0 4,320 6,480 
22.0510.00 Vermouth and other 
grape wines, in 
containers holding 2 
litres or less 1,853 30,361 490,962 2,371,203 2,107 31,354 
22.0590.00 Vermouth and other 
grape wines, in 
containers holding more 
than 2 litres 47 73 31,378 48,636 134,840 208,815 
 
[Argentina Question 3] The paragraph 17 states that the Federal Government has also taken steps to 
strengthen the competitiveness of the Canadian maritime industry by assisting investments in Canadian port infrastructure within the framework of the Economic Action Plan and other initiatives. 
 
A) Could Canada provide more details on this a ssistance to investments in port infrastructure?  
 
Canada's Response:  Investment in port infrastructure is  done through the Gateways and Border 
Crossings Fund and the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund.   
Under the Gateways and Border Crossings Fund (G BCF), in addition to a wide variety of other 
infrastructure investments, port-related investments (excluding regular maintenance) were pursued to 
construct, improve and rehabilitate  multimodal facilities and assets and to optimize/increase the use of 
short sea shipping.  Investments at the Port of Halifax (Nova Scotia) and the Port of Belledune 
(New Brunswick) are two examples. 
 
Under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, an el ement of Canada's Economic Action Plan, port 
infrastructure was an eligible category for funding und er the stimulus plan.  Approved projects include 
those that rehabilitate berths, terminals, ferry doc ks, water and wastewater systems on port lands, and 
access roads to facilities. 
 
B) Could Canada indicate whether these investme nts in port infrastructure are particularly 
aimed at fishing vessels?  
Canada's Response:  No, projects of this nature are not eligible for support under these infrastructure 
initiatives. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 217 
 
 
 [Argentina Question 4]  In paragraph 4, the Report mentions a large stimulus package under the 
Economic Action Plan, aimed at weathering the global economic and financial crisis.  Also, footnote 2 
in the Report indicates that according to IMF estimat es, combined federal and provincial stimulus 
funding for the years 2009 and 2010 is one of the largest among advanced economies.  A) Could Canada give more details on the comp anies benefiting from this stimulus package? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's Economic Action Plan is a br oad-based stimulus package that was 
designed to have the maximum impact on output  and employment during the global economic 
recession.  Accordingly, a significant portion of stimulus spending was directed at infrastructure 
investment – which is associated with high s hort-term economic multipli ers reflecting smaller 
leakages to savings or imports – and therefore a larger impact on domestic output and employment.  
Major support was also provided to temporarily enha nced employment insurance benefits and training 
programs to assist the unemployed.  In addition, the Economic Action Plan also included permanent 
broad-based personal income tax reductions. 
 
An update on Canada's Economic Action Plan impl ementation was provided in Chapter 3 of Budget 
2011, available at:  http://www.budget. gc.ca/2011/home-accueil-eng.html.  
 
B) Could Canada provide more details on the co mpanies and products benefiting from these 
programs? 
 Canada's Response:  Although Canada's Economic Action Plan was broad-based in design, a number 
of measures in the Action Plan were targeted at  specific industrial sectors, including manufacturing 
and processing, agriculture, forestry, an d most notably, the automotive sector. 
 
Details of these various business support measures can  be found starting on p. 162 of the 2009 federal 
budget, an electronic version of which is av ailable here:  http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/pdf/budget-
planbugetaire-eng.pdf. 
 
C) Could Canada indicate which of these program s under the stimulus package will continue in 
2011?  
 Canada's Response:  A one-time extension of the completion deadline, from March 31, 2011 to 
October 31, 2011, was announced for four infrastructure programs:  the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, the Building Canada Fund Communities Component Top-Up, the Knowledge Infrastructure Program 
and the Recreational Infrastructure Canada program.  These four programs are cost-shared with 
provinces and territories.  Provinces and territories re quested extensions for a total of roughly 2,200 
projects under these four programs.  As of April 2011, provinces and territories indicated that approximately $5.7 billion out of a total of $7 billion in federal c ontributions available through the 
four infrastructure programs would be claimed within the original two-year window, with the remaining $1.3 billion expected to flow in 2011–1 2.  In addition, the Economic Action Plan also 
contains permanent person al income tax reductions. 
 
An update on Canada's Economic Action Plan implementation, including the above noted 
infrastructure program extension, was provided in Chapter 3 of Budget 2011, available at:  
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2011/home-accueil-eng.html.  
[Argentina Question 5]  The paragraph 5 of the WTO Secretariat's Report indicates that Canada is 
implementing a strategic long-term economic plan (Advantage Canada), whose key targets are to 
create competitive tax, fiscal, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and infrastructure advantages.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 218  
 
 A) Could Canada provide more information on the objectives of this plan? 
 
Canada's Response:  In 2006, the Government launched a comp rehensive, long-term economic plan, 
Advantage Canada, designed to build a stronger ec onomy by fostering Canada's key advantages (see 
www.fin.gc.ca/ec2006/pdf/plane.pdf for more detail on the objectives of this plan).  
 
These five key Canadian advantages are as follows:   
Tax Advantage: 
Canada's Tax Advantage will reduce taxes for all Ca nadians and establish the lowest tax rate on new 
business investment in the G7. 
 
Fiscal Advantage: 
Canada's Fiscal Advantage will eliminate Canada's to tal government net debt in less than a generation, 
creating a strong foundation on which to build sustainable prosperity.  
 
Entrepreneurial Advantage: 
Canada's Entrepreneurial Advantage will reduce un necessary regulation and re d tape and lower taxes 
to unlock business investment. By building a more  competitive business environment, consumers will 
get goods at lower prices and Canadian bus inesses will be better equipped for global success. 
 Knowledge Advantage: 
Canada's Knowledge Advantage will create the b est-educated, most-skilled and most flexible 
workforce in the world.  
Infrastructure Advantage: 
Canada's Infrastructure Advantage will create m odern, world-class infrastru cture to ensure the 
seamless flow of people, goods and services across our roads and bridges, through our ports and 
gateways, and via our public transit.  
 
B) What measures will be implemented to achieve these objectives? 
 Canada's Response:   Since 2006 the Government has implem ented key elements of this plan, 
including broad-based tax reductions, paying down debt, and investing in knowledge and 
infrastructure (see Budget 2009 p. 195 for more de tail on the implementation of Advantage Canada 
prior to the crisis:  http://www.budget.gc. ca/2009/pdf/budget-planbugetaire-eng.pdf).  
 
Going forward, the Government will build on th e sustainable low-tax environment and growth-
friendly policies implemented since 2006.  New measures focus on: supporting job creation, supporting families and communities, investing in innovation, educa tion and training, and preserving 
Canada's fiscal advantage. The main policies to  be implemented are summarized below (see Budget 
2011 for more detail on initiatives put in  place to achieve these objectives: 
www.budget.gc.ca/2011/plan/Budget2011-eng.pdf): 
 
Supporting Job Creation by helping businesses and entreprene urs succeed, keeping taxes low, 
investing in projects of national importance, and ma intaining Canada's brand as one of the best places 
to invest. Budget 2011 advances these priorities by:  
 Providing a temporary Hiring Credit for Small Bu siness to encourage additional hiring by this 
vital sector. 
 Extending the work-sharing program and the Targ eted Initiative for Older Workers to help 
Canadians in some of the hardest hit areas stay in the workforce.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 219 
 
 
  Supporting the manufacturing and processing sector by extending the accelerated capital cost 
allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and 
equipment for two years. 
 Renewing the Best 14 Weeks and Working While on Claim EI pilot projects for one year. 
 Extending the temporary 15-per-cent Mineral Expl oration Tax Credit for an additional year 
(until March 31, 2012) to continue to help co mpanies raise capital for mineral exploration. 
 Providing renewed funding of almost $100 milli on over two years for research, development 
and demonstrations of clean energy and energy efficiency. 
 Contributing $150 million toward the constructi on of an all-season road between Inuvik and 
Tuktoyaktuk that completes the Dempster Highw ay, connecting Canadians from coast to coast 
to coast. 
 Supporting Families and Communities  so that all Canadians enjoy a high standard of living and our 
communities stay vibrant and safe. Budget 2011 invests in these goals by: 
 
 Enhancing the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) for those seniors who rely almost 
exclusively on their Old Age Security and the GIS and may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.  This measu re will provide a new top-up benefit of up to 
$600 annually for single seniors and $840 for couples.   This measure represents an investment 
of more than $300 million per year, and will im prove the financial security of more than 
680,000 seniors across Canada.  
 Attracting more health care workers to underserved rural and remote communities by 
forgiving up to $40,000 of the federal component  of Canada Student Loans for new family 
physicians and up to $20,000 fo r nurse practitioners and nurses. 
 Introducing a Family Caregiver Tax Credit a nd Children's Arts Tax Credit to support 
Canadian families.  
 Introducing a Volunteer Firefighters Tax Credit fo r volunteer firefighters who perform at least 
200 hours of service in their communities.  
 Providing nearly $870 million over two years to address climate change and air quality, 
including the extension of the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program that will help 
homeowners make their homes more energy efficient and reduce the burden of high energy 
costs. 
 Investing in Innovation, Education and Training to promote research in leading-edge technologies 
and to provide Canadians with the opportunity and incentives to acquire the skills needed for jobs in 
today's labour market. Budget 2011 makes important progress on these priorities by: 
 
 Providing $80 million in new funding over th ree years through the Industrial Research 
Assistance Program to help small and medium-sized businesses accelerate their adoption of key information and communications tec hnologies through collaborative projects with 
colleges.  
 Establishing 10 new Canada Excellence Research Chairs. Some of these new chairs will be 
active in fields relevant to Ca nada's Digital Economy Strategy. 
 Increasing the budgets of all three federal granting councils by $47 million annually, 
including support for indirect costs. 
 Improving commercialization and supporting de monstration of new technologies in the 
marketplace by supporting research links between colleges, universities and businesses. 
 Enhancing and expanding eligibility for the Canada Student Loan and Grant Program for part-
time and full-time post-secondary students.  
 Helping apprentices in the skilled trades and workers in regulated professions by making 
occupational, trade and professional examinati on fees eligible for the Tuition Tax Credit. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 220  
 
 Preserving Canada's Fiscal Advantage in order to be able to invest in the priorities of Canadians, to 
keep Canada's economy growing strongly, and to main tain low interest rates. Budget 2011 advances 
these objectives by:  
 Reaffirming the Government's plan to return  to balanced budgets without raising taxes, 
cutting transfers to persons, including those for seniors, children and the unemployed, or 
cutting transfers to other levels of government that support health care and social services, Equalization, and the gas tax transfer to municipalities. 
 Identifying savings that reach over $500 million annually from the 2010 round of strategic 
reviews. Together with measures to restrain th e growth of National Defence spending, the first 
cycle of strategic reviews has resulted in $11 billion in savings over seven years and more 
than $2.8 billion in ongoing savings. 
 Protecting the integrity and fairness of the Ca nadian tax system by closing tax loopholes. 
 In addition, the Government is moving forwar d with a comprehensive review of direct 
program spending to be comp leted in 2011–12.  The Strate gic and Operating Review will 
build on the first cycle of strategic reviews to  support the return to balanced budgets by 2014–
15, and provide fiscal room to continue paying down debt and investing in the priorities of 
Canadians, including lowering taxes for families.  The review will focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and programs to ensure value for 
taxpayer money. 
 
[Argentina Question 6]  The paragraph 19 of the Report me ntions that Canada amended the 
Investments Canada Act in 2009.  This amendment allows for the review of investments on national 
security grounds if the investment is consid ered potentially injurious to national security. 
 
A) What does this review process consist of, and what are the time frames for it?  
 B) What kind of investments could be in jurious to Canada's national security? 
 
Canada's Response:  Under the national security review provisions, the Minister of Industry, after 
consultation with the Minister of Public Safety an d Emergency Preparedness, may refer an investment 
to the Governor in Council (GIC) which may in turn order a review of the investment if it determines 
that the investment could be injurious to national security.  If the GIC orders a review, the Minister of Industry, after consultation with the Minister of  Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, will 
conduct the review and, if necessary, submit a report to the GIC with recommendations.  In response, 
the GIC has the authority to take measures in resp ect of the investment to protect national security. 
Each step of the review process is to occur with in the time periods prescribed by regulation.  
Investments that could be injurious to national security are identified primarily through the ongoing 
activities of Canada's security and intelligence agencies.  Canada's a pplication of the national security 
mechanism is consistent with its international tr ade obligations and the best practices of other 
industrialized economies.  
[Argentina Question 7]  The paragraph 21 of the Report states that Foreign investment in existing 
businesses in Canada, above certain th resholds, is subject to review, which involves the application of 
a net benefit test.  According to the Competition Po licy Review Panel, review s often involve foreign 
investors providing specific undertakings  to address the net benefit criteria. 
 
A) Could Canada indicate what "net benefit" criteria consist of, and how they are determined?  
 B) What criteria are used to establish the annual thresholds?  
 
C) What are the "specific undertakings" that foreign investors provide?  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 221 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  Section 20 of the Act provides six factors that the responsible Minister of the 
Government considers in determining whether an inv estment is of likely "net benefit" to Canada.   
 These include:  
- the effect on the level of economic activ ity in Canada, on employment; on resource 
processing; on the utilization of parts and ser vices produced in Canada and on exports from 
Canada; 
- the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new 
Canadian business and in any indus try or industries in Canada; 
- the effect of the investment on productivity, in dustrial efficiency, technological development, 
product innovation and product variety in Canada;  
- the effect of the investment on competition within any industry in Canada; 
- the compatibility of the investment with nati onal industrial, economic and cultural policies; 
and 
- the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets. 
 
According to the Investment Canada Act, the annua l review threshold for direct acquisitions by WTO 
member investors must be determined prior to and be effective on January 1 of every year.  The calculation of the threshold amount is based on two factors: last year's threshold amount and the 
growth rate of nominal Gross Domestic Product (G DP) as published by Statistics Canada.  The new 
threshold amount is equivalent to the growth in nominal GDP for the specified period, multiplied by 
the threshold amount determined for the previous year. 
 
To ensure that acquisitions of control are of lik ely net benefit to Canada, investors may submit 
undertakings in support of their plans for the Ca nadian business which, typically, address the net-
benefit factors described above. 
 
[Argentina Question 8]  The paragraph 16 of the Report states  that the Government of Canada has 
announced the creation of a pilot project, Partners in Compliance (PIC), to help businesses comply 
with the CBSA's trade programmes (tari ff classification, origin, and value). 
 
A) Could Canada provide more information on this project? 
 Canada's Response:  The purpose of Partners in Compliance (PIC) initiative is to give trusted traders 
greater recognition for their investments in ensuri ng the integrity and reliability of their internal 
controls and business systems, with respect to the trade programs (tariff classification, origin and 
value for duty).  PIC is a client-CBSA partnership that gives the client responsibility for their own 
compliance testing, allowing the CBSA to invest pos t-release verification resources in areas of higher 
or unknown risk.  PIC is a voluntary partnership between the client  and the CBSA, built on a foundation of knowledge, 
information sharing and joint responsibility, who se ultimate goal is trade program compliance.  The 
PIC initiative provides an opportunity for the client to voluntarily demonstrate to the CBSA that their 
business systems and internal controls are effective and reliable. 
 
B) What changes does it establish with regard to current procedures? 
 
Canada's Response:  PIC is a risk based pre-authorization program for low risk trusted traders.  
During the authorization process the CBSA will work with the client to obtain an understanding of the 
participants trade program risks; identify and understand the client's  internal controls, systems and 
processes with respect to trade programs;  conduct tr ade compliance and internal controls tests; and 
make an assessment of the likelihood of cont rols and systems detecting and preventing non-
compliance with CBSA trade program requirements. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 222  
 
 If the CBSA is satisfied with the internal controls  and trade program compliance of the client, the 
CBSA and the client will establish a self-testing plan .  The client will then be permitted to perform 
their own self-testing on an ongoing basis, and report the results to the CBSA.  The CBSA will monitor the results and determine if additional testing is required to be performed  by the client or the 
CBSA. 
 
In exchange for investing in trade program intern al controls, performing self-testing and maintaining a 
high level of compliance, the CBSA does not rely on administrative penalties as a first response to non-compliance, but rather will work with the c lient to correct the non- compliance and implement 
additional internal controls to prevent non-compliance from re-occurring. 
 
[Argentina Question 9] The paragraph 37 of the Report notes that in specific industries, positive 
tariff escalation is prevalent, meaning that there are high rates of effective protection.  This, for example, is the case of food and beverages; te xtiles and apparel;  and, chemicals and plastics. 
 A) Could Canada provide statistical informatio n on the production trends in these sectors 
during a recent period (for example, 2008-2010)?  
Canada's Response: GDP in the food manufacturing subsector increased from $17.4 billion in 2001 
to $19.1 billion in 2010.  The increase in GDP reported between 2001 and 2010 represented a 
compound annual rate of 1.0%.  Between 2009 a nd 2010, the total value-added of the food 
manufacturing subsector increased by 1.6%.  
 GDP in the beverage manufacturi ng industry group increased from $4.0 billion in 2001 to $4.2 billion 
in 2010.  The increase in GDP reported between  2001 and 2010 represente d a compound annual rate 
of 0.6%.  Between 2009 and 2010, the total value-adde d of the beverage manufacturing industry group 
decreased by 3.2%. 
 
GDP in the textiles and apparel subsector decreased from $6.2 billion in 2001 to  $2.9 billion in 2010. 
The decrease in GDP reported between 2001 and 20 10 represented a compound annual rate of 8.1%. 
Between 2009 and 2010,  the total value-added of the textile and apparel subsector increased by 8.5%. 
 
GDP in the plastic product manufacturing industr y group decreased from $7.2 billion in 2001 to 
$6.2 billion in 2010.  The decrease in GDP re ported between 2001 and 2010 represented a compound 
annual rate of 1.5%. Between 2009 and 2010, the total value-added of the plastic product 
manufacturing industry group increased by 6.8%. 
 
GDP in the chemical manufacturing subsector decr eased from $14.4 billion in 2001 to $13.2 billion in 
2010.  The decrease in GDP reported between 2001 and 2010 represented a co mpound annual rate of 
0.9%.  Between 2009 and 2010, the total value-a dded of the chemical manufacturing subsector 
increased by 4.0%. 
 
Further statistics on these sectors can be found at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cis-sic.nsf/eng/Home. 
 
B) Could Canada indicate whet her these sectors have benefited from the programs mentioned in 
questions 1 and 4?  
Canada's Response:   Information on sector specific recipi ents of programs listed on the Canada 
Business Network is not available. Information on assistance provided under Canada's Economic 
Action Plan  can be found at:  http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/index.asp. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 223 
 
 
 There have been no changes to Canada's industrial or investment policies since the global financial 
crisis. Canada's approach remains to build on the sustainable, low-tax environment and growth-
friendly policies in place since 2006. 
 
[Argentina Question 10] The paragraph 46 of the Report states that under Section 115 of the 
Customs Tariff, orders may be issued granting customs duty remissions in order to allow the 
Government to respond quickly and selectively in pr oviding remedies in particular situations where 
the application of general laws and regulations is ha ving unintended and und esirable consequences. 
 
Could Canada provide more information on these re mission orders?  Based on what criteria are 
they issued? What products do they benefit? What is the size of the tariff reduction? 
 
Canada's Response:  Please refer to Table III.5 in the Secretariat Report for a list of Remission 
Orders issued over the review period.  For full in formation on the individual orders, please see the 
following links: 
 
Remission Orders: 
2007 - Deep Panuke 
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2007/ 2007-12-26/html/sor-dors299-eng.html. 
2007 - MV Sonia http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2007/ 2007-06-27/html/sor-dors151-eng.html. 
2008 - Outward Processing 
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/ 2008-05-14/html/sor-dors138-eng.html. 
2008 - Fruit http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/ 2008-08-06/html/sor-dors236-eng.html. 
2008 - Textile and Apparel Orders extension 
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/ 2008-09-17/html/sor-dors256-eng.html. 
2009 - Mobile Offshore Drilling Units: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2009/ 2009-05-13/html/sor-dors129-eng.html. 
 
[Argentina Question 11]  The paragraph 49 of the Report indicates that Goods and Services Tax 
(GST), levied under the Excise Tax Act, is Canada's largest indirect tax by revenue.  However, some 
Canadian provinces do not apply this  tax, others impose other taxes, and some use different bases for 
calculating it.  
What are the reasons for this lack of harm onization in the application of the GST?  
Does the government plan to take steps so that this tax is applied uniformly throughout the 
country? 
 
Canada's Response:  At the federal level, the Goods and Se rvices Tax (GST) is a broad based, value-
added tax that applies to the supply of most propert y and services in Canada at a rate of 5%.  The GST 
is applied uniformly across all Canadian provinces and territories.   
At the provincial level, provincial taxation is a provi ncial responsibility.  Each province in Canada has 
the independence to determine its own tax mix and to choose the sal es tax model it deems appropriate 
for its own jurisdiction's economy.  This has meant that provinces have adopted different tax models, 
with some provinces deciding to adopt a value-adde d sales tax structure that is harmonized with the 
GST.  
[Argentina Question 12]  The paragraph 51 of the Report stat es that different exemption regimes 
apply under each of the provincial sales tax regim es, and that some of these exemptions are to 
encourage commercial activities such as farming, aquaculture, manufacturing, and mining.  Could 
Canada provide more details on these exemptions and which activities specifically benefit from them? WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 224  
 
 Canada's Response: 
 The following responses were provided by  Canadian provinces and territories 
 
Manitoba's Response :  Manitoba provides Retail Sales Tax exemptions to the following commercial 
activities: 
 Exemptions that benefit farming,  fishing and trapping operations: 
 
 farm implements and farm mach inery, and repair parts for su ch implements and machinery; 
 agricultural feeds; 
 plants of a kind which, or the products of which, ordinarily constitute food or drink for 
human consumption or feed , and seeds, tubers , bulbs, corms, and rhizomes, used to raise 
plants of that kind;  
 livestock;  
 chemical products, when purchased and used exclus ively, or nearly exclusively, in farming;  
 non-chemical products  ordinarily used in agriculture or horticulture;  
 binder twine, baler twine and baler wire;  
 barbed wire, farm, hog, sheep and poultry fence, when purchased for farm use;  
 a granary designed and used exclusively, or nearly  exclusively, for the storage of grain, when 
purchased by a farmer; 
 manure slurry tank or a liner for a manure lagoon; 
 agricultural lime purchased for use in restoring farm land; 
 farm horses;  and  
 containers purchased by farmers and fishers for transporting their products. 
 
Exemptions that benefit printers and publishers: 
 student yearbooks; 
 books; 
 newspapers and magazines that are provide d to the public without charge;  and, 
 legal tender and commemorative coins. 
 
Exemptions that benefit Manufacturers: 
 
 tangible personal property used for the purpose of being processed into, fabricated into, 
manufactured into, attached to, or incorporat ed in, other tangible personal property for the 
purpose of sale or resale; 
 non-returnable materials purchased by a vendor and used to protect or stabilize tangible 
personal property during transportation, commonly known as dunnage;  
 a catalyst or direct agent; 
 the following items when purchased for u se in manufacturing a product for sale: 
 
a) a carbon electrode, 
b) a coolant or oil or other lubricant, if used as a cutting aid, 
c) a die, jig, mould or pattern, 
d) spray, dressing or release agent for a moul d, including a silicon release agent for 
baking,  
e) items, other than machinery and equipment, that (i) are consumed exclusively in 
manufacturing printed materials, and (ii) in the printing process, come into direct contact with the ink or other material that prints or with the paper or other material 
being printed upon,   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 225 
 
 
 f) a protective material, such as masking tape or kraft paper, if the material is to be 
applied to the product for its protection during painting, 
g) rolling mill rolls,  
h) press rolls used to produce pape r in a pulp and paper mill,  
i) refractory bricks and liners for kilns; 
 
 welding tips and laser or plasma nozzles, when purchased for use in manufacturing a product 
for sale or in providing a taxable service; 
 used manufacturing machinery, equipment or apparatus which continues to be used in 
manufacturing; 
 
Exemptions that benefit Mining and Oil Production and Exploration:  
 a chemical or other material purchased for incor poration into crude oil or gas to stimulate or 
increase crude oil or gas production or to re move contaminants from the oil or gas; 
 drill bits and explosive materials purchased a nd used for exploration for minerals or 
development activities directly re lated to mining for minerals; 
 the following items when purchased for u se by the purchaser in mining or processing 
minerals for sale as a mineral product: 
 
a) anode bags, bearing centres and side strips for anodes and cathodes, cathode 
boxes, spacers used on electrolytic tanks, refi nery bus bars for electrolytic tanks, 
and mother sheets,  
b) the apex, vortex and liner used in a cyclone,  
c) blast hole liners, 
d) carbon electrodes and related casings and rings for furnaces, cottrell rods, dross 
rakes, furnace pokers, ladle lips, lancing pi pe, roaster rabbles and tuyere pipes and 
punchers, 
e) clay and lubricants used as matt plugs, 
f) crusher jaws, crusher plates, crusher liners, crusher mantels, grizzly decks, jeffry 
crusher hammers used in the separation of ore,  
g) flotation rotors and stators, launder liners and launder tips,  
h) lifter bars used in rod mills, 
i) reagents used in processing,  
j) rockbolts, resins, resin retainers, expansi on shells, shotcrete, wiremesh, washers, 
rockbolt straps, and wire rope for rockbolting, 
k) spray paint used in outlining the ore body,  
l) timber, burlap, polyethylene, sand and cement used within a mine;  
 
 oil and gas exploration equipment; 
 geophysical survey and exploration equipment; 
 prototype equipment for mining. 
 
British Columbia's Response :  British Columbia does not have a provincial sales tax.  The provincial 
portion of the harmonized sales tax (HST) is rebated at point of sale for motor fuels, books, feminine 
hygiene products, and children's clothing, footwear, di apers and car seats.  There are also rebates for 
new houses and certain public sector bodies, including  municipalities, schools, hospitals, universities 
and colleges, registered charities and qualifying non- profit organizations.  The province also credits 
the provincial portion of the HST on residential energy.  
Ontario's Response :  Effective July 1, 2010, Ontario replaced its Retail Sales Tax with the 
Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), a value-added tax whic h is a federally imposed tax that follows the WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 226  
 
 same rules and tax base as the federal Goods a nd Services Tax (GST), with limited exceptions.  The 
HST is a broad-based tax that applies to the fi nal consumer of goods and services.  Most businesses 
may claim input tax credits for purchases made during the course of their commercial activities, meaning they effectively do not pay sales tax on these items. The benefit of the HST to various sectors is based broadly on the provision of a commercial (t axable) activity, rather than to encourage a 
particular activity by a certain sector. 
 Québec's Response :  Certaines ventes de biens et prestations de services sont considérées comme étant 
des fournitures détaxées ou des fournitures exonérées.  
Les fournitures détaxées sont des fournitures taxa bles au taux de 0%.  L'entreprise n'a donc pas à 
percevoir de taxes sur ce type de fourniture.  Les fournitures détaxées comprennent, par exemple:  
 la vente de médicaments délivrés sur ordonnance; 
 la vente de certains appareils médicaux et appareils fonctionnels; 
 la vente de produits alimentaires de base; 
 la vente de certains biens utilisés dans les secteurs de l'agriculture et de la pêche; 
 la vente de certains biens ou services expédiés hors du Canada ou du Québec; 
 la prestation de certains services de transport de passagers ou de marchandises; 
 la prestation de services financiers et la vente de livres imprimés identifiés par un numéro 
international normalisé du livre (ISBN). 
 
Les fournitures exonérées ne sont pas soumises au régi me de taxe de vente provinciale.  L'entreprise 
ne doit donc pas percevoir ni payer de taxes sur ce type de fourniture.  Les fournitures exonérées 
comprennent, par exemple: 
 la vente d'immeubles d'habitation qui ne sont pas neufs; 
 la prestation de la plupart des services de santé, d'enseignement, de garde d'enfants et d'aide 
juridique; 
 la prestation de certains services rendus par des organismes du secteur public (les 
gouvernements et les organismes de bienfaisances); 
 le loyer d'un bail résidentiel pour une durée d'au moins un mois. 
 Nova Scotia's Response :  The question relating to paragraph 51  is not Applicable to Nova Scotia. 
Paragraph 51 is referring to non-Harmonized provincia l sales tax regimes.  Nova Scotia maintains a 
Harmonized Sales Tax with the federal government, which is addressed in previous sections of the 
document. However, further inform ation on tax rebates and credits can be found at the links below: 
 
 Information on exemptions to the fuel tax can be found here: 
http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/regulations/regs/revregs.htm#TOC3_18. 
 Information on HST rebates can be found here: 
http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance/en/home/taxa tion/harmonizedsalestax/hstrebates.aspx. 
 Information on personal income tax a nd tax credits can be found here: 
http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance/en/home/taxa tion/personalincometax/default.aspx. 
 Information on corporate income tax and credits can be found here: 
http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance/en/home/taxati on/businesstax/corporateincometax/default.a
spx. 
 Saskatchewan's Response :  For Information Bulletins on Government of Saskatchewan 
measures that relate to fuel tax and th e provincial sales tax, please visit:  http ://www. 
finance.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=d3f569d6-b5c 8-488e-9ce3-024df4405a2b; and http://www. 
finance.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=118c 7cb8-32df-4653-a586-3399f16eb790. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 227 
 
 
 [Argentina Question 13]  The paragraph 53 of the Report mentions  that federal excise duties on wine 
are imposed under the Excise Act 2001.  The Report states that wine made from 100% Canadian-grown agricultural or planted products packaged on or after 1 July 2006 is exempt from 
excise duties.  Does Canada believe that this exem ption could be considered a subsidy under the WTO 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, inasmuch as it would constitute non-receipt of 
government revenue that would otherwise be receive d, and is specific to the wine production sector? 
 
Canada's Response:  The federal excise measure related to wine is modelled after similar programs 
in other countries.  It should be noted that this m easure has not had the effect of curtailing growth in 
imports of wine into Canada.  During the review period, imports of wine (H S 2204) into Canada have 
increased 34%.  In contrast, overall imports into Canada  were lower in 2010 than they were in 2007.   
 
[Argentina Question 14]  In paragraph 54, the Report mentions that special duties are levied on 
imported spirits delivered to or imported by a licensed user. 
 
Could Canada provide more details on these licences?  
Canada's Response:  A licensed user is a person who holds  a user's license issued under the Excise 
Act, 2001  and is generally a manufacturer who uses alcohol in manufacturing or processing other 
products.  
[Argentina Question 15]  The paragraph 56 of the Report notes th at alcoholic beverages produced in 
Québec benefit from lower tax rates than im ported beverages, under certain conditions. 
 
Could Canada provide details on the condition s under which lower tax rates are applied to 
alcoholic beverages produced in the provi nce of Québec than imported beverages? 
 Canada's Response:   Le Québec n'applique pas une majorati on à faible taux sur les produits locaux, 
lorsque vendus, à titre d'exemple, dans une succu rsale de la Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ). 
 
[Argentina Question 16]  The paragraph 63 of the Report indicates that Canada maintains import 
controls under a number of statutes and regulations to implement its other (non-WTO) international 
obligations and commitments.  Could Canada indicate which controls are being referred to? 
 Canada's Response:   For information on Canada's import c ontrols, please refer to Canada's latest 
notification to the WTO (document G/LIC/N/3/ CAN/9) and visit:  http://www.international. 
gc.ca/controls-controles/about-a_propos/impor/perm its-licences.aspx.  Further information on the 
Cultural Property Export and Import Act  can also be found at:  http ://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ 
acts/C-51/index.html. 
 
[Argentina Question 17]  The Table III.12 of the Report notes that in the period 2007-2010, Canada 
made a total of 215 regular and emergency notificati ons.  At the end of the table, it is stated that 
Canada made 12 notifications in compliance with in ternational standards and 41 notifications not in 
compliance with international standards. 
 
Could Canada specify whether the remaining no tifications correspond to cases for which a 
relevant international standard exists?  
Canada's Response:  With respect to Table III.12 mentioned above, the remaining notifications 
correspond to cases involving maximum residue limits (MRLs) and Interim Marketing Authorizations (IMAs) for which there is no rele vant international standard.  
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 228  
 
 An IMA is an initiative undertaken by Canada to make the regulatory system more responsive.  It 
permits the expanded use of substances already a pproved for use in or upon food products.  IMAs 
allow domestic and foreign manufacturers to u se these substances on a voluntary basis while the 
formal regulatory process proceeds.  This provides industries and consumers with the benefits of 
additional uses for already approved products and is trade facilitating. 
 
[Argentina Question 18]  The paragraph 95 of the Report indicates that notices of interim marketing 
authorizations (IMAs) are enabling instruments that allow producers or manufacturers to sell foods 
that are not in compliance with certain provisi ons of the Food and Drug Regulations while the 
regulations are being amended. 
 
A) Could Canada provide more information on this  aspect?  Could you indicate, for example, in 
cases where an IMA has been granted, how long it  takes on average to make an amendment to 
the Food and Drug Regulations?  
Canada's Response:  In cases where an Interim Marketing Auth orization (IMA) has been granted, 
Health Canada is required to make  an amendment to the Food and Drug Regulations that has the same 
effect as the IMA, within two years of the date of  publication of the IMA in the Canada Gazette.  At 
the October 2002 meeting of the SPS Committee Canada explained its approach to IMAs to make the 
regulatory system more responsive.  This incl udes a comment period for our trading partners. 
 
B) Does the system work the same way for domestic and imported products, or are there 
different requirements and/or procedures?  
Canada's Response:  The IMA process applies equally to do mestic and imported food products. 
 
[Argentina Question 19]  The paragraph 126 of the Report states that the Government of Canada has 
the capacity to provide credit directly and meet the fi nancing requirements of fi rms in strategic, hard-
hit sectors of the economy.  
A) What are the requirements for access to this credit? 
 
Canada's Response:  Under the Business Credit Av ailability Program (BCAP), (the program through 
which Export Development Canada 's domestic powers were deliv ered, to which paragraph 126 
refers),Export Development Canada's  financing was available to qualified Canadian companies – at 
market rates – in the form of direct loans (which  were made alongside loans from Canadian financial 
institutions), co-lending or guarantees given to Canadian financial institu tions to enable them to better 
meet Canadian companies' financing needs.  Elig ible companies were Canadian businesses with viable 
business models whose access to financing would otherwise have been restricted.  
 
B) How much money is allocated for this?  
Canada's Response:  Export Development Canada's domestic  financing powers were awarded on a 
temporary basis in response to the global financial crisis.  A total of $6.4 billion in Business Credit 
Availability Program (BCAP) transactions were s upported in 2010. More in formation is available 
from:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/bcap-pce/report-rapport- eng.asp (BCAP) and http://www.edc.ca/english/ 
domestic.htm (domestic powers).  All transacti ons are fully repayable and priced on commercial 
terms. No specific allocation was made upfront.  
 C) What exactly does "hard-hit sectors of the economy" mean?  
Canada's Response:  EDC's temporary domestic financing pow ers, delivered through the Business 
Credit Availability Program (BCAP) , supported a range of sectors, in  particular construction and  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 229 
 
 
 infrastructure, extractive and resource industries, a nd manufacturing.  No specific sector was targeted; 
support was provided to individual companies that me t the eligibility criteria as defined in A) above.  
 
[Argentina Question 20]  The paragraph 133 of the Report states that Canadian companies, 
particularly SMEs, may also be eligible for fi nancial support (from Can$5,000 to Can$25,000) to hire 
international trade experts or qualifie d students under several programmes. 
 
A) Could Canada provide more details on these programs? 
 B) What is the duration of these programs? 
 
C) How much financing has been provided in  a recent period (e.g. 2008, 2009 and 2010)? 
 
Canada's Response:  The programs to which the Secretariat's report refers are the Agri-Value 
Marketing Internship Program (offered by the S askatchewan Trade and Export Partnership - STEP), 
the Export Help! Program (Trade Team PEI), the Expor t Internship for Trade Graduates (the Atlantic 
Canada Opportunities Agency) and the Small Busi ness Internship Program (Industry Canada). 
 
A) Could Canada provide more details on these programs?  Canada's Response: 
 
Agri-Value Marketing Internship Program (S askatchewan Trade and Export Partnership - 
STEP) 
The Agri-Value Marketing Internship Program is  a partnership between Saskatchewan Trade and 
Export Partnership (STEP) and the Saskatchewan Mini stry of Agriculture.  It is designed to place 
recent graduates or current graduate students ("inte rns") into Saskatchewan ag ri-value firms on a cost-
shared basis.  Interns within the program pe rform a number of marketing related tasks for 
Saskatchewan agri-value firms, including con ducting market research and developing specific 
marketing strategies for new products or markets.  Following STEP's mandate, a significant portion of 
this work will be directed towards a market outsi de of Saskatchewan.  If appropriate, and often the 
case within the program, the intern(s) may even par ticipate in the implementation of the marketing 
program developed.  The goal of the program is to ensure that Saskatchewan's agri-value firms have 
the ability to develop quality mark eting initiatives and have access to relevant marketing skills.  As 
well, the interns have the ability to develop th eir skills and gain relevant work experience. 
 
Export Help! Program (Trade Team PEI)  
The Export Help! Program is offered by Trade Team  Prince Edward Island, a partnership of the 
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), Innovation PEI and other federal and provincial 
departments and agencies.  The program gives export-ready companies on Prince Edward Island, 
Canada access to a pool of qualified consultants who provide assistance tailored to their specific 
export-related needs.  Export Help! provides a non-repa yable contribution of 90% of the costs to hire a 
consultant for up to a maximum of 40 hours or C$5,000.  The company applying for the program is 
responsible for paying their portion (10%) of the pr oject cost at the signing of the contract.  All 
registered commercial enterprises in  Prince Edward Island, Canada are eligible applicants under the 
Export Help! Program.  Most sectors are eligible, how ever, enterprises must be able to demonstrate 
that they are export ready.  Companies are normally eligible for a single contribution under the Export Help! Program. Eligible areas for research include: in ternational market entry strategy, global supply 
chain management, export marketing plan, e-commerce strategy, documentation of international trade, 
and international trade research. 
 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 230  
 
 Export Internship for Trade Graduates (A tlantic Canada Opportunities Agency-ACOA) 
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) supports initiatives in the Canadian provinces of 
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova  Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. ACOA 
regional offices each determine their own progra mming approach, in partnership with local and 
provincial delivery partners, to support Canadian e xport/enterprise clients.  One such example is a 
Business Development Program grants and contributions project commitment by ACOA - PEI 
(labelled the "Export Internship Program"), undertaken with a local community economic 
development organisation, which provides 70% or up to  C$25,000 of the first year salary for eligible 
SMEs to hire recent business graduates.  Similarly, other ACOA regional offices have in place programs under the auspices of the Export Internship for Trade Graduates, that reimburse companies 
in the region up to 75% of the salary and benefit costs (to a maximum of C$25,000) when they hire 
trade specialists graduating from an Atlantic Canadian  college or university.  In order to qualify for 
the program, companies must demonstrate that  they can create and implement a successful 
international export strategy.  
The objective of the Export Intern ship for Trade Graduates is to provide training and employment 
opportunities to international trade specialists graduating from Atlantic Canada universities and 
colleges, while also helping SMEs to acquire the inhouse expertise they need  to successfully develop 
and implement an international marketing plan. 
 
Small Business Internship Program (Industry Canada) 
The Small Business Internship Program run by Indu stry Canada helps support Canadian businesses 
while giving students valuable work experience.  The program provides up to C$10,000 to Canadian 
businesses to hire a student for a 12-week internsh ip to work on information and communications 
technology projects (the funding supports the st udent's salary and related employee benefits). 
Participants are responsible for paying 25% of the intern's wages and related costs, while the program 
reimburses the remaining 75% of the costs.  To be eligible for the program, companies must be 
Canadian SMEs (less than 500 employees) that have been in continuous operation for at least one 
year, have a web site and wish to enhance their e-business capability.  
B) What is the duration of these programs? 
 
Canada's Response: 
 Agri-Value Marketing Internship Program (S askatchewan Trade and Export Partnership - 
STEP)  
The Agri-Value Marketing Internsh ip Program has been extended and will be concluding in March, 
2014. Therefore applicants must have an intern pl aced no later than March, 2013.  Interns are placed 
for a period of 4 to 12 months.  The funding will be 50% of the intern's monthly salary up to a 
maximum of C$1500 per month.  It is designed to re lieve some of the financial pressure of hiring new 
staff dedicated to developing progr ams and initiatives whose return on i nvestment may be farther into 
the future.  A further incentive is  that for each intern engaged under this project for a term of 4 or 
more months a sum equal to 50 percent of total costs up to a maximum amount of C$3000 may be 
used for travel, as well as for costs incurred to implement marketing strategy of the product or 
marketing activities performed by the intern and re lated to the project (flights, accommodations and 
translation, marketing materials, market research).  
Export Help! Program (Trade Team PEI)  
This program is ongoing. Export Help! provides a non -repayable contribution of 90% of the costs to 
hire a consultant for up to a maximum of 40 hours or C$5,000.  
 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 231 
 
 
 Export Internship for Trade Graduates  
This program is ongoing.  The funding (to a maxi mum of C$25,000 per candidate) supports the salary 
and benefit costs for the first year of the intern 's assignment to the recipient company.  At the 
conclusion of the internship, the employer may apply under ACOA's Business Development Program 
for assistance to retain the graduate's services for up to three additional years as a marketing manager.  
 
Small Business Internship Program  
This program is ongoing. Each supported employme nt is for a maximum period of 12 weeks.  
Financial contributions for this initiative are subject  to the availability of funds in each Canadian 
province and territory. 
 
C) How much financing has been provided in  a recent period (e.g. 2008, 2009 and 2010)?  
 Canada's Response:   
Agri-Value Marketing Internship Program (S askatchewan Trade and Export Partnership - 
STEP)  
The program was introduced in 2006 with funding of  C$450,000.  The first intern was placed in 
December 2006 and the program has averaged approxi mately C$60,000 in re-imbursement per year 
since. 
 
Export Help! Program (Trade Team PEI)  
The PEI Regional Office of the Atlantic Canada O pportunities Agency (Trade Team PEI) has invested 
approximately C$160,000 since 2006 in delivering th e Export Help!  Program to enterprise clients 
needing research/planning in support of thei r international business development efforts.  
 
[Argentina Question 21]  The paragraph 138 of the Report indicates that export-oriented, non-
manufacturing businesses may obtain certain benefits in  terms of tax exemptions and deferrals (e.g. 
GST), and that a range of other tax relief measur es, at federal or provincial level, address specific 
import-export scenarios.  
What are these measures and in what specific scenarios are they applied? 
 Canada's Response:  Exports from Canada are genera lly relieved from the GST. 
 
[Argentina Question 22]  The paragraph 143 of the Report indicates that official support to businesses 
is provided through different mechanisms, including  programs that focus on agri-food, shipbuilding, 
textiles, and fisheries, among other sectors. 
 
Could Canada provide details on these programs? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Canada Business Network provides a single point of access to relevant 
information on assistance programs available to i ndustry.  The Network promotes entrepreneurship 
and innovation, and provides assistance through an organized network of service centres across 
Canada.  The programs offering assistance to exporters are not sector specific.  
 In most cases, these programs target Canadian sma ll and medium-sized enterprises.  Eligibility for 
some of these programmes may be conditional on the company's province or territory of 
incorporation, its ownership characteristics, or the nature of its activities.  Specific eligibility 
requirements for a program are available through the administering entity charged with its oversight. 
The funds are administered by a wide range of  entities, including federal and provincial Crown 
corporations, regional economic development agencies and provi ncial government departments. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 232  
 
 Canada, like many countries, maintains certain pr ograms that support businesses in their efforts to 
expand and grow.  Canada takes great effort to ensure that these programs are designed and 
implemented in consistency with its trade obligat ions and commitments, such as those resulting from 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Counterv ailing Measures (ASCM), WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture (AoA), and NAFTA. 
 
[Argentina Question 23]  The paragraph 144 of the Report men tions that certain official support 
initiatives may be contingent upon local-content requirements.  
A) Could Canada provide more information on official support initiatives that are contingent 
upon local-content requirements?  
 B) Could Canada indicate the applicable regulation?  
Canada's Response:  Outside of those mentioned in the TPR, Canada is unaware of any other support 
initiatives contingent on local content.  
 
[Argentina Question 24]  The paragraph 148 states that a number of provinces and territories 
(e.g. Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nunavut, Y ukon) offer fuel tax exemptions or rebates for 
certain commercial activities.  (A) Could Canada provide details on which activities can benefit from 
this? (B) What are the conditions for receiving this benefit? 
 
Canada's Response: 
 The following responses were provided by Canadian provinces and territories  
 
British Columbia's Response :  The exemptions/rebates from British Columbia motor fuel tax are as 
follows:  
 Natural gas is exempt from motor fuel tax wh en used in compressors that are used to 
transmit waste gas within a gas processing pl ant or from a gas processing plant to a well 
or used in compressors located at a well head and used to inject waste gas into a depleted 
well for disposal; 
 Marine bunker fuel is exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 Marine gas oil is exempt from motor fuel ta x when used in a marine gas turbine that 
propels a commercial passenger or cargo carrying ship; 
 Fuel with at least 85% methanol is exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 Natural gas used as motor fuel is  exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 Propane is exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 Hydrogen (except when produced using coal-g enerated electricity unless emissions from 
coal is captured and stored or captured and sequestered) is exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 A First Nation public body performing a govern ment function under a First Nation Tax 
Treatment Agreement is entitled to refund of  motor fuel tax in accordance with the 
Agreement; 
 A member of a Treaty First Nation under a Treaty is exempt from motor fuel tax in 
accordance with the Treaty; 
 A Status Indian is exempt from motor fuel tax in accordance with section 87 of the Indian 
Act (Canada); 
 Diplomats and Consular officials who are not citizens or permanent residents of Canada 
are exempt from motor fuel tax; 
 A visiting force as defined in Section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act (Canada) is exempt 
from motor fuel tax;  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 233 
 
 
  Farmers are exempt from tax on coloured fuel; 
 A person is entitled to a refund of tax on jet fu el used for an international (flight must 
begin or end outside of Canada or the continental United States) cargo flight; 
 A person is entitled to a partial refund of tax on jet fuel used for an international (flight 
must begin or end outside of Canada or the continental United States) mixed cargo and 
passenger flight; refund is limited to cargo portion of the total payload; 
 A person with a disability who is 16 years of age or older and owns or leases a motor 
vehicle entitled to a maximum annual refund of motor fuel tax of $500;  and 
 A licensed carrier operating under the Intern ational Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) is 
entitled to a refund of tax paid on motor fuel  where the purchases of motor fuel in British 
Columbia exceed the fuel used in British Columbia. 
 Nunavut's Response :  The Fuel Tax Rebate program offers a rebate on fuel taxes individuals and 
businesses pay to the Government of Nunavut for fu el used for the following qualifying traditional, 
commercial and industrial activities, broadly defined: 
 
 Harvesting, including hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering, whether individually or in 
a community-organized or sponsored group; 
 Commercial harvesting, with proper licensing and business incorporation; 
 Quarrying for the purpose of obtaining carving stone; 
 Tourism services, including properly licen sed outfitting, guiding and other related 
services for contracting customers; 
 Mineral exploration, including properly li censed pre-production activities of exploring or 
prospecting for minerals; 
 Mine development, including properly permitte d on-site construction activities leading 
directly to the production of minerals; 
 Mine extraction, including properly permitted on-site activities associated with the ex-
traction and processing of mineral ore;  and 
 Mine reclamation, including properly permitte d on-site activities related to restoring a 
mine-site to its natural state or original use. 
 The Tax Rebate Regulations of the Petroleum Products Tax Act govern eligibility and application 
requirements for the FTR program.  In general, appli cants to the Fuel Tax Rebate program must have 
purchased or imported fuel in compliance with the Petroleum Products Tax Act , and paid taxes to the 
Government of Nunavut on that fuel within the pr eceding year.  Applicants must have consumed the 
fuel in vehicles or machinery used off-road, and mu st not have engaged in any potentially qualifying 
activity for recreational purposes only.  Applicants engaged in mine developm ent, mineral extraction 
or mine reclamation must also have entered in to a Development Partnership Agreement with the 
Government of Nunavut, and remained  in compliance with its terms. 
 Yukon's Response :  Tax-exempt fuel is authorized fo r the following off-road commercial purposes 
only: farming, hunting/outfitting, fishing, trappi ng, logging, sawmills, golf courses, tourism, mining 
and generation of electricity.  Fuel taxes paid at the time of purchase may be claimed from the 
Department of Finance up to December 31 of the year that is six years after the year of purchase of the 
fuel.  Refund claim form (FOT 6A) as well as fuel receipts showing fuel type, litres, date of sale, location of sale and taxes included must be completed in order for a refund to be processed.   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 234  
 
 Fuel Tax Rates in Yukon 
Fuel type Rate 
Gasoline  6.2 cents per litre  
Diesel  7.2 cents per litre  
Aviation  1.1 cents per litre  
Propane  No tax  
Heating  No tax  
 
Manitoba's Response :  Regarding fuel tax exemptions or rebates for certain commercial activities, no 
tax is payable by a buyer of marked fuel, propane , natural gas, bunker fuel or crude oil when it is 
purchased for certain uses in farming, fishing and trapping , shipping , prospecting and mining, and 
forestry   
 
Tax refunds are provided for aviation fuel used in aerial spraying, fuel used to produce electric and 
non-engine use of fuel including for manufacturing mixi ng or thinning paint, cleaning, or operating an 
incinerator. 
 Ontario's Response :  Under the Fuel Tax Act, Ontario levies a tax of 14.3 cents per litre tax on diesel 
fuel and 4.5 c/L on railway diesel.  Under the Col oured Fuel program, certain uses are exempt from 
the fuel tax, including operation of unlicensed cons truction, forestry, mining, farm and other business 
equipment, and commercial marine vessels.  Biodi esel is also exempt under the Act.  For more 
inormation, please visit:  
 Fuel Tax Act - http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/tax/ft/index.html. 
 Coloured fuel - http://www.rev.gov.on.ca /en/bulletins/ft/pdf/fuel1_2001.pdf. 
 Railway diesel - http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/ en/bulletins/ft/pdf/fuel1_2009.pdf. 
 The taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel apply to all fuel  purchased in or delivered to Ontario.  Generally, 
no special permit is required to qualify fo r the differential rates or exemptions. 
 Québec's Response :  Les activités commerciales visées sont l' agriculture, la pêche, la foresterie, 
l'exploitation minière, le transport maritime et le transport aérien dans le cas des vols internationaux. 
De plus, des exonérations sont prévues à l'égard des entreprises utilisant du carburant pour des usages 
chimiques ou à des fins de recherche. 
 Les critères d'admissibilités sont les suivants:  
 Agriculture – le carburant doit servir à l'alimen tation d'une machine agricole pendant qu'elle 
effectue des travaux d'agriculture, ou  à d es véhicules utilisés exclusivement à des travaux 
sur la ferme; 
 Pêche – le carburant utilisé par le bateau de pêche; 
 Opérations forestières – le carburant utilisé pour  les travaux de coupe, de manipulation, de 
reboisement et de transpor t du bois dans une forêt; 
 Opérations minières - uniquement l'extrac tion du minerai provenant d'une ressource 
minérale jusqu'au  premier stade de concentration; 
 Transport maritime - le carburant utilisé par le bateau; 
 Transport aérien international - uniquement le carburant utilisé pour les vols internationaux; 
 Utilisation du carburant pour des usages chimiqu es ou à des fins de recherche omme matière 
première dans un processus de fabrication.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 235 
 
 
 Alberta's Response :  Under Alberta's Fuel Tax, there are two programs that exempt consumers from 
the fuel tax:  (i) Alberta Farm Fuel Benefit - th is exempts farmers from paying the fuel tax, and 
(ii) Tax Exempt Fuel Use (TEFU) - this program  exempts fuel used for commercial purposes in 
unlicensed vehicles, machinery, and equipment at off-road locations from the Alberta fuel tax.  
 
The following roads and areas qualif y as off-road locations: any area that is not a highway as defined 
in the Traffic Safety Act (T-6 RSA 2000) (see below), a licence-o f-occupation road, a private road on 
private or Crown land, or a highway under constructi on if the road is closed to travel by the public 
Regarding applicant eligibility:  
 Commercial entities – Subject to successful enro lment, any sole proprietor, partnership, 
trust, or corporation may apply for an exemption of Alberta fuel tax for fuel used in eligible unlicensed  vehicles or equipment for commercial purposes in off-road operations 
in Alberta. 
 
 Non-commercial entities – Subject to successful enrolment, an exemption of fuel tax may 
also be granted to the following non-commercial entities: 
a) city, town, village, summer village, municipal district, specialized 
municipality or town under the Parks Towns Act ;  
b) school board; 
c) public college or university as defined in the Post-secondary Learning Act ; 
d) Metis settlement;  or 
e) regional health authority. 
 
The "Tax Plan" in the 2011 Alberta Budget outlines recent changes that have been made to fuel tax 
exemptions in Alberta.  Effective February 24, 2011, the Tax Exempt Fuel Use (TEFU) rebate for 
licensed vehicles, including Prescribed Rebate O ff-road Percentages (PRO P) was eliminated.  
However, as noted above, the marked fuel com ponent of TEFU for licensed Alberta Farm Fuel 
vehicles is still in effect, and was not affected by  this change.  More information can be found here: 
http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/budge t/budget2011/tax-plan.pdf, at page 146. 
 Nova Scotia's Response:   Nova Scotia's fuel tax provides a va riety of exemptions under regulations to 
Nova Scotia's Revenue Act  which is publicly available .Specific information on exemptions to the fuel 
tax can be found at:  http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/re gulations/regs/revregs.htm#TOC3_18.  General 
information on the Revenue Act can be foun d at:  http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/regulations/ 
regs/revregs.htm.  Exemptions to the fuel tax include Naphtha gasolin e;  Furnace oil and stove oil;  Vehicles operated by 
the Department of Transportation and Infrastruct ure Renewal;  Vehicles and equipment owned by a 
city, town, municipality or service commission or co rporation operated as a public work or service by 
or for a city, town or municipality;  Vehicles operate d solely for firefighting;  Fishing vessels, while 
the fishing vessel is being used for the purpose of fi shing or harvesting of mari ne plants, provided that 
such fishing vessel is a Canadian fishing vessel or is leased to a Canadian corporation and lands its 
catch in Canada, or transfers all or part of its catch  to another vessel while inside Canadian fisheries 
waters or to operate machinery and apparatus u tilized in aquaculture;  Used to operate drilling 
equipment used in the drilling of wells for the suppl y of water, but not including motor vehicles;  
Ship, boat or vessel while it is being used as a commercial ferry on a regularly scheduled route; 
Railway locomotives;  Heating buildings;  Machin ery used in a commercial farming operation by a 
farmer; Machinery used in the production or harvesting of forest products for sale;  Machinery used in 
the manufacture or production of goods for sale;  Machinery used to develop electricity to power 
machinery and apparatus when used in the manufacture or production of goods for sale. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 236  
 
 [Argentina Question 25]  The paragraph 164 of the Report states that local-content requirements may 
be found in procurement not subject to international trade agreements. 
 
Could Canada indicate what kinds of procurem ent are referred to and what requirements are 
established for local content? 
 Canada's Response:  Examples of existing local content requi rements include the Canadian Content 
Policy and the Industrial and Regiona l Benefits Policy.  The Canadian Content Policy applies where 
Public Works and Government Serv ices Canada is the contracting authority, but does not apply to 
government procurement subject to international tr ade agreements.  The Policy is available in the 
Supply Manual of Public Works and Govern ment Services Canada at: http://www.tpsgc-
pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/ga-sm/chap itre03-chapter03-eng.html#sa3-6 .  The Industrial and Regional 
Benefits Policy generally applies to large defen ce procurements, but does not apply to government 
procurement subject to international trade agreemen ts.  Further details on the Policy are available on 
Industry Canada's website at:  http:// www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/home. 
 
[Argentina Question 26]  The paragraph 197 of the Report stat es that pursuant to the 2004 Canada-
EU Wines and Spirits Agreement, Canada is term inating generic classification of 22 EU wine names 
and 2 spirit names in 3 phases.  Following each phase 's entry into force, European producers may 
request protection of the relevant names as geographical indications on the Canadian market.  Could Canada indicate how it reconciles the Wines and Spirits Agreement with the most favoured nation 
principle (article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement)? 
 Canada's Response:  The TRIPS Agreement, in Article 23, provides for the protection of GIs in 
respect of wines and spirits, which is in addition to  the general obligation of Article 22, which applies 
in respect of all GIs.  Canada established a system  for the protection of geographical indications in 
respect of wines and spirits throug h provisions in its Trade-marks Act.  These provisions were enacted 
through Canada's World Trade Organization Agreem ent Implementation Act and added to its Trade-
marks Act.  In conformity with Article 65.1 of  TRIPS, these amendments entered into force on 
January 1, 1996.  The procedure for obtaining a geog raphical indication in respect of a wine or spirit 
in Canada is transparent and is applied in a non-di scriminatory manner, regardless of the origin of the 
geographical indication or the nationality of the appli cant, consistent with Articles 3 and 4 of TRIPS.  
The 2004 Canada-EU Agreement on Trade in Wines and Spirit Drinks, which resulted in certain 
changes to the Trade-marks Act did not change the op en nature of Canada's system for the protection 
of GIs in respect of wines and spirits. 
 
[Argentina Question  27] The paragraph 7 of the Report states that the supply management systems 
for dairy and poultry products and the Canadian Wh eat Board's "single desk" selling system remain 
unchanged. 
 
Does Canada plan to modify the Canadian Wh eat Board's mandatory single desk system? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Canadian Government stated in th e June 2011 Speech from the Throne that 
it intends to introduce legislation to ensure that western farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and 
barley on the open market, effectively removing the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly.  
[Argentina Question 28]  The paragraph 9 of the Report states that Government has adopted a range 
of measures to improve the manufacturing sector's productivity growth and competitiveness, including 
industry-specific incentives for R&D (for example,  for the automotive and aerospace industries). 
 
A) Could Canada give more details on the stim ulus measures provided to sectors other than the 
automotive and aerospace industries?   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 237 
 
 
 Canada's Response:   Through the Economic Action Plan, te mporary support was provided to various 
industry sectors including access to financing for fi rms operating in forestry, agriculture, mineral 
exploration, shipbuilding, tourism and culture sectors as well as to small and medium-sized enterprises.   
Further information on this assistance can be found in Canada's Economic Ac tion Plan: A Seventh 
Report to Canadians :  http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=221. 
 
B) Could you indicate whether these measures remain  in effect?  If so, until when does Canada 
believe it will be necessary to maintain these measures? 
 Canada's Response:  Further information on this assistance can be  found in Canada's Economic 
Action Plan: A Seventh Report to Canadians:   http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId 
=221.  
 
Overall, there have been no cha nges to Canada's industrial or i nvestment policies since the global 
financial crisis. Canada's approach remains to build on the sustainable, low-tax environment and 
growth-friendly policies in place since 2006.  
 
[Argentina Question 29]  The paragraph 21 of the Report not es that the OECD observes that 
uncertainty about the level of payments and pa yment delays of up to two years undermine the 
usefulness of AgriStability as a risk management tool. 
 
Could Canada provide a list of payments made to  agricultural operations in a recent period (e.g. 
2008-10)?  
Canada's Response:  
The following table provides a list of direct payments to agriculture producers under the major Business Risk Management (BRM) programs of Gr owing Forward, for the years 2008, 2009, and 
2010:  
Major BRM Program Payments (millions)   
 2008 2009 2010
AgriInvest $306 $358 $328
Crop Insurance (gross) $599 $811 $1,157
AgriStability $592 $790 $834
AgriRecovery $16 $19 $403 
 
Data Source:   Agriculture Economic Statis tics, Statistics Ca nada, Catalogue No. 21-015-X (May 2011).  
 
[Argentina Question 30]  Table IV.1 notes that price support under the "other commodities" rose 
considerably in 2009, after dropping in 2007 and 2008. 
 
A) Could Canada provide details on which "com modities" are referred to in Table IV.1? Could 
you provide a breakdown on payments made fo r these products in the years mentioned in 
Table IV.1?  
Canada's Response:  In the OECD context, "Other commoditi es" refers to all commodities produced 
in Canada for which no price support is calcula ted in the OECD context.  Based on OECD 
methodology, Canada calculates the market price support for 17 commodities (wheat, barley, oats, 
soybeans, rapeseed, flax, lentils, dr y beans, dry peas, corn, milk, b eef, hogs, turkey chicken, eggs, WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 238  
 
 potatoes).  In 2009, the value of production of th ese commodities accounted for 83% of total value of 
crops and livestock produced in Canada.  According to OECD methodology, the price support for "other commodities" is an extrapolation 
assuming that the ratio between the total market pr ice support (MPS) and the total value of production 
is equal to the ratio of the level of MPS and va lue of production for those commodities for which MPS 
has been calculated.  Price support for other commodities is limited an d largely a result of the OECD extrapolation 
methodology. 
 
B) Could Canada provide information on Cana da's legal grounds for the supply management 
measures it has taken for dairy produc ts, poultry, turkey meat and eggs? 
 
Canada's Response:  At the federal level; the Canadian  Dairy Commission Act and the Farm 
Products Agencies Act provide the legal grounds for supply management, along with regulations 
enacted pursuant to these statutes.  Each provi nce has complementary agricultural marketing 
legislation.  Canada's supply management sy stem fully complies with its WTO Uruguay Round 
commitments, including market access, export subs idy and domestic support obligations.  Canada 
continues to strongly support supply management, which has served Canada well for many years. 
 
[Argentina Question 31]  The paragraph 36 of the Report states that earlier progress away from 
commodity-specific support has reversed, mainly due to higher market price support for milk in 2009. 
 
A) Could Canada provide data on market pr ice support for milk in 2010? Could Canada 
indicate whether it has any estimate of the leve l of market price support for milk in 2011? 
 Canada's Response:  The OECD's measurement of market price support (MPS) for milk in 2010 is 
3,299 Million (Can$).  No estimate of the level of MPS for milk in 2011 is available.  This price 
support for milk is based on OECD methodology, wh ich is different from the methodology used for 
the WTO Aggregate Measurements of Support (AMS).  
In the producer support estimates (PSE), althou gh producer prices for milk has increased, higher 
market price support for milk since 2008 is mainly explained by a significant decline in the world milk reference price.  
B) More generally, are there plans to modify prot ection provisions in the agriculture sector, in 
particular in the dairy sector? 
 
Canada's Response:  Supply management is a system that en sures a stable supply of dairy, poultry 
and eggs to Canadian consumers and the agri-food indus try.  It also promotes stable farm incomes.  
The supply management system has served Canada  and dairy farmers well for many years, and 
Canada has no plans to alter the system.   
[Argentina Question 32]  The paragraph 37 of the Report indicates that with regard to tax stimulus, 
provincial tax expenditures in the form of tax exem ptions and refunds are also a significant form of 
assistance.  Government support to the sector varies across provinces.  
 
Could Canada provide statistical information for a relevant period (e.g. 2008-2010) on the 
provincial tax programs referred to in the Report  (where possible, broken down by product and 
industrial sector)?   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 239 
 
 
 Canada's Response:  Please see the links below for information on tax expenditures in Quebec, 
Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.  Other provinces do not report on tax expenditures. 
 Québec 2010 Tax Expenditure report: http://www.finances.gouv.qc.ca/documents/Aut res/en/AUTEN_TaxExpenditures2010.pdf. 
 
Ontario – Transparency in Taxation, 2010 http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/falls tatement/2010/transparency.html. 
 Saskatchewan – Budget 2011 Technical Papers: Sask atchewan's Tax Expenditures (pages 50 to 53) 
http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/budget201 1-12/2011-12BudgetSummary.pdf. 
 British Columbia – Appendices of 2011 Budget - A1: Tax Expenditures (pages 68 to 71) 
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2011/bf p/2011_Budget_Fiscal_Plan.pdf. 
 
[Argentina Question 33]  The paragraph 39 of the Report indicates that the Canadian Wheat Board 
(CWB), a producer-controlled marketing organizati on, operates a monopoly (single desk) in inter-
provincial and export sales of wheat and barley produced in certain provinces.  Exporters not 
operating on behalf of the CWB must apply for and obtain an export licence for each shipment. 
 
A) Could Canada indicate the features of this export licence? 
 Canada's Response:  All exports of wheat or barley from Ca nada are either by the Canadian Wheat 
Board (CWB) or under export licences granted by th e CWB to other exporters.  Western Canadian 
grain producers can sell their wheat and barley directly to export customers by entering into a Producer Direct Sale agreement with the CWB.  Th e CWB establishes a price that the producer pays 
to the CWB that, in the opinion of the CWB, fairly represents the price that the CWB could earn for a 
similar export sale.  For wheat and barley produced in areas of Canada other than the designated CWB 
area of Western Canada, exporters apply to the CW B for an export licence and it is normally freely 
granted.  
B) Could you indicate whether all applications for this licence are approved?  If not, why are 
certain applications for an export licence rejected? 
 
Canada's Response:   The CWB does not necessarily grant ex port licences to all applicants. The 
CWB and the exporter must agree to the terms and co nditions of the proposed sale.  If an agreement is 
not reached a licence is not granted. 
 
[Argentina Question 34]  the paragraph 112 of the Report states that, in 2008, Canada launched an 
outward processing initiative for textiles and apparel.  Under this programme, customs duties payable 
on apparel imported into Canada from developing countries are remitted, either totally or partially, if 
the goods incorporate Canadian textiles. 
 
A) What textile products are covered by this initiative? 
 B) What tariffs are scheduled to be reduced or eliminated?  C) When will implementation of this initiative begin? 
 Canada's Response:  Outward processing initiative has been in e ffect since May 1, 2008.  Details of 
the initiative, including product coverage and tariff incentives, are available at:  http://www.gazette.gc. 
ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/2008-05-14/html/sor-dors138-eng.html.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 240  
 
 [Argentina Question 35]  The paragraph 201 of the Report indicates that foreign corporations may 
register a ship in Canada, if the ship is not al ready registered in another country.  However, the 
Minister of Transport may direct the registrar to  refuse to register a vessel built outside Canada. 
 
Under what circumstances can registration of a vessel built outside Canada be refused? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada has not used section 50 related to the ministerial power to refuse 
registration to a vessel built outside Canada.  Should there ever be a requirement for the Minister to 
make such a decision, it would be based on the guiding principle of the Canada Shipping Act 2001  
objectives and mandate which among other th ings relate to safety and security. 
 BRAZIL  
[Brazil Question 1] Could Canada clarify the criteria used in  this investment screening mechanism on 
national security grounds? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada continues to welcome and activel y encourage foreign investment as an 
important driver of its economic success.  The introduction of a national security review process, 
which was recommended by an expert parliament ary panel tasked with recommending ways to 
improve Canada's competitiveness, brings Canada in line with what other developed countries are 
doing to safeguard their national security.  Canada w ill ensure that the application of the new national 
security mechanism is consistent with its internationa l trade obligations and the best practices of other 
industrialized economies.  
[Brazil Question 2] A) Do the commitments made by Canada concerning NAFTA imply that risk 
analyses on sanitary issues by the Canadian Food In spection Agency would be made in coordination 
with NAFTA's other members? 
 
Canada's Response: 
 With Respect to Plant Health  
Each NAFTA member country is responsible for conducting their proper pest risk analysis and 
determining their import requirements and conditi ons for a commodity independently from one 
another.  Where appropriate or desired, member c ountries may work together to align their respective 
import requirements to facilitate the movement of a commodity across their respective borders. 
 With Respect to Animal Health  
For diseases of concern to other NAFTA partners, Ca nada might, as appropriate, consult with them on 
their policies for such diseases a nd may, where inspection visits are required, conduct joint inspection 
visits.  However, reports and risk assessment activities subsequent to such visits are written separately 
by each country and each country follows their ow n internal decision-making processes with respect 
to next steps. 
 B) Would a positive result in risk analyses obtaine d by one NAFTA`s member have any impact on 
other members?  Canada's Response:  With respect to Plants and Animals 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 241 
 
 
 As stated above, each NAFTA member country is responsible for determining their import 
requirements and conditions independently of ot her NAFTA members.  Where one NAFTA country 
wishes to re-export  to another member country a co mmodity with differing import requirements, such 
shipments will be required to meet all applicab le import requirements of  the importing country – 
where the commodity in question is prohibited entry into the importing country, re-export of the 
commodity in question will not be possible. 
 
[Brazil Question 3] Is there any forecast concerning the adju stment of the Canadian domestic support 
programs in order to make them more market-ori ented?  According to OCDE data there was in 
increase in the proportion of distortive support policies in Canada's total PSE.  Indeed, the 
introduction of the "Growing Forward Framework Agreement" resulted in the increase in the 
proportion of distortive subsidies, which now accoun t for 61% of the PSE, reversing its otherwise 
downward trend (during 2006-2008 the proportion was of 55%).  Canada's Response:  According to OECD data the increase in the proportion of distortive support 
policies in Canada's total producer support estimates  (PSE) is largely explained by an increase in 
market price support for milk and not by the intr oduction of the Growing Forward Agreement.  The 
increase in market price support for milk after 2008 is largely due to a significant decline in world 
milk reference price.  Given that commodity prices are relatively high now  one could anticipate a reduction in the PSE. 
 SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN, AND MATSU 
 
Report by Canada 
 
As indicated in the report, the fundamental economic principle of Canada's approach to trade and 
development is that open trade and liberaliza tion contribute positively to economic growth and 
development.  We share with Cana da this same principle, and also  fully identify with the aim of 
Canada's Sustainable Economic Growth Strategy, whic h is to produce concrete results that will make 
a significant and sustainable difference in reducing global poverty.  Canada's GPT (Generalized 
Preferential Tariff) programme provides duty-free treatment for textiles and clothing imports from Least Developed Countries (LDCs ) on the condition th at these products are made from yarn or fabric 
from the LDC, GPT beneficiary or Canada itsel f, and is a major contributing programme to 
development.  Nevertheless, our pr oducts continue to be prevented from competing on a level playing 
field with those from countries of a similar level of  development in the Canadian market.  Despite 
having expressed our concern to Canada on several o ccasions, we have yet to receive a response.  We 
continue to look forward to a reply from Canada to  the following questions aimed at resolving this 
issue as soon as possible:  
[Chinese Taipei Question 1] We would appreciate knowing how the GPT review process is 
conducted in Canada. Is there some way in which we can put forward a proposal, in accordance with 
Canada's domestic procedures, for us to be included in Canada's GPT beneficiary list? 
 
Canada's Response:  Under section 34 of Canada's Customs Tariff , the Government may, by Order-
in-Council, extend entitlement to the GPT to a trading partner if the Government is satisfied that the 
economy in question is a developing economy.  
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 2] Presumably Canada has its own set of criteria or policy guidelines to 
determine whether or not a particular trading partner qualifies as a "developing country" and is 
entitled to GPT benefits.  We would appreciate know ing more about these criteria and/or guidelines, 
and the policy rationale behind them.  
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 242  
 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's position on GPT has been discussed with Chinese Taipei officials on 
several occasions, both in face-to-face meetings an d through official written correspondence.  Under 
section 34 of Canada's Customs Tariff, the Governme nt may, by Order-in-Council, extend entitlement 
to the GPT to a trading partner if the Government  is satisfied that the economy in question is a 
developing economy.  Canada's GPT program is administ ered in a manner that is fully consistent with 
Canada's WTO obligations and the prov isions of the 1979 Enabling Clause. 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 3]  We would be interested in how Canada views the requirement 
embedded in the enabling clause that preferentia l trade arrangements should not create unnecessary 
trade barriers to other trade partners.  
Canada's Response:  Canada's GPT program has been in place since 1974 and is fully consistent with 
WTO obligations, including the provis ions of the 1979 Enabling Clause. 
 
ECUADOR 
 
[Ecuador Question 1]  According to paragraph 44 of the report prepared by the Secretariat 
(WT/TPR/S/246), the Government of Canada gran ts unilateral tariff preferences under the General 
Preferential Tariff (GPT), among others.  Could you provide more information on how this 
preferential system works? Could you identify th e eligibility criteria for beneficiaries of the 
preferential tariff?  Do the preferential systems have any "graduation" mechanism [ i.e. ranking, 
different levels ]?  Have the conditions for granting preferen tial treatment been modified in the past 10 
years or have they remained the same?  If there have been changes, could you explain what they 
consist of  
 Canada's Response:  Under Canada's Customs Tariff , the General Preferential Tariff (GPT) is 
currently on a ten-year cycle. Since its establishm ent in 1974, it has been renewed three times, in 
1984, 1994 and 2004 and is now set to expire in mid-2014.  Currently, the GPT applies to over 180 
developing countries and customs territories.  The G PT covers most products (81 per cent of tariff 
lines) and provides duty-free treatment or a pref erence over the applicable MFN rate.  Under the 
Customs Tariff , the Government may, by Order-in-Council, extend entitlement to the GPT to a trading 
partner if the Government is satisfied that the economy in question is a developing economy.  
Similarly, the government may also withdraw entitlement to the GPT by Order-in-Council.  There 
have been no changes to the conditions for granting GPT over the last 10 years.  
[Ecuador Question 2] Paragraph 52 states that federal excise duties on beer are imposed on domestic 
and imported products under the Excise Act;  and, while beer made by domestic brewers is eligible for 
reduced, tiered excise duty;  imported beer is not e ligible.  Could you specify how this tax on imported 
beer is applied and how it differs from the tax on local products? Are there tiered duties like this for 
products other than beer?  Canada's Response:  In general, the excise duty rates on beer products that are manufactured in or 
imported into Canada are $CAN 31.22 per hectolitre for beer containing more than 2.5% absolute 
ethyl alcohol by volume (ABV), $CAN 15.61 per hect olitre for beer containing more than 1.2% but 
not more than 2.5% ABV, and $CAN 2.591 per hect olitre for beer containing not more than 1.2% 
ABV.  
 The reduced excise duty rates available for beer pr oduced domestically are limited to beer production 
up to 75,000 hectolitres per year.  Beyond this annua l production threshold, the same excise duty rates 
apply for beer products of the same ABV content, whether manufactured in or imported into Canada. 
 At present, beer products are the only excisable pr oducts eligible for reduced, tiered excise duty under 
the federal excise framework.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 243 
 
 
 [Ecuador Question 3] According to paragraph 75, the Govern ment of Canada encourages federal 
departments and agencies to use standardizati on tools and approaches offered by the National 
Standards System as the basis for regulations.  Ha s Canada taken any action to encourage the private 
sector, as well as federal departments and agencies, to use standardization tools and approaches 
offered by the National Standards System as the basis for regulations? 
 
Canada's Response:  In Canada, the private sector is not responsible for the development of 
regulations; regulations are developed by the rele vant federal and provinc ial/territorial regulatory 
departments.  As such, it is regulators, not the private sector, who are encouraged to use voluntary 
standardization tools when developing regulati ons.  However, the private sector is an active 
participant in Canada's National Standards System as standards are developed by committees with a 
balanced matrix of stakeholders that includes industry representatives. 
 
[Ecuador Question 4]  Paragraph 84 explains that various members, amongst them many developing 
countries, have expressed concern about Canada's "Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at 
Youth Act" (Bill C-32 amendment to the Tobacco Ac t), which became law in October 2009.  While 
Members have generally supported the Bill's objectiv es, some have argued that it is more trade 
restrictive than necessary to achieve its objective.  Wh at efforts has Canada made to ensure that this 
technical regulation is not "more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve its objective" in accordance with article 2(2) of the WTO TBT Ag reement?  Could Canada explain how Bill C-32 
complies with the commitment to defining technical  regulations according to how a product is used 
and not according to its design or descriptive features? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's amendment to the Tobacco Act (former Bill C-32) does not target any 
blend or style of tobacco products.  The measure protects children and youth from tobacco industry marketing practices that encourage them to use t obacco products.  Canada's research shows that these 
marketing practices included the use of specific a dditives, such as flavourings, that contributed to 
making cigarettes, little cigars and blunt wraps more  appealing;  the packaging of little cigars and 
blunt wraps (sheets or tubes of tobacco) in singl es or in small-quantity packages;  and tobacco 
advertising in publications that may be viewed by  children and youth.  The Canadian approach was 
deemed to be the best fit to address the public hea lth problem faced by Canada.  Canadian analysis 
suggested that less than one per cent of the total Canadian market for cigarettes was expected to be 
impacted by this legislation.  Since its implementa tion, Canada is not aware that amendments made to 
the Tobacco Act have had a significant effect on the trade of other Members.  Canada is also not aware of any American-style brands having been w ithdrawn from the Canadian market since the last 
provision of the amendment came into force on July 5, 2010.  
[Ecuador Question 5] As paragraph 105 of the Report explains , In March 2010, concerns were raised 
by Ecuador regarding Canada's proposed maximum residue level for 1-Methylcyclopropene in 
bananas, notified on December 22, 2009 (docum ent G/SPS/N/CAN/413).  Also, via document 
G/SPS/N/CAN/413/Add.1 (August 5), Canada notified th at the MRLs establis hed by Canada have 
been applied since July 26, 2010.  As can be veri fied in the latest update of the "List of Maximum 
Residue Limits Regulated Under the Pest Contro l Products Act" (May 18, 2011), the MRL for 1-
Methylcylopropene in bananas is 0.01 ppm.  Could Canada provide information on the risk 
assessment and/or scientific grounds that ju stify the need to establish this MRL? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada notified the proposed MRL to the WTO in August 2009.  No comments 
were received from trading partners.  Ecuador raised this issue as a specific Trade Concern during the 
March 2010 WTO SPS Committee meeting.  At the ti me, Canada offered to extend the comment 
period if it received an extension request. No request was made.  
 For the import MRL petition for 1-MCP on bananas, in lieu of submitting location specific banana 
crop field trials (e.g., South America), the applicant provided a rationale to waive this requirement.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 244  
 
 The rationale was based on the mode of action of 1-MCP, the similarities in the degradation pathway 
of 1-MCP in two dissimilar crops (apples and a vocado), the apple crop field trials conducted 
according to the approved use pattern which demonstr ated residues of 1-MCP at or below 0.01 ppm 
and the expectation that these residues will not c ontribute significantly to the diet. Canada accepted 
the rationale and established the MRL for bananas at the limit of quantitation of 0.01 ppm of the 
enforcement analytical method.  This approach w as similar to that used in 2008 when the MRL of 
0.01 ppm was established for 1-MCP on tomatoes.  
[Ecuador Question 6] The Republic of Ecuador would like to know whether there is an online 
database where members can consult the SPMs that affect the commercialization of roses, shrimp, 
palm hearts, fruit juices and concentrates, and fish products. 
 Canada's Response:  Potential exporters to Canada can c onsult with automatic import reference 
system (AIRS), which is a searchable database of Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) import 
requirements.  The purpose of the AIRS is to provide accurate and timely information on import 
requirements.  The application uses a question and an swer approach to guide the user through a series 
of questions about the Harmonized Sy stem (HS) Codes, origin, destin ation, end use and miscellaneous 
qualifiers of the product they wish to import. 
 
The AIRS has been prepar ed for the convenience of reference only and has no official sanction.  For 
all purposes of interpreting and applying the law, us ers should consult the relevant Acts as passed by 
Parliament. 
 
The AIRS can be accessed from the following website: http://inspection.gc.ca/english/imp/airse.shtml.  
 
[Ecuador Question 7] According to the information in para graphs 143-150, the Government of 
Canada maintains domestic assistance programs for the fishing sector, among others.  Could you 
explain what the assistance programs in this sector consist of?  
 Canada's Response:  As updated and notified to the WTO in 2011,  below is a list and explanation of 
the programs.  FISHERIES PROGRAMMES Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy Allocation Transfer Programme 
Following the Sparrow decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990, the Department of Fisheries 
and Oceans (DFO) launched the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) in 1992, the object of which was 
to provide a framework for regulation of Aboriginal peoples' right to fish for food, social and 
ceremonial purposes.  The AFS is not rights-based, but rather, as a matter of policy seeks the effective 
management and regulation of Aboriginal  fisheries through negotiated agreements. 
 Assistance is provided under the legislative authority of the Fisheries Development Act . 
 The Allocation Transfer Programme facilitates th e voluntary retirement of commercial licences and 
the issuance of licences to eligible  Aboriginal groups in a manner that does not add to the existing 
effort on the resources.  The programme provides for the voluntary retirement of commercial licences 
and the issuance of licenses to eligible Aborigin al groups. The programme was established in 1994. 
 
Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative 
The objective of AICFI is to assist Mi'kmaq and Maliseet First Nations (MMFNs) in Nova Scotia, 
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Gaspé Region of Québec, in the development of sound 
Fisheries Management and Governance practices for their commercial fishing enterprises moving towards an economically and environmentally sustainable integrated commercial fishery.  
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 245 
 
 
 Assistance is provided under the legislative authority of the Fisheries Development Act . Assistance is 
provided in the form of providing training and other skill development activities.  The AICFI was established to support capacity build ing in MMFNs commercial fishing enterprises.  
The new funding will assist participating comm unities in developing the business knowledge, skills, 
and resources to make full use of existing access and to participate equally in fisheries co-
management. The programme was announced on 7 July  2007 and will be funded over a 5-year period. 
 
Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative 
The objective of PICFI is to achieve a fair, sustai nable, integrated commercial fishery on Canada's 
west coast, in which all commercial participants fi sh under common and transparent rules.  One of the 
key pillars to support this objective is to address Fi rst Nations interests in increasing their participation 
in commercial fisheries.  It also supports highe r standards of accountability for all resource users, 
through enhanced fisheries monitoring and repor t and strengthened collaboration, and enhanced 
cooperation amongst fisheries interests. 
 
Assistance is provided under the legislative authority of the Fisheries Development Act .  Assistance is 
provided to Aboriginal fishing enterprises in the form of commercial fishing access acquired through 
voluntary retirement, vessels and gear, and provid ing training and other skill development activities. 
 The commercial fisheries access component of PICF I allows the federal government to retire the 
licences and quota of fishers who want to leave th e commercial fishery, and use these resources to 
facilitate greater participation in  a wide range of commercial fisheries by BC First Nation fishing 
enterprises.  It also facilitates the transfer of  vessels and gear, and capacity building to support 
development of First Nation fisheries enterprises based on best practices.  The programme was announced in 2007 and will be funded over a 5-year period.  Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures 
The objective of ALSM is to assist Canada's lobste r fishery ensure its long-term sustainability and 
economic prosperity.  The program supports industry e fforts to maintain healthy lobster stocks in all 
lobster fishing areas and improve lobster abunda nce in areas where stocks have declined. 
 
Assistance is provided under the legislative authority of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, 
the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act, the Fi sheries Act and the Fisheries Development Act. 
 ALSM funding is provided through a two-stage process. First, Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) obtain approval from the federal government for an LFA -wide Sustainability Plan. Second, commercial 
harvester organizations propose and carry out specific activities that support conservation, 
stewardship, harvester organization governance, and industry restructuring and rationalization. 
 Assistance is provided to commerc ial harvester organizations to ca rry out the activities noted above. 
Eligible applicants include corporations, not-fo r-profit organizations, incorporated associations, 
cooperatives, trade unions and aboriginal groups. The programme was initiated in 2009 and is 
scheduled to continue until 2014. 
 
Short-term Transitional Measures 
The objective of the STTM was to assist low-income lobster licence holders in  Atlantic Canada and 
Quebec who experienced financial hardship due to the global economic downturn of 2007-2009. 
 
Assistance was provided under the legislative author ity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 
Act, the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act, the Fisheries Act, the Fisher ies Development Act, the 
Department of Human Resources and Skills Developmen t Act, the Department of Social Development 
Act, and the Employment Insurance Act. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 246  
 
 Assistance was provided in the form of a grant to lobster license holders who applied for assistance 
and who met the specified criteria.  These criteria in cluded: reliance on income fr om lobster fishing;  a 
maximum value of lobster landings in the previous year;  a decrease in income from lobster inflicted 
by the economic downturn.  Assistance was provided to license holders who met these criteria.  The maximum payable amount that any grant recipient received was $5,000.  The programme was initiated 
in 2009 and ended on March 31, 2010. 
 
EUROPEAN UNION 
 
[EU Question 1] (from EU Question 6) Canada states that it does not consider changing the scope of 
its Framework for the Environmental Assessment of Trade Negotiations at this time.  However, we 
would be interested to understand why Canada do es not carry out a Social Sustainable Impact 
Assessment? 
 Canada's Response:  While the EU has chosen a process that includes an examination of 
environmental and social impacts not only in the EU but also in the territory of its trading partners, 
Canada conducts its environmenta l assessment of trade negotiations as outlined in the Cabinet 
Directive and Handbook, focusing on environmental imp acts in Canada.  Similarly, a number of other 
WTO Members have instituted environmental assess ments of trade agreements that examine the 
environmental impacts in their territory of proposed trade agreements. 
 
[EU Question 2] (from EU Question 17) Canada explains  how the Federal Government sees the 
implementation of obligations of an international treaty signed with a third party in areas that fall 
within the sub-national governments' jurisdiction.   Could Canada explain the courses of action open to the Federal Government in cases where a province 
or territory does not intend to implement intern ational treaty obligations which involve their 
jurisdiction?  In addition, could Canada add wh ether the federal government has c onsidered introducing any legally 
binding mechanisms for provinces and territories? 
 Canada's Response:  As already indicated, the Federal Gove rnment will consult with, and seek the 
support from, provinces and territories, as relevant, before ratifying an international treaty which 
covers matters falling under their legislative powers.  The Federal Government also consults with 
provinces and territories during the treaty negotiation process with a view to informing provinces and 
territories and addressing issues they may have with the proposed content of the treaty.  Under Canadian law, the legal authority for impl ementing treaties follows the constitutional division 
of powers between the Federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures and as such provinces cannot 
be compelled by federal legislation to implement provisions of treaties and conventions that fall 
within provincial jurisdiction.  This is why the federal government seeks support from provinces and 
territories before ratification of a treaty when that treaty covers matters that fall under their 
jurisdiction. 
 
[EU Question 3] (From EU Question 40) The EU would appr eciate receiving further information on 
whether Canada is planning to establish a conso lidated generic list of regulated pests for plant 
products and to establish generic import requirements for these pests? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's phytosanitary import requirements for a particular commodity are 
based on a pest risk analysis (PRA), which is  conducted in accordance with the International 
Standards for Phytosanitary  Measures (ISPM) No. 2: Framework for pest risk analysis .  In accordance 
with ISPM No. 2, the PRA process may be  triggered in the following situations:   WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 247 
 
 
  a request is made to consider a pathway that may require phytosanitary measures 
 a pest is identified that may justify phytosanitary measures 
 a decision is made to review or re vise phytosanitary measures or policies 
 a request is made to determine whether an organism is a pest. 
 The list of plant pests regulated by Canada is av ailable on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency web 
site at the following address:  http://www.inspection. gc.ca/english/plaveg/protect/listpespare.shtml.  
Aligned with the ISPM 19:  Guidelines on Lists of Regulated Pests , this list is updated as a result of: 
 changes to prohibitions, restrictions or requirements; 
 change in pest status; 
 result of a new or revised PRA, including commodity pathway risk analyses; 
 change in taxonomy 
 A consolidated pest list, compliant with the provi sions of ISPM 19 will soon be posted on Canada's 
page on the International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP) .  This list will be based on the categories of 
regulated pests as defined in the International Pl ant Protection Convention (i.e., quarantine pest and 
regulated non-quarantine pests).  
[EU Question 4] (from EU Question 47) Our original questi on 47 has not been answered:  in the 
context of the WTO Secretariat's report findings in  paragraph 144, does Cana da intend to continue 
applying the currently contested local content requirements in place, or introduce new ones at provincial or national level? 
 
Canada's response:   Canada's view is that the Feed-in-Ta riff program is consistent with Canada's 
WTO obligations.  
 
[EU Question 5] (from EU Question 80) EU thanks Canada  for its response to the question.  
However, EU is still not clear as to the current cr iteria for issuing a fishing licence.  Could Canada 
please provide further details on those criteria? 
 
Canada's Response:  In addition to the list of criteria prov ided by Canada in a previous answer, the 
EU should note that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's has discretionary authority in this 
regard and his decision to issue commercial fish ing licences is based on relevant considerations, 
including but not limited to established policies and integrated fisheries management plans. 
 
[EU Question 6] (from EU Question 81) EU thanks Canada  for providing a hyperlink to its new 
Fisheries Act.  However, EU is unable to locate in  the draft Act any reference to criteria for issuing 
licences to foreign fishing companies – could Canada please provide an exact reference?  In addition, 
the Act does not appear to refer to "countries in goo d standing" nor to indicate relevant criteria and 
Canada has not provided a list of those countries, as requested by EU.  Could Canada please expand 
on its earlier response and explain why no list was provided?  Canada's Response:  Foreign licences would be issued under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, 
pursuant to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Re gulations, please see:  http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/acts-
loi-eng.htm.  As with the issuance of commercial fishing licences, the Minister has discretionary 
authority to determine "countries in g ood standing" on a case by case basis.  
 
HONG KONG, CHINA 
 
[Hong Kong, China Question 1]  We note that in 2010 a public consultation was held on three 
options to further open the telecommunications industry for foreign investment, but no decision has yet been made.  We would appreciate it if Canada could update us on the latest development and the 
schedule of implementation, as well as any plan to include any proposed change, if effected, in its WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 248  
 
 offer for the Services negotiations. 
 Canada's Response :  The government of Canada is examini ng this issue.  No announcement has been 
made regarding the timing of a decision. 
 
[Hong Kong Question 2]  We note that regulatory consent, by ei ther the Minister of Finance or the 
Superintendent of Financial Institutions (depending on  the nature of a transaction), is required to carry 
out, among others, the establishment of commercial pr esence, corporate restructurings and ownership 
changes.  We would like to know if there have been any changes to the criteria applied to such 
circumstances in recent years, particularly after th e global financial crisis, and whether these criteria 
are made known to all investors for the sake of transp arency.  We are also interested in the response of 
Canada to the concerns expressed by IMF and OECD. 
 Canada's Response:  Prudential regulatory requirements chan ge over time to reflect the needs of 
developing situations.  Accordingly, there will be periodic changes to the requirements for operating a 
bank in Canada, including capital requirements, prudential and supervisory tests for fitness and 
soundness, application fees, etc.  These changes are outlined to the public on the website of the Office 
of the Superintendent of Financia l Institutions.  For a complete lis ting of OSFI guidelines, please see: 
http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/os fi/index_e.aspx?DetailID=527. 
 
[Hong Kong, China Question 3]  We note that, as of 1 January 2010, foreign insurers are no longer 
allowed to "insure in Canada" marine risks with out prior authorisation from the Office of the 
Superintendent of Financial Institutions.  We would like to know the rationale for imposing this prior 
authorisation requirement on foreign insurers a nd whether it covers mode 1 or mode 3 foreign 
suppliers or both, as well as whether and how this measure complies with Canada's GATS 
commitments? 
 
Canada's Response:  The change to Part XIII of the ICA does not affect mode 1 supply; regarding 
mode 3, marine insurance is treated like any ot her class of insurance under the federal framework. 
Canada is confident that the change to Part XIII is fully compliant with its GATS commitments. 
 
[Hong Kong, China Question 4]  According to the Secretariat Report, Canada does not maintain any 
foreign ownership restriction on maritime shi pping companies, unless the acquisition of control 
involves a "net benefit test" under the Investment Cana da Act (Chapter II (2)).  It is not clear whether 
all acquisitions of control are required to go through this "net benefit test" or are a matter of discretion 
on the part of the relevant authority.  Canada's Response:  According to the Investment Canada Act  (ICA), which guides the foreign 
investment review process, the responsible Minist er has to consider six factors, enumerated in 
Section 20 of the ICA, in determining whether an i nvestment is of likely "net benefit" to Canada.  
Further, Part II of the ICA identifies specific tran sactions involving acquisitions  of control that are 
exempted from a review process.  Any transaction invol ving acquisitions of control that triggers the 
"Net Benefit Test" review, which are not enumerated  in Part II of the Act, is reviewable under the 
ICA.  
 
[Hong Kong, China Question 5] Also, since the amendments to the Investment Canada Act in 2009, 
how many acquisitions have been rejected as a result of failing this test, and which net benefit criteria 
have these applications failed to meet?  Canada's Response:  None. Only acquisitions of control that meet the criteria for review under the 
Investment Canada Act  (ICA) are required to undergo a "net benefit" review under that Act. The 
criteria for triggering a review are not discretiona ry; they are set out in the ICA, and include a  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 249 
 
 
 monetary threshold below which investments are not subject to review.  Further, Part II of the ICA 
identifies specific transactions involving acquisitions  of control that are exempted from a review 
process.  In conducting reviews under the ICA, the res ponsible Minister can only consider six factors, 
enumerated in Section 20 of the ICA, in determining whether an investment is of likely "net benefit" 
to Canada. 
 
MEXICO 
 
[Mexico Question 1] In paragraph 163, it is noted that commercial presence is required to carry on 
the business of banking and financial intermediation in Canada.  Besides acquiring a domestic bank, 
the options for commercial presence include establishing subsidiaries, full-service or lending 
branches, and representative offices.  There are no statutory restrictions on the number of banks (domestic or foreign) that may establish and operat e in Canada or the number of offices that foreign 
bank subsidiaries or branches may open. Could you indicate to us the proportion of domestic and 
foreign banks in Canada?  
Canada's Response:  urrently operating in Canada, there are:  22 domestic banks, 26 foreign bank 
subs, 29 foreign bank branches (6 lending branches, 23 full service branches).  
[Mexico Question 2] Paragraph 167 states that a foreign company may incorporate a separately 
capitalized Canadian entity, establish a branch or acqui re an existing Canadian enterprise, subject to 
standard regulatory approval procedures.  We woul d like to know where we can get more information 
on the requirements for obtaining such approval. 
 
Canada's Response:  The approval procedure for a foreign bank to establish and operate a bank 
branch in Canada is governed by Part XII of the Bank Act and is a two-step process: 
 
1) The Minister of Finance may, pursuant to s ubsection 524(1) of the Bank Act,  make an order 
authorizing the foreign bank to establish a branch  in Canada to carry on business in Canada;  and 
 2) the Superintendent of Financia l Institutions may, pursuant to subsection 534(1) of the Bank Act,  
make an order approving the commencement and carry ing on of business in Canada by the authorized 
foreign bank. 
 Both approvals are required in order to establish a nd operate a bank branch in Canada. Each of these 
approvals is based on its own set of criteria, the ass essment of which will be performed on the basis of 
a single application administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.  The 
Minister's decision to issue an order pursuant to sub-section 524(1) of the Bank Act is subject to 
consultation with the Office of the Supe rintendent of Financial Institutions. 
 The Bank Act and its Regulations can be found on th e Department of Justice website at http://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/B-1.01/index.html.  You may also wish to contact the Office of the 
Superintendent of Financial Institutions at:  Office  of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions 
Canada, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario,  Canada K1A 0H2, www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca. 
 
PERU 
 
On page 52 of the Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/46) , in the "Special trade measures" chapter, it is 
noted that between mid-2006 and mid-2010, as a result of sunset reviews, 18 antidumping measures 
remained in place (four of which were modified) as well as two countervailing measures (one of 
which was modified). Article 11.3 of the WTO An ti-dumping Agreement and article 21.3 of the WTO 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures establish that the purpose of sunset review 
procedures is to determine whether to maintain or eliminate antidumping or countervailing measures WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 250  
 
 that have been imposed. However, since the possib ility of modifying such m easures is not directly 
stated, we ask:  
[Peru Questions 1] What modifications were made to the four antidumping measures and two 
countervailing measures that continued to be app lied during the respective sunset review periods? 
 
[Peru Questions 2] What factors were taken into account in  these cases to decide  how these measures 
would be modified?  Canada's Response:  Modifications made to anti-dumping a nd/or countervailing duty measures as a 
result of expiry reviews reflect partial rescission of the measure due to a finding that dumping, 
subsidizing and/or injury are not likely to continue  or resume, either for specific countries or specific 
products covered by the measure.  For example, in  the 2009 expiry review on certain steel fasteners, 
the measure was modified to exclude certain stai nless steel fasteners expor ted from Chinese Taipei 
due to a finding that injury to the domestic i ndustry from the associated imports was not likely to 
continue or resume.  Details regarding any modifica tion made to a measure as a result of an expiry 
review are outlined in the Statement of Reasons , which are available at:  http://www.citt.gc.ca/ 
dumping/reviews/orders/rrin2i_e.asp.  The factors ass essed in determining the likelihood of continued 
or resumed dumping and/or subsidizing and injury  are outlined under subsections 37.2 (1) and (2) of 
the Special Import Measures Regulations.  SOUTH AFRICA 
 
[South Africa Question 1] The Secretariat Report notes improvements to the Canadian competition 
regime but further notes that there are areas exempt from its Competition Act.  Canadian state-owned enterprises have monopolies over certain activities: 
 
- importation and sale of alcoholic beverages; - marketing and sale of certain fresh water fish and fish products; - provision of certain types of mandatory insurance.  
With respect to these monopolies enjoyed by SOE' s in Canada for the provision / sale of 
(alcohol, fish and mandatory insurance), can Cana da explain if these are in alignment with its 
existing commitments for Distri bution Services in Wholesale and Retail?  Under its retail 
commitments Canada has not excluded fish, wh ilst the wholesale commitment does not exclude 
fresh water fish.  
Canada's Response:  As mentioned by South Africa, Ca nada has taken exclusions under 
Distribution/Wholesale Trade Services  for fisheries products (CPC 62224) and alcoholic beverages 
(CPC 62226), as reflected under section 4.B*.of Canada's  GATS schedule.  Therefore, Canada did not 
have to list any monopolies in its schedule of comm itments in relation to these products.  Regarding 
mandatory insurance, Canada has taken exclus ions for provincial monopolies for motor vehicle 
insurance in certain provinces (Quebec, Manitoba , Saskatchewan and British Columbia).  These are 
mentioned in Canada's GATS schedule of commitme nts in the market access column under section 
7.A.c) (Reinsurance and retrocession CPC81299).  With regards to Canada's Distribution/Retailing 
Services , we would like to point out that Canada t ook commitments in all food retailing services, 
including fisheries products, however, Canada also t ook product exclusions for liquor, wine and beer 
(CPC 63107).  Regarding South Africa's last comment on ''Distribution/Wholesale commitments does 
not exclude fresh water fish'', Canada considers ''fre sh water fish'' as a part of our product exclusion 
for ''fisheries products' (CPC62224) under Distribution/Wholesale Trade Services, as reflected under 
section 4.B* of Canada's GATS schedule. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 251 
 
 
 [South Africa Question 2] The Secretariat Report notes that "The  CRTC has the authority to refrain 
from economic regulation (forbearance) where there is "sufficient competition to protect the interests 
of users"."  Can Canada please elaborate on the criteria employed to determine the concept of sufficient competition? 
 
Canada response:  The following reference provides the crite ria used by the CRTC in determining 
market conditions sufficient to forbear from economic regulation for local exchange services. 
 CRTC Decision 2006-15 Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exch ange services (as modified by Order in Council 
2007-0532).  See paragraph 242 regarding market criteria for sufficient competition. 
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2006/dt2006-15c.htm. 
 
[South Africa Question 3]  The Secretariat Report notes that "Canada's remaining foreign equity 
restrictions apply to terrestrial facilities-based  operators, which must be Canadian-owned and 
controlled, and incorporated under federal or provinc ial laws.  Foreign direct investment in these 
operators is capped at 46.7% of voting shares, b ased on 20% direct owners hip and 33.3% indirect 
ownership.  In addition, the carrier may not be c ontrolled by non-Canadians and not less than 80% of 
the members of the board of directors must be Canadian."  These are extremely onerous restrictions. Canada is a co-sponsor of the Telecommunications Pl urilateral request which calls for the following in 
Mode 3: 
a. Majority foreign capital participation and effective control be allowed; 
b. Remove limitations on nationality or residency. 
 
In light of the above, does Canada intend to  improve its offer on Telecommunications? 
 
Canada's Response:   It is premature to consider whether an y changes to Canada's foreign investment 
regime will be reflected in Canada 's international trade agreements. 
 
[South Africa Question 4]  The Secretariat Report notes that "I n 2010, Industry Canada held a public 
consultation on three options for further opening the telecoms industry to foreign investment.  Under 
the first option, among other things, the maximum pe rcentage of direct foreign ownership would be 
increased from 20% to 49% of the voting shares.  U nder the second option, start-up telecom providers 
and small companies would be exempted from the fo reign ownership restrictions.  Under the third 
option, all foreign ownership restrictions on te lecom service providers would be removed.  No 
decision has been made." 
 
Can Canada provide a timeline as to when these  consultations will be concluded, and whether 
the final outcome will be publicly available?  
Canada's Response:   The government of Canada is examining this issue following the public 
consultation.  No announcement has been made regarding the timing of a decision. 
 
[South Africa Question 5] The number of foreign bank branches has increased from 24 to 30 
between 2006 and 2010, whilst foreign branches in th e insurance sector have decreased by 18. Can 
Canada provide details as to the extent of de veloping country enterprises in these movements? 
 
Canada's Response:  None of the foreign bank branches entering or exiting in this period were from 
developing countries. Two of the foreign branch es in the insurance sector entering were from a 
developing country, while none of those exiting during  this period were from developing countries. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 252  
 
 [South Africa Question 6] With respect to the approval process requiring the consent of the Minister 
of Finance or by the Superintendent of Financia l Institutions, can Canada elaborate as to whether 
reasons are provided for re jection of applications?  
 Canada's Response:  Very rarely is a recommendation to not approve a transaction made to the 
Minister of Finance or to the Superintendent of  Financial Institutions.  Any issue pertaining to a 
transaction is usually resolved prior to the maki ng of a recommendation, either by the applicant 
addressing the issues raised by the Office of the Supe rintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) or the 
Department of Finance, or by the a pplicant withdrawing their application. 
 
[South Africa Question 7]  Can Canada provide information on the following: 
a. How many applications were rece ived since Canada's last TPR? 
b. How many were approved and how many were rejected? 
c. On what grounds were they rejected? 
d. What was the composition of developed and developing Members in the total 
applications and in terms of who received rejections? 
 
Canada's Response:  With respect to the number of applications received, from April 1, 2006 to 
March 31, 2010, OSFI received 1250 applications fo r approval.  Of those 1250 applications, 1042 
were approved and 208 were withdraw n at the request of the applicant. Rejections or withdrawals may 
be caused by a number of prudential reasons:  e.g. insufficient capital, concer ns with respect to the 
viability of the business plan in the case of a proposed  new institution, concerns with respect to the 
proposed owners of the institution, national securi ty concerns, etc.  Four of the 208 withdrawn 
applications were tied to appli cants from developing countries. 
 
[South Africa Question 8]  The Report by the Secretariat states that "[a]s of 1 January 2010 foreign 
insurers are no longer allowed to "insure in Canada " maritime risks without having prior authorization 
from OSFI".  Could Canada provide some background on why this is so?  
 
Canada's Response:  The decision to remove the exempti on for marine insurance was made 
following concerns raised by provincial govern ment representatives as to whether they had legal 
authority to oversee marine insurance providers.  Su ch concerns cited past Supreme Court of Canada 
rulings which established that the federal govern ment's jurisdiction over navigation and shipping 
encompasses marine insurance cont racts.  The provinces asked the federal government to assume the 
responsibility for overseeing the prudential regulation of  marine insurers.  In addition, at the time it 
was felt that having a clear federal oversight body for marine insurance could facilitate new entrants 
into the marketplace and improve competition. 
 
[South Africa Question 9] Were foreign insurers prior to Janua ry 2010 allowed to "insure in Canada" 
maritime risk?  
 
Canada's Response: Under the federal framework, foreign in surers were permitted to insure in 
Canada marine risks prior to January 2010. 
 
[South Africa Question 10]  Did they need prior authorization before 2010?  
 
Canada's Response:  There was no prior authorisation from O SFI required before 2010.  Prior 
to January 1, 2010, foreign insurers were exempted  from the requirement to have that class of 
insurance listed in their order. 
 
[South Africa Question 11] Footnote 206 in the Review indicates that information on restrictions and 
limitations faced at a sub-federal level by insura nce services was not made available.  Does Canada 
intend to make such information available?  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 253 
 
 
 Canada's Response: 
 The following responses were provided by  Canadian provinces and territories: 
 
Alberta's Response:  Information on any Alberta-specific restri ctions/limitations can be found in the 
Insurance Act  (RSA 2000, c. I-3), which can be found here: 
 http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000- c-i-3/76479/rsa-2000-c-i-3.html#history. 
 The Insurance Act  and regulations have similar restric tions and limitations regarding foreign 
ownership or residency as exist in federal law – with two exceptions. 
 Those two exceptions relate to (i) the purchase of  reinsurance services from a non-resident reinsurer 
(limited to "license reinsurance limit "(25% or a nother limit as required) for risks undertaken), and 
(ii) requirements imposed on unlicensed insurers (pay ment of a fee equal to 50% of the premium paid 
and regulatory notification requirements). 
 Note:  The federal government used to have the sa me measure under item (i) but recently repealed the 
provision in favor of OSFI Guideline B-3 (Sound Rein surance Practices and Procedures), an approach 
which many provinces have declined to follow.  
In Alberta foreign owned insurance companies must be federally authorized or registered and must 
have an attorney for service in Alberta (s. 39 of the Act).  Since foreign owned insurance companies 
have to be federally authorized they must be regi stered through OSFI first before they come into the 
province and it is OSFI then who regulates the foreign owned insurance companies. 
 
The Insurance Act  also has a provision regarding majority of  shareholders of insurance companies, 
however, this only pertains to provincial insuran ce companies.  Foreign owned insurance companies 
would follow OSFI's regulations. 
 
British Columbia`s Response :  For financial institutions incorporated in British Columbia, one 
Director must be ordinarily resident in the province,  and a majority of Directors must be residents of 
Canada.  There are no residency requirements for extra-provincial financial institutions seeking a 
business authorization (license) to operate in Britis h Columbia.  There are no restrictions on foreign 
ownership for insurance companies incorporated in British Columbia. 
 Saskatchewan's Response :  Any restrictions and limitations with respect to insurance companies are 
found in our legislation – The Saskatchewan Insurance Act  and the regulations.  However, specifically 
with respect to footnote 206, our Insurance Act doe s not have residency requirements for majority 
shareholders of insurance companies seek ing a license to operate in Saskatchewan 
 Nova Scotia's Response:  Information related to insurance services in Nova Scotia is publicly 
available, and can be accessed  via the following links:  
 
 Insurance Act:  See http://nslegisla ture.ca/legc/statutes/insure.htm. 
 Insurance Act Regulations:  See http://www. gov.ns.ca/just/regul ations/rxaa-l.htm. 
 
Québec's Response :  La propriété étrangère de compagni es d'assurance à charte québécoise n'est 
soumise à aucune restriction réglementaire;  aucune limitation en fonction de la  propriété ne s'applique 
au type de services qui peut être offert. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 254  
 
 Les renseignements sur la constitution d'une co mpagnie d'assurance au Québec sont disponibles 
publiquement dans le Guide de présentation d' une demande de constitu tion d'une compagnie 
d'assurance à charte québécoise, disponible dans le site Internet de l'Autor ité des marchés financiers . 
 
[South Africa Question 12]  The Report by the Secretariat indicates that OFSI has 33 active 
agreements on cooperation and in formation sharing with host country supervisory authorities that 
regulate significant foreign operation of Canada's banks and insurers.  Ca n Canada elaborate how 
many of these 33 are devel oped and developing countries?  
 
Canada's Response:  Of the 33 active agreements, 16 are with developing countries and 17 are with 
developed countries.  The 17 developed country agreem ents include 10 that are with the United States 
with federal and state supervisory authorities.  
[South Africa Question 13]  The table details statistics about financial institutions operating in 
Canada (for period 2006 - 2010).  During this period 4 foreign subsidiary banks exited, 7 foreign bank 
branches exited, 17 foreign life insurance companie s exited and 20 property and casualty insurance 
firms exited.  Could Canada provide further informat ion on this data with respect to the following: 
 
a) What is the country of origin profile of these foreign exits? 
 
Canada's Response:   Between the period of January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010, the foreign 
subsidiary banks that exited were from Japan, the Netherlands, and Gree ce.  The foreign bank 
branches that exited were from the Un ited States, Iceland, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands.  Of 
the foreign life insurance companies that exited, a majority were from the United States and the rest 
from France.  Of the property and casualty insuran ce firms that exited, a majority were from the 
United States with a small number from France, Sw itzerland, Finland, the United Kingdom, and the 
Netherlands. 
 
b) Recognising that the Canadian financial and regulatory system was arguably well positioned to 
handle the fallout from the global financial crises , why was the concentration of exits so high? 
 
Canada's Response:  Of the insurance firms that exited Ca nada between 2006 and 2010 (not counting 
almost the same number that entered), an unusually high number of ex its occurred between 2009-
2010.  This is largely attributable to foreign in surers which had placed their Canadian insurance 
operations in run-off a number of y ears ago and were finally in a pos ition to meet the requirements for 
the release of their assets in Canada. 
 
[South Africa Question 14]  Could Canada provide an update on the progress achieved to date with 
reference to establishing a single Canadian Securities regulator?  
Canada's Response:  The federal government is working w ith the majority of provinces and 
territories towards establishing a single national secu rities regulator to replace the provincial and 
territorial securities regulators in participating juri sdictions.  While participation in the Canadian 
securities regulator initiative is voluntary, the Govern ment continues to encourage all jurisdictions to 
partner and help shape the future of this new Canadian institution. 
 
In May 2010, the federal government tabled for information in Parliament a proposed Canadian 
Securities Act , which proposes significant improvements in terms of governance, adjudication, 
financial stability, and regulatory and criminal enforc ement, and provides a wide scope of authority to 
regulate financial instruments and participants in  capital markets.  At the same time, the federal 
government referred the proposed Act to the Supr eme Court of Canada for a ruling on whether 
Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation.  The proposed regime  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 255 
 
 
 would lead to significant improvements in terms of governance, adjudication, financial stability, 
investor protection, and regulatory and criminal enforcement.  
In July 2010, the Canadian Securities Transition O ffice, which is leading the transition, released a 
Transition Plan, which sets out a roadmap for the est ablishment of a national securities regulator and a 
vision for its regulatory approach, as well as reco mmendations regarding the governance structure, 
organization design and implementation. Implementation of a Canadian securities regulator is targeted 
for 2012. 
 
Hearings on the constitutional refere nce were held at the Supreme Court of Canada in April 2011 on 
whether Parliament has the constitutional au thority to enact the proposed Canadian Securities Act .  
The Supreme Court's decision on the matter is pending and is expected sometime in the fall of 2011.   
 Should a favourable ruling be received from the S upreme Court of Canada, the federal government 
intends to introduce for adoption in Parliament a Securities Act, which would then go through the 
normal parliamentary legislative process.  The fe deral government will take the necessary steps to 
support a transition that minimizes disruption and uncertainty.  
[South Africa Question 15]  Can Canada provide details as to wh ether the scope of coverage of the 
AIT includes the internal movement of fo reign professionals practicing in Canada?  
 
Canada's Response:  The Labour Mobility Chapter of the Agre ement on Internal Trade doesn't have 
a nationality requirement and permits workers who ar e employed in regulated occupations, certified or 
licensed by provincial or territorial authorities, not to encounter barriers when they move from one jurisdiction to another because of di fferences in certification requirements. 
 
[South Africa Question 16]  Does Canada have MRAs with developing countries?  If so, which 
countries and in which sectors?  
 
Canada's Response:   In Canada, it is the self-regulating professional bodies that have the legal 
authority to negotiate mutual recognition agreemen ts.  The Federal Government of Canada does not 
authorize, negotiate, or sign those agreements itself.  
For up-to-date information about MRAs signed with cer tain countries in certain sectors, please consult 
the following self-regulating professional bodies' websites:  
 Accountants (three associations): 
http://www.cga-canada.org/en-ca/International/S trategicAlliances/Pages/StrategicAlliances.aspx 
 
and 
 http://www.cma-canada.org/index.cf m/ci_id/17431/la_id/1.htm. 
 and 
 
http://www.cica.ca/become-a-ca/internationally-tr ained-accountants/international-qualifications-
appraisal-board/index.aspx.  
 Engineers: 
http://engineerscanada.ca /e/pr_mobility_1.cfm. 
 
 Architects:  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 256  
 
 http://www.raic.org/international/in ternational_mandate/index_e.htm. 
[South Africa Question 17]  Has Canada notified its MRAs to the WTO?  
 
Canada's Response:   Canada notifies all mutual recognitio n agreements of which it has been 
formally made aware by the parties to the agreement.  The Federal Government of Canada does not 
authorize, negotiate, or sign those agreements itself. 
 
[South Africa Question 18]  Can Canada provide an update on the dispute between Manitoba and 
Ontario regarding the mobility of all professi onal accountancy designations in Ontario? 
 
Canada's Response:  The Federal Government of Canada is not involved in this dispute.  However, 
Canada is aware that, in November 2010, Manitoba initiated proceedings against Ontario in relation to 
Ontario's notice of a measure to achieve a legitima te objective under Chapter Seven of the AIT for the 
occupation of public accountant.  Ma nitoba is currently engaged in consultations with Ontario under 
Chapter Seventeen of the AIT. 
 
Further information on the dispute between Manito ba and Ontario can be found at the following 
address:  http://www.ait-aci.ca/index_en/dispute.htm. 
 
[South Africa Question 19] The Secretariat Report notes that "Licenses are valid only for the 
province or territory in which they have been i ssued; licensing requirements, including education and 
professional experience prerequisites, vary across jurisdictions".  In some provinces, an authorization 
or a Certificate of Practice is also required along w ith professional liability insurance, in order to offer 
services to the public.  Can Canada provide further information as to the requirements for the issuance 
of a Certificate of Practice?  
Canada's Response:   Detailed information on the process of obtaining a Certificate of Practice can be 
found at: http://www.cacb-ccca.ca/. 
 
[South Africa Question 20] With reference to footnote 262, the Secretariat Report notes that 
"Certification fees depend on the mode by which the applicant satisfies the Canadian education 
standard for admission to provincial architectural as sociations in Canada".  Can Canada explain the 
concept of "mode" as used in this footnote?  
 
Canada's Response:   The usage of the term "mode" in this instance is not related to the term "mode" 
as understood in the context of "modes of delivery" of  a service in the GATS. Detailed information on 
the various modes of certification can be f ound at:  http://www.cacb-ccca.ca/index.cfm?Voir= 
sections&Id=2790&M=1358&Re pertoire_No=660386109. 
 
THAILAND 
 
[Thailand Question 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 range from 0.3% to 8.6% 
(for products where import data were available to cal culate the AVEs) (Table AIV.1)".  Does Canada 
have any plan to simplify these non-ad valore m in-quota tariffs to ad-valorem tariffs? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada does not currently have any plan s to change the format of its non-ad 
valorem in-quota tariffs to ad valorem. 
 
[Thailand Question 2] Canada grants preferential access under its  free trade agreements to the same 
WTO in-quota volumes rather than establishing additional tariff quotas for those products and 
preferential access under Canada's WTO TRQ commitmen t varies from year to year since its share is  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 257 
 
 
 defined by a share of domestic production rather than in absolute terms.  Could Canada clarify this 
preferential import under free trade agreements in light of WTO MFN obligations?  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's tariff quotas established unde r the Canada-US FTA (CUSFTA) and 
subsequently incorporated into NAFTA are generally  set on an annual basis at the higher of the WTO 
or global tariff quota volume specified in CUSFTA.  These tariff quotas are administered on a global 
basis and are open to all WTO Members.  This  practice is consistent with Canada's WTO 
commitments.  
[Thailand Question 3] What are the differences between the Growing Forward Framework 
Agreement and the Framework Agreement on Agricu ltural and Agri-Food Policy for the Twenty-First 
Century (APF Agreement)? 
 
Canada's Response:  Growing Forward (GF) builds on previ ous programming under the Agricultural 
Policy Framework (APF) with a vision for a profita ble, innovative, compe titive, market-oriented 
agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products indus try.  GF moved from five pillar outcomes under 
APF, to three strategic outcomes. These outcomes are a competitive and innovative sector, a sector that is proactive in managing risk and a sector that contributes to society's priorities.  To support the new framework, federal/provincial/te rritorial governments are investing $1.3 billion 
over 5 years in new GF programs – an additional $330 million over the APF.  The funding is cost-
shared on a 60:40 basis between the Government  of Canada and provincial and territorial 
governments.  GF programming expires in March 2013 and work is  underway to develop the next policy framework, 
Growing Forward 2.  The framework is being designed to create an adaptive and profitable sector and 
help the industry position itself to profit from the oppor tunities and meet the challenges it will face in 
2020.  
 
[Thailand Question 4] Please explain the joint responsibility between federal and 
provincial/territorial levels under the Gr owing Forward Framework Agreement. 
 
Canada's Response:  Under Canada's constitution, jurisdicti on over agriculture is shared between 
federal and provincial governments.  The national suite of Business Risk Management (BRM) programs provides producers with financial 
tools to manage farm business risks.  The suite was developed and is delivered  jointly by federal and 
provincial governments as part of Growing Forward,  the current federal-provincial agricultural policy 
framework.  BRM programs under Growing Forward ar e cost-shared on a 60:40 basis between federal 
and provincial governments, respectively.  The na tional BRM program suite allows governments to 
coordinate support to producers.  In addition to support provided unde r Growing Forward, both levels of government can develop their 
own agricultural policies and programs to address nati onal, regional or provincial priorities, including 
additional BRM programs.  To avoid duplication of payments, certain provincial payments are 
included in the calculation of s upport under national BRM programs. 
 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials work cl osely with their provincial counterparts to ensure 
that all support to the agriculture  sector, including provincial-only programs, is reported and properly 
notified to the WTO.  
[Thailand Question 5] "At the core of the Growing Forward policy framework is a set of new or 
modified "business risk management" measures: th e AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance, and WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 258  
 
 AgriRecovery programmes (Table AIV.2).  Th ese national programmes, launched for the 2007 
programme year, are intended to provide support to  agricultural producers experiencing income or 
production losses caused by low commodity prices, increas ed production costs, reduced production, or 
natural disasters."  What are the products cove red under these programs?  How are these programs 
consistent with the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture?  
 
Canada's Response:  Business Risk Management (BRM) programs cover most agricultural products 
produced and sold in Canada with certain excepti ons.  AgriStability, for example, does not cover 
income derived from wood sales, trees sold for refo restation, aquaculture, peat moss, and income 
generated by wild game reserves.  AgriInvest include s the same restrictions as well as the exclusion of 
supply-managed commodities, as the system of s upply management protects producers from similar 
risk as those intended to be covered by AgriInvest .  AgriInsurance products are available for most 
crops produced in Canada.  Much work has also been done to make a full range of new insurance products available under this dyna mic program, and the development of new options is ongoing where 
there is interest from producers.  
When developing new policy initiatives such as Growing Forward, Canada takes into account 
consistency with its internationa l trade obligations and commitment s, such as those resulting from the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.   
[Thailand Question 6] Could Canada indicate the categories under the WTO's Agreement on 
Agriculture that these programs belong and explain the criteria for classifying them under the WTO's 
Agreement on Agriculture? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is currently preparing notifications in which measures under the 
Growing Forward Framework Agreement, includi ng these programs, will be reported and properly 
classified in accordance with the criteri a of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
[Thailand Question 7] Does AgriStability have any major di fferences/changes from the expired 
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS)?  If any, please explain. 
 
Canada's Response:  While AgriStability and the earlier CAIS program are similar in their intent and 
design (i.e. provision of support when the operatio n experiences a margin decline on a whole farm 
basis), there are some differences.   Under AgriStability a producer must experience a 15% decline in 
their Production Margin relative to their historical  Reference Margin before triggering a payment 
compared to the previous CAIS program in whic h a payment would be triggered at any level of 
decline.  In addition to this fundamental change  there are also program improvements: an improved 
method of valuing inventory in the calculation of  margins, as well as improved program filing and 
administrative processes. 
 
[Thailand Question 8] What are "eligible products" under th e Québec's Programme d'assurance 
stabilisation des revenues agricoles (ASRA) programme? 
 
Canada's Response:  
Selon les autorités Québécoises, les produits  admissibles à l'ASRA du Québec couvrent les 
productions suivantes: 
 Agneaux; 
 Bouvillons et bovins d'abattage; 
 Céréales, maïs-grain et oléagineux; 
 Pommes; 
 Pommes de terre; 
 Porcelets;  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 259 
 
 
  Porcs; 
 Veaux d'embouche; 
 Veaux de lait; 
 Veaux de grain; 
 Les compensations versées aux producteurs dans le  cadre de l'ASRA tiennent compte des paiements 
octroyés en vertu des programmes gouvernementaux de  gestion des risques d' entreprises agricoles, 
notamment Agri-stabilité et Agri-investissement.  Ainsi, il n'y a aucun chevauchement entre l'ASRA 
et les programmes de gestion des risques au niveau fédéral. 
 
[Thailand Question 9] Do the supports from both federal and provincial sources overlap each other? 
 
Canada's Response:  Producers in Québec are treated the same under the AgriStability program:  
they receive a payment when their whole-farm margin  falls by more than 15% below their historical 
Reference Margin.  Depending on market conditions, producers in Québec may also receive additional 
support under the provincial ASRA program;  this su pport would be partially funded by the provincial 
government as producers pay premiums. 
 
[Thailand Question 10] "Canada maintains several guarant ee programmes under the Agricultural 
Marketing Programs Act (AMPA), including the Ad vance Payments Program and the Price Pooling 
Program (PPP).  Under the Price Pooling Program, the Federal Government enters into an agreement 
with a marketing agency, such as producer or processor associations, and provides a "price guarantee 
that protects marketing agencies and producers against unanticipated declines in  the market price of 
their products."  This measure is aimed at fa cilitating the cooperative marketing of agricultural 
products.  The price guarantee is fixed at a certain percentage of the expected wholesale price of the 
product concerned.  The price guarant ee may be used by the marketing agency as security in obtaining 
credit from lending institutions, and a llows the agency to improve the producers' cash flow through an 
initial payment for products delivered.  If the reali zed wholesale price is less than the guarantee value 
(the initial payment plus the eligible costs), the pr ogramme allows for a payment for the shortfall (i.e. 
product-specific subsidy) by the Government of Cana da.  In 2010, five PPP agreements were in place, 
representing approximately 18,000 producers, with  a total guarantee amount of approximately 
Can$55.2 million.  According to the authorities, no government expenditures have been incurred 
under the PPP since 1997."  Do these guarantee progra mmes distort trade since they seem to control 
the price of the products concerned? 
 
Canada's Response:  In the case of the PPP, the price guarantee is only offered to a particular group 
of producers who belong to the pool that has app lied for the program.  Therefore, the guarantee is not 
broad enough to affect the overall commodity price.  The guarantee is not given to all producers of a 
particular commodity across the country.  Also, as a result of the guarantee being set relatively low, at 
only 65% of the expected price for the year, no pa yment of the guarantee has been made since 1997.  
Only in the case of a serious disaster in the pr ice of the specific commodity would a payment be 
triggered. 
 In the case of the Advance Payments Program (APP), there is no specific effect on the price of the 
commodity.  The APP simply provides producers with  an initial payment for their product which is 
intended to provide the producer cash flow, so that  the producer may choose to market the product 
when the market best suits them, as opposed to wh en they need the cash flow.  The prices in the 
market may lead the producer to choose to sell or to wait until prices improve, but this price itself 
should not be affected by the program directly. 
 
[Thailand Question 11] "The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, has 
responsibilities with respect to the implementati on and administration of the supply management WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 260  
 
 system for dairy products, mainly establishing s upport prices for butter and skim milk powder, and 
managing the market sharing quota for industrial milk at the national level.  It also has STE privileges 
in the implementation of Canada's tariff-quota co mmitment for butter (Table AIV.1). Import permits 
for the butter tariff quota have been allocated exclus ively to the CDC with the requirement that these 
imports be directed to processors and further pr ocessors.  With the exception of a few products in 
some provinces (e.g. fluid milk in the Atlantic Provi nces), the majority of dairy products are traded 
freely between provinces, according to the authorities."  "The market-sharing quota (MSQ) is the national pr oduction target for industrial milk distributed 
among the provinces according to the National M ilk Marketing Plan.  Approximately 60% of 
Canadian milk production has been for industrial dairy processing and 40% for the production of fluid 
milk.  The annual MSQ is based, inter alia , on the estimated demand for bu tterfat adjusted for surplus 
butterfat from fluid milk processing.  As a result of targeting the expected demand for butterfat, some 
of the (solids non-fat) surpluses are exported – with  export subsidies – as skim milk powder, cheese, 
other milk products, and incorporated products." 
 
How are these programs consistent with the WTO's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures and Agreement on Agriculture? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's dairy system complies fully w ith its WTO obligations.  Canada's use 
of export subsidies are kept within its bound comm itment levels as notified on a yearly basis to the 
WTO and are consistent with its commitm ent as per the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
 
[T&T Question 1]  The Report of the Government of Canada refers to the Labour Mobility provisions 
of the Agreement on Internal Trade.  What have been the changes since Ju ne 2010?  Are all these 
benefits available to fo reign nationals as well? 
 Canada's Response: 
 On recent changes, the scope of the La bour Mobility Chapter of the Agreement 
on Internal Trade was expanded in June 2010 to  include the coverage of financial services 
occupations, which was not previously covered in the list of occupations.  
 
Regarding foreign nationals, the Labour Mobility Chap ter of the Agreement on Internal Trade doesn't 
have a nationality requirement.  It permits work ers who are employed in regulated occupations, 
certified or licensed by provincial or territorial auth orities, to not encounter barriers when they move 
from one jurisdiction to another because of differences in certification requirements.  
[T&T Question 2]  Why are provincial marketing boards excluded from the scope of the Agriculture 
Chapter of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)?  
 
Canada's Response:  The revised Agricultural and Food Goods' Chapter of the AIT extends the reach 
of its non-discriminatory provisions to all tec hnical measures affecting agriculture.  Technical 
measures include those dealing with terminolog y, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling 
requirements.  To the extent that they do not correspond to the definition of a technical measure, 
measures laid out by provincial marketing boar ds do not fall within the scope of the AIT. 
 
[T&T Question 3]  Can additional details be provided of the New West Partnership Trade 
Agreement? 
 
Canada's Response:  The New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA) is a comprehensive 
trade agreement to remove barriers to trade,  investment and labour mobility between British 
Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.  The NWPTA co mmits the three provinces to apply the rules of  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 261 
 
 
 non-discrimination and transparency to all measures related to trade, investment and labour mobility, 
to mutually recognize each others' standards and re gulations, to not enact measures that would create 
new barriers, to recognize workers certified by another NWPTA party and to undertake their procurements in an open and non-discriminatory ma nner.  The NWPTA was designed to be simple 
and concise by adopting a negative listing approach  with minimal exceptions  and maximum coverage. 
The agreement applies to all public sector entitie s, including government ministries/departments, 
crown corporations, municipalities, publicly-funded  academic, health and social organizations.  
Persons or a government party to the NWPTA can bring a dispute forward.  The maximum penalty is $5 million should a government (i.e. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan) refuse to comply with 
a panel ruling and a penalty can only be levied against a provincial government. 
 
More information can be found on the NWPTA webs ite at: http://www.newwestpartnershiptrade.ca/ 
or by contacting the Governments of British Columbia, Alberta and/or Saskatchewan.   For a backgrounder and news release on the NW PTA, please visit: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/ 
news_releases_2009-2013/2010PREM0093-000508.htm. 
 
[T&T Question 4]  Since 2007, Canada has negotiated a number of Government Procurement 
Chapters in new Free Trade Agreements, including  those with Peru, Panama and Columbia.  The 
Government Procurement Chapter negotiated with Chile concluded in 2006 and came into force in 
2008.  In February 2010, Canada conclude d the Canada-U.S. Agreement on Government 
Procurement, which for the first time includes commi tments at the sub-federal level.  Specifically, 
Canada now includes entities from two territories and all ten provinces under its GPA commitments with respect to goods, services and suppliers from the U.S.  This coverage has been offered to other 
GPA parties subject to negotiation of mutually acceptable commitments.  
 
Can Canada provide some deta ils on the Canada-US Agreement on Government Procurement? 
 Canada's Response:  For more information, please see: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-
agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/info rmation_renseignements.aspx?lang=eng. 
 
[T&T Question 5 ] Canada addresses the labour dimensi ons of economic integration and the 
promotion of respect for fundamental labour principles and rights through the negotiation and 
implementation of Labour Cooperatio n Agreements (LCAs) with its free trade partners.  To date, 
Canada is signatory to the North Ameri can Agreement on Labour Cooperation with the  U.S. and  
Mexico, the Canada-Chile Agreement on Labour Co operation, the Canada-Costa Rica Agreement on 
Labour Cooperation and the Cana da-Peru Agreement on Labour Coope ration. In addition, similar 
agreements have been signed with Panama, Jordan and Colombia, but are not yet in force.  LCAs 
negotiated in tandem with Free Trade Agreements , seek to improve working conditions and living 
standards in the signatory countries, and to protect and enhance basic workers' rights.  The negotiation 
of labour cooperation agreements is an element of negotiations underway.  
Can Canada provide information on the operation of the dispute settlement mechanisms of the Labour 
Cooperation Agreements it has signed?  How many dis putes have arisen?  What has been the result of 
those cases? 
 Canada's Response:  Key elements of Canada's most recen t Labour Cooperation Agreements (LCAs) 
include the following: a commitment that domestic  labour laws embody and provide protection for 
fundamental labour principles, particularly those set out in the International Labour Organization's 
(ILO) 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work ;  specific and enforceable 
obligations to effectively enforce labour laws;  a mechanism through which the public can raise 
concerns;  an independent third-party review as a means of dispute resolution; monetary assessments 
to encourage fulfillment of obligations; and cooperation in support of agreement objectives. WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 262  
 
 Canada's LCAs foster cooperation on labour matters and the effectiv e enforcement of domestic labour 
legislation.  LCAs commit signatories to enforce na tional labour laws that should in turn embody and 
provide protection for fundamental labour rights  and principles.  LCAs do not establish common 
standards or obligate the harmonization of labour laws;  instead, they seek to improve working 
conditions and living standards by ensuring that signa tory countries effectively enforce their domestic 
laws.  This commitment is subject to review by in dependent panels and expe rts and, when all other 
remedies have been exhausted, may lead to  monetary assessments in cases of non-compliance. 
 Canada's LCAs also include provisions that enable members of the public or organizations to submit 
complaints, known as "Public Communications", about perceived failure by a Party to comply with 
agreement obligations.  The submission, acceptan ce, and review of Public Communications are 
governed by the pertinent provisions in the Agr eement along with specific Guidelines that are 
developed in accordance with such provisions.  Th ese guidelines serve to minimize the administrative 
burden on the signatories, and ensure  that spurious cases are avoided. 
 
Public Communications are handled by Points of Contact or National Administrative Offices (NAOs) 
responsible for the implementation of the LCAs.  NAOs initially review and determine whether such 
complaints are valid within the context of the Agreement, and undertake a more detailed analysis 
where warranted.  Consultations at the working level and, if necessary, among Ministers may be 
convened to discuss the complaint and agree upon a resolution.  These processes may take into 
consideration the findings of independent experts, as  appropriate.  Only when there is no agreement at 
the stage of Ministerial consultations, would the co mplaint presented to an independent panel for the 
assessment of penalties.  In the 17 years that Canada has been implemen ting its LCAs, there has never been a case where 
penalties have been either sought or applied.  To date, public communications have only arisen in the 
context of the North American Agreement on Labo ur Cooperation (NAALC).  Of the five complaints 
that have been initially accepted by the NAO, two were  resolved before Ministerial consultations were 
required.  In the two cases involving Ministerial consu ltations, one has been reso lved, and in the other 
the plan of action is being implemented.  One remaining case remains pending the development of new legislation to address the complaint.  
For more information on specific provisions of Canada's LCAs, please visit : 
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/labour_globalization/ila/index.shtml.  
 
[T&T Question 6]  A large array of measures and institutions  at the national and provincial/territorial 
level support Canadian businesses.  In 2010, ove r 440 programmes provided financial support to 
Canadian companies; around one-quarter of these may help companies to boost export sales.  In 
addition, there are well over one hundred progra mmes in support of Canada's agriculture and 
agri-food sector.  A range of trade finance and re lated support services are offered by state-owned 
enterprises, including Export Development Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and the 
Business Development Bank of Canada.  While they  operate on commercial principles, their risk 
tolerance may exceed that of private sector institutions. 
 
Can Canada provide more inform ation on the support provided to private sector enterprises by Export 
Development Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and Business Development Bank of 
Canada?  
Canada's Response:  Export Development Canada (EDC) is a self-sustaining Crown corporation and 
Canada's export credit agency.  Operating on commerc ial principles, EDC offers an extensive range of 
products and services to meet the insurance, fina ncing and risk management needs of Canadian 
businesses in their pursuit of international trade a nd investment opportunities.  A full description of 
EDC's offerings is included in the Secretariat report (Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 263 
 
 
 Measure:  (3) Measures Directly Affecting Exports;  (iv) Export finance, insurance and guarantees; 
paragraphs 125-130, pages 59-63; Table III.14 on pages 61-62 provides an overview of each of the 
products/services offered).  Further informatio n is also available on EDC's website at: 
http://www.edc.ca/english/corporate.htm.  
The Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) is Cana da's government to gove rnment contracting and 
procurement agency. CCC facilitates exports of Canadian goods and services in public sector 
procurement markets around the globe.  CCC suppor ts Canadian companies contracting into the 
defence sector, and into emerging and developing ma rkets mostly in the infrastructure markets.  CCC 
serves as either the prime contractor (for government -to-government contracts) or procurement agent 
(for foreign governments seeking to import Canadi an goods and services).  CCC's services are 
described in the Secretariat report (Part III. Trad e Policies and Practices by Measure:  (3) Measures 
Directly Affecting Exports; (iv) Export finance, insurance and guarantees;  paragraph 131, pages 63). 
Further information is also available on CCC 's website at http://www.ccc.ca/eng/home.cfm. 
 
The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC ) provides Canadian businesses with financing, 
consulting services and venture capital primarily  in support of domestic business activities. BDC 
works with Canadian companies in all industries, w ith a focus on small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs).  A brief description of BDC's support for Canadian companies wishing to expand globally is in the Secretariat report (Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure:  (3) Measures Directly 
Affecting Exports; (iv) Export finance, insurance and guarantees; paragraph 132, pages 63).  Further 
information is also available on BDC's webs ite at:  http://www.bdc.ca/EN/Pages/home.aspx. 
 
[T&T Question 7]  Industry Canada reviewed and approve d on average 33 acquisitions per year 
between 2006 and 2010; one proposal was denied.12  Canadian Heritage reviewed an average of eight 
during the same period, and denied one.  Since th e enactment of the Investment Canada Act only 4 
proposals have been rejected, all of which were in  cultural industries.  On 3 November 2010, the 
Minister of Industry sent a notice to BHP Billiton of Australia indicating that "he was not satisfied" that its proposed transaction to take over Potash Corp oration of Saskatchewan Inc. was likely to be of 
net benefit to Canada.  According to the Act, BHP Bi lliton had 30 days (from the date of the notice) to 
make any additional representations and submit any additional undertakings.  The authorities note that 
in November 2010, BHP Billiton announced that it had withdrawn its application for review.  The 
review process was terminated and since there w as no longer a transaction to review under the Act, 
there was no final decision to be made by the Minister.  Over the period 2006-10, the average 
completion time for a review by Industry Canada was 56 days.  Decisions issued by Canadian 
Heritage took an average of 63 days. 
Please provide information on the proposed investment that was refused by Heritage Canada.  What 
was the investment?  From which count ry?  On what grounds was it refused? 
 Canada' s Response:   The Minister of Canadian Heritage c oncluded that the investment was not of 
net benefit to Canada according to the factors set forth in Section 20 of the Investment Canada Act . 
Prior to amendments to the Investment Canada Act   in 2009, the Department of Canadian Heritage's 
policy was to not divulge any company information on turndowns.  As the investment was turned 
down in 2007, because it was contrary to a national cultural policy, specifically the Canadian 
Heritage:  Investment Canada:  The Cana dian Film Industry and Investment Canada , no further 
information could be provided.  However, as of 2009 , it is now a requirement to disclose rationale for 
future turning down investments.  A copy of the cultural policy follows:  
                                                      
12 In 2008, the Minister of Industry rejected the proposed Can$1.3 billion acquisition of the information 
systems and geospatial businesses of MacDonald, Dettwiler  and Associates Ltd. (MDA) by U.S.-based Alliant 
Techsystems Inc. (ATK). WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 264  
 
 Canadian Heritage: Investment Canada: The Ca nadian Film Industry and Investment Canada 
The Canadian Film Industry and Investment Canada 
 
[Text of "Fact Sheet" issued by Communications Canada FS-88-3844E]  This can be located at: 
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/org/sectr/ac-ca/eiic-csir/film-eng.cfm. 
 
The Investment Canada Act requires that foreign investments in the production, distribution and 
exhibition sector of the film and video industries be compatible with national cultural policies. 
 As part of the measures to support an indigenous Canadian distribution industry, the government has 
also announced new Investment Canada policy on fore ign investment in the Canadian film distribution 
sector:   
 takeovers of Canadian owned and controlled distribution businesses will not be allowed; 
 investments to establish new distribution businesses in Canada will only be allowed to 
importation and distribution activities related to  proprietary products (the importer owns 
world rights or is a major investor); 
 indirect and direct takeovers of foreign di stribution businesses operating in Canada will be 
allowed only if the investor undertakes to reinvest a portion of its Canadian earnings in accordance with national and cultural policies; 
 all applications to Investment Canada made af ter February 13, 1987 will be subject to the new 
policy. 
 
These criteria conform with the policy goals announced  on February 13, 1987, and with the cultural 
exemptions provided for in the Canada/U.S. Free Trade Agreement.  he new policy reaffirms the 
Government's commitment to develop a stronger Canadian film industry. 
 
[T&T Question 8] Canada is a party to four international trade agreements with Federal Government 
procurement obligations (including the government procurement chapter of the Canada-Chile Free 
Trade Agreement which entered into effect in  September 2008 and the Canada-Peru Free Trade 
Agreement, which entered into effect in August 2009 );  a bilateral agreement with the United States, 
signed in February 2010 which is related to sub-Federal Government  procurement;  and one domestic 
trade agreement (the AIT) (Table III.20).  Cana da has signed industrial security memoranda of 
understanding with 12 countries, which permit privat e-sector industries in the signatory countries to 
participate in each other's sensitive government contracts and projects.13  No new MOUs were signed 
over the review period.  The authorities confirmed th at there are no local-content requirements in any 
procurements covered by interna tional commitments.  They noted that currently 20 out of 22 
comprehensive land claim agreements (CLCAs) contain measures, including procurement measures, 
to encourage the economic development of the Aboriginal groups represented by these agreements.14  
Local-content requirements may be found in proc urement not subject to international trade 
agreements.  It is indicated that local content requirement s can be found "in procurement not subject to 
international trade agreements".  Can info rmation be provided about these instances? 
 Canada's Response:  Examples of existing local content requi rements include the Canadian Content 
Policy and the Industrial and Regiona l Benefits Policy.  The Canadian Content Policy applies where 
Public Works and Government Serv ices Canada is the contracting authority, but does not apply to 
                                                      
13 These countries are:  Australia;  France;  Germany;  Italy;  Israel;  Netherlands;  New Zealand;  
Norway;  United Kingdom;  United States;  Sweden;  and Switzerland. 
14 Monitoring and reporting requirements in respect of Crown procurement contracts subject to CLCAs 
were clarified in June 2008.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 265 
 
 
 government procurement subject to international tr ade agreements.  The Policy is available in the 
Supply Manual of Public Works and Governme nt Services Canada at:  http://www.tpsgc-
pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/ga-sm/chap itre03-chapter03-eng.html#sa3-6 .  The Industrial and Regional 
Benefits Policy generally applies to large defen ce procurements, but does not apply to government 
procurement subject to international trade agreemen ts.  Further details on the Policy are available on 
Industry Canada's website at:  http:// www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/home. 
 
[T&T Question 9]  Procurement at the sub-federal level, is go verned by provincial, territorial or other 
sub-Federal Government laws and procurement regulations (Table A III.6).  Sub-federal procurement 
is excluded from all international treaties except for the GPA and, as mentioned, procurement at this 
level is open only to U.S. suppliers .  For procurement within the scope of the AIT, the provinces and 
territories grant similar access conditions to procurem ent from the rest of Canada, but do not extend 
this automatically to procurement from foreign suppliers.  Some provinces and territories grant 
provincial or regional preferences to procurement not  within the scope of the AIT or other internal 
procurement agreements. 
What are some of the regional/provincial preferences to procurement? 
 
Canada's Response:   Any regional/provincial preferences in procurement would only apply to 
procurement not subject to trade commitments.  For non-covered procurement, some provinces and 
territories may apply preferences related to highway or urban transportation projects or others may 
apply preferences in support of aboriginal peoples. 
 
[T&T Question 10]  Paragraphs 12 – 16 (pages 24 –27) of th e Secretariat report:  Can Canada provide 
clear guidelines on the procedures to follow when exporting goods into Canada?  Canada's Response:  Unfortunately, it is not possible for the CBSA to provide importers with a 
single set of requirements as the requirements are de pendent on the types of goods that are imported. 
It must be understood that the CBSA is also r esponsible for enforcing laws and regulations from 
various other Canadian Government Depart ments, each having its own requirements. 
 The following therefore represents how an importer might have to proceed to import into Canada a 
shipment of T-Shirts manufactured in a country that is a beneficiary of the Most Favoured Nation 
Tariff: 
 
1- The importer must first obtain from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) a Business Number 
for the Importer/Exporter program. (Please see fu rther the reply to Question 11 on the subject 
of Canada's Business Number). 
2- The importer then needs to determine the Harmonised System Tariff Classification Number 
and the customs value of the goods.  To do this , the importer can consult the CBSA's website 
or the CBSA directly or a Canadian Customs Broker 
3- The importer will need to assemble the following documents:  
a. 2 copies of the Cargo Control Document (Manifest) 
b. 2 copies of the commercial invoice or Canada Customs Invoice 
c. 1 copy of the bill of lading 
 
4- The importer must then complete 2 copies of form B3. This form will report all the necessary 
information to the CBSA in order to properly assess duties and taxes. 
5- Once the B3 is properly completed and all doc uments mentioned in point 3 have been 
gathered, the importer must report to the appropriate CBSA office (specified on the Cargo 
Control Document) to present their declar ation and ask for release of the goods. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 266  
 
 In this example the importer would pay all duties a nd taxes at the time of release.  There are other 
types of declarations available;  this example was used for its simplicity.  The CBSA is committed to support the needs of  the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) and 
provides a website where more information is available: 
 
In English: http://cbsa.gc.ca/sme-pme/menu-eng.html.  In French: 
http://cbsa.gc.ca/sme-pme/menu-fra.html. 
 Detailed information can be obtained from the CBSA's website in the following D Memoranda: 
 Documentation Requirements for Commercial Shipments 
http://cbsa.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d17/d17-1-1-eng.html. 
 Release of Commercial Goods http://cbsa.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d17/d17-1-4-eng.html.  Coding of Customs Accounting Documents 
http://cbsa.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d17/d17-1-10-eng.html.  
 
[T&T Question 11]  Paragraph 12 (page 25):  The Secretariat Report states, "Importers of commercial 
goods must be registered with the Canada Reve nue Agency".  Can Canada please elaborate on the 
steps which importers have to undertake to complete the registration process? 
 
Canada's Response:  If a business is importing commercial goods into Canada or exporting 
commercial goods to other countries, they are required to register for a Business Number and an import/export account with the Cana da Revenue Agency (CRA). 
 The Business Number and/or the import/export account  can be requested using the following methods: 
 Completing and sending Form RC1 Request for Business Number  or Form RC1C,  Business 
Number  - Import/Export Account Information  (if the business already has a Business 
Number) to a CRA office  
 Using the Business Registration Online (BRO) service on the CRA website;  or 
 For aapplicant residing in Canada, by calling the Business Enquiries line at 1-800-959-5525. 
 
The following information is required in order to  register the business and obtain an import/export 
account:  
 Business name(s) that may appear on cust oms release forms and documents such as 
commercial invoices; 
 Physical business location and mailing address; 
 Contact person information; 
 Major business activity;  and 
 Specifying whether importer, exporter, or both. 
 If using Business Registration Online, the account number will be displayed to the user at the end of the registration process.  In the case of phone registra tions, the account number will be provided to the 
business by the Business Enquiries agent.  For all registration methods, the CRA will issue a letter  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 267 
 
 
 confirming the Business Number and/or import/export account number after the registration has been 
processed.  
[T&T Question 12]  The paragraph 20-24 (pages 27–28):  The Rules of Origin as outlined in the 
mentioned paragraphs are difficult to interpret.  Can Canada or the WTO Secretariat amend these 
paragraphs to reflect a detailed but simplified outline of the Rules of Origin? 
 Canada's Response:  All of Canada's rules of origin are pub licly available.  Canada maintains both 
non-preferential and preferential rules of origin.  The Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Tariff (non-preferential) rules of origin are in place to, in ter alia, distinguish impor ts into Canada from MFN 
beneficiaries (set out in the Customs Tariff's List of Countries – most of the world's countries) from 
those subject to the General Tariff (customs duty rate  of 35%).  Goods are deemed to originate in a 
country that is a beneficiary of the MFN Tariff if not less than 50% of the cost of production of the goods is incurred by the industry of one or more count ries that are beneficiaries of the MFN Tariff, or 
by the industry of Canada.  The link to the Most-F avoured Tariff Rules of Origin Regulations follow: 
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/re gulations/SOR-98-33/FullText.html. 
 Canada maintains preferential rules of origin un der free-trade agreements and unilateral tariff 
concessions.  With respect to Canada's various fr ee trade agreements (FTAs), the rules of origin 
applicable to a good's eligibility for preferential ta riff treatment under a particular FTA are largely 
based on a shift in tariff classification.  The texts of  these FTAs and their applicable rules of origin are 
available via the following website:  http://www. international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-
commerciaux/agr-acc/index.aspx.  With respect to Canada's unilateral tariff concessi ons, Under the General Preferential Tariff (GPT), the 
Least-Developed Country Tariff (LDCT) and the Commonwealth Caribbean Countries Tariff 
(CARIBCAN), origin for goods that incorporate non-originating materials is based upon a certain 
percentage of the ex-factory price of the goods orig inating in beneficiary countries or Canada:  these 
percentages are lower for LDCT countries.  In 2010, regulations were issued under the Customs Tariff 
exempting Haiti from the direct shipment requireme nts under the GPT and LDCT, given the situation 
arising from the 2010 earthquake.  Haitian-origin goods  may instead be shipped from a port in the 
Dominican Republic.  Links to the regulations rele vant to these unilateral tariff concessions follow:  
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98- 34/FullText.html;  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ 
eng/regulations/SOR-98-36/ FullText.html;  http ://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2010-
58/FullText.html.  Under the tariff treatment agreements with Australia and New Zealand, rules of origin are similar to 
Canada's MFN rules of origin.  Goods are deemed to originate in Australia if not less than 50% of the 
cost of production is incurred by the industry of Au stralia or Canada and the goods were finished in 
Australia in the form in which they are imported into Canada.  The same formula applies to New 
Zealand.  The link to the Australia and New Zeal and Tariff Rules of Origin Regualtions follows:  
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/re gulations/SOR-98-35/FullText.html. 
 
Should Trinidad and Tobago have specific questions , Canada would be happ y to provide additional 
information on the various rules of origin provisions that it maintains.  
[T&T Question 13]  In the case of the suppliers' declaration of conformity, if there is a non- 
conforming item, what are the penalties? 
 
Canada's Response:  The penalties depend on the sector.  For example, in the telecom sector, fines 
specified in the Contraventions Regulations av ailable at:  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-96-
313.pdf. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 268  
 
 [T&T Question 14]  What is the full list of tools Canada re lies on to ensure compliance with technical 
regulation?  Canada's Response:  Broadly speaking Canada relies on three types of conformity assessment 
procedures:  1) Third-party conformity assessment, 2) suppliers' declaration of conformity;  and 3) 
government approval.  The type of conformity asse ssment procedure used depends on a number of 
factors, including risks posed by non-compliance and the particular characteristics of the sector. 
 
[T&T Question 15]  What mechanism will be used to determin e the relevant international standard to 
be employed?  
Canada's Response:  Individual regulatory authorities will asse ss whether a given standard pertains 
to the product and regulatory area in question and dete rmine whether it fulfills the needs of the stated 
regulatory objective.  
[T&T Question 16]  With respect to Conformity Assessment Procedures, can Canada please clarify 
for sectors subject to third-party conformity assessment that do not rely on conformity assessment bodies accredited by SCC, What procedures are used by these regulatory bodies? 
 Canada's Response:  The specific conformity assessment procedures depend on the sector.  For 
example, Industry Canada (IC) is the regulatory depa rtment responsible for the telecom sector.  Under 
this sector, radio equipment is subject to certificati on which can be carried out by certification bodies 
recognized by Industry Canada. Because Trinidad  and Tobago is a CITEL Member, Industry Canada 
will consider certification bodies from this country  with accreditations issued by accreditation bodies 
that are signatory to umbrella organizations such  as ILAC and IAF. Industry Canada procedures for 
the recognition of confor mity assessment bodies are available a t:  http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mra-
arm.nsf/eng/h_nj00028.html. 
 
TURKEY 
 
[Turkey Question 1] As stated in the Secretariat Report, "Import licenses are required for steel and 
steel products as listed on the Import Control List, in order to monitor their volume and origin".  
Could Canada explain why the volume and origin of steel and steel products need to be monitored? 
 
Canada's Response:  For more than thirty years, the steel industry has fought for survival in a global 
sector characterized by serious long-term structural problems.  These problems, which are characterized by government intervention leadin g to significant overcapacity in global steel 
production, have led and continue to lead to trade frictions prompted by the extensive use of trade 
remedy measures as many countries, Canada include d, seek to protect their steel markets from 
injurious dumped and subsidized steel imports.  In th is context, the current import monitoring program 
provides an important source of information used ex tensively by steel producers in Canada to track 
prices, volumes, and origins of steel imports.  Import permit statistics are valued by stakeholders for their accuracy and timeliness. 
 
[Turkey Question 2] As stated in the Secretariat Report, "For cheese, importer licensing procedures 
entered into force in December 2008, which are administered by  the Canadian Food Inspection 
Agency.  A dairy product import fee continues to a pply to cover the cost of monitoring and inspection 
of consignments (Can$44 to Can$110, plus a variable fee)."  Could Canada provide an assessment 
with regards to the impact of licensing requireme nts on cheese imports in the period under review and 
quantify it to the extent possible?  Canada's Response:   There is no evidence that the recen tly introduced licensing requirements 
constrain Canada's imports of cheeses or ingred ients used in cheese manufacturing.  Since the  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 269 
 
 
 implementation of the importer licensing procedure,  Canadian importers have generally been in 
compliance with its licensing requirements for chee se imports and the tariff rate quota for cheese has 
consistently been filled at 100% in recent years.  In addition, Canada has not had to return any 
shipments because they did not meet compositional standards.  
[Turkey Question 3] The Secretariat Report states that "T he Automotive Innovation Fund (AIF), 
launched in 2008 by the Federal Government, provides for Can$250 million over five years to support 
private-sector R&D projects to develop and build innovative, greener, and more fuel-efficient vehicles."  Could Canada specify the source of financing for the Automotive Innovation Fund (AIF) 
and evaluate the effectiveness of the Fund in te rms of accomplishing the stated objectives so far?  
 
Canada's Response:   The Automotive Innovation Fund was created as part of Budget 2008, and 
provides $250 million over five years to automotiv e firms in support of strategic R&D projects to 
build innovative, greener and more fuel-efficient vehicles.  Funding is in the form of repayable 
contributions. 
 
The federal government has already committed up to $80 million to Ford Canada, up to $54.8 million 
to Linamar, and up to $71 million to Toyota through the AIF.  
[Turkey Question 4]  Is an extension of AIF considered to be possible following the end of the five 
year period?" 
 
Canada's Response:   An extension of the AIF following the end of the five year period will be 
determined as part of the Government of Canada's regular commitment to assessing its statutory programming.  
[Turkey Question 5]  The Government Report reads that the U. S. remains Canada's principal trading 
partner, accounting for over 70% of Canadian exports  and nearly 62% of its imports in 2010.  Does 
Canada intend to seek policies to diversify its export markets in order to avoid over-dependence on 
U.S. markets? 
 
Canada's Response:   In addition to the NAFTA, Canada also has free trade agreements in force with 
Israel (1997), Chile (1997), Costa Rica (2002), the Eu ropean Free Trade Association (2009) and Peru 
(2009).  Guided by the Government of Canada's Global Commerce Strategy (GCS), implemented in 2007, 
Canada has been pursuing an ambitious free trade agenda in order to secure competitive terms of 
access to additional markets for Canadian businesses.  Since the launch of the GCS, the Government 
of Canada has concluded free trade agreements w ith 8 countries, and is ne gotiating numerous new free 
trade agreements, including with the European Union, India, Ukraine,  Korea, and Morocco. 
 In addition to the GCS, the Government of Cana da has been deepening its engagement in the 
Americas, as illustrated by ongoing free trade ag reement negotiations with  the Dominican Republic, 
CARICOM, and the Central America Four countries, as well as the modern ization of the existing 
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement.  
[Turkey Question 6] The Government Report reads that Canada focuses 80% of bilateral aid 
resources on twenty countries as of 2009. Could the Canadian Delegation explain further the objective 
of this bilateral aid policy as well as the criteria for the selected countries? 
 Canada's response:  As part of its Aid Effectiveness Age nda, the Government of Canada announced 
in 2009 that it will be focusing 80 percent of bilateral resources in 20 countries of focus.  These 20 
countries were chosen based on their real needs, thei r capacity to benefit from aid, and their alignment WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 270  
 
 with Canadian foreign policy priorities.  The goal is to make Canada's international assistance more 
focused, more effective and more accountable. 
 
[Turkey Question 7]  The Government Report indicates that the trade between Canada and the U.S. 
has nearly doubled since the entry into force of the NAFTA in 1994.  Further reading of the same 
reveals that, inter alia, Canadian Provinces and Territo ries and play an important role in strengthening 
two-way trade relations with U.S. states through a variety of mechanisms.  Could the Canadian 
Delegation explain the mechanisms through wh ich Canadian Provinces and Territories expand 
bilateral trade with U.S. states? 
 
Canada's Response:  The main vehicle for consultations between the federal and provincial/ 
territorial governments in Canada in the trade ar ea is the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on 
Trade (C-Trade).  Quarterly meetings of the Comm ittee on Trade (C-Trade) at the senior official level 
as well as annual Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Ministerial meetings with the provinces and territories (P/Ts) provide the basis fo r regular consultations and coordination on trade 
policy issues and sub-federal measures, in both Canada and the U.S., as applicable.  
 Canadian P/Ts have their own international busi ness development (IBD) programs and several also 
have IBD consultants working for them in the Unite d-States.  In addition, three provinces – Ontario, 
Quebec and Alberta – operate offices in the U.S. On  their own initiative, groups of P/Ts and states 
meet periodically with the objective of strengt hening Canada-U.S. relations through regional 
cooperation on areas of mutual interest, including trad e and investment.  Several of those groups are at 
the legislator level.  
The following paragraphs contain  more detailed in formation supplied by individual provinces and 
territories on their activities and programs. 
 
Yukon :  Yukon maintains a close relationship with it s immediate neighbour, the State of Alaska, by 
virtue of an intergovernmental agreement, the purpose of which, inter alia, is the improvement of trade 
and commerce.  Yukon is also a statutory member  of the Pacific North West Economic Region 
(PNWER) whose central mission includes increasing the economic well-being and quality of life for 
all citizens of the region through greater regiona l collaboration including the advancement of trade 
and commerce.  Further, Yukon maintains an on- going relationship with the Western Governors' 
Association so as to monitor, and where possibl e influence, key policy and governance issues that 
include natural resources, the environment, human services, economic development, intergovernmental relations and in ternational relations.  Finally, Y ukon in collaboration with Foreign 
Affairs Canada engages in annual visits to Washin gton, D.C to advance its various policy, trade and 
commerce interests. 
 British Columbia :  The following are some of the ways that British Columbia strengthens bilateral 
trade relations with the U.S:  
 British Columbia has an International Trade and Investment Representative in Palo Alto, 
California; 
 Visits by the Premier with government count erparts and businesses in Washington State and 
other locations in the U.S.; 
 Joint Cabinet meetings with Washington State,  leading to the British Columbia – Washington 
State Competitiveness and Prosperity Action Plan. 
 Participation in a number of initiatives with W estern States, including the Pacific Northwest 
Economic Region (PNWER) and the Pacific Coast Collaborative Commission. 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 271 
 
 
 Saskatchewan : Saskatchewan undertakes, and is engaged in , various mechanisms to increase bilateral 
trade with the U.S. They include, among others, 
 Sustained government advocacy efforts in W ashington D.C. and other state capitals; 
 Trade and investment missions led by the Premier and the Ministers;  and 
 On-going engagement in various intergovernme ntal forums/ organizations including Pacific 
Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), Midwester n Legislative Conference (MLC), Western 
Governors' Association (WGA) and Saskatch ewan-Montana Intergovernmental Accord.  
 
Newfoundland and Labrador :  Newfoundland and Labrador's (NL's) primary markets in the United 
States are New England, the Midwest (primarily Chicago), and the South Eastern United States (SEUS).  NL uses a variety of mechanisms to enha nce our trade with the U.S. including retaining in-
market consultants, conducting trade missions , attending trade shows, arranging inbound trade 
missions to NL, joining in market trade associa tions, sponsoring information sessions to Small and 
Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in NL about variou s markets, and working with Canada's trade 
commissioners in Canadian consulates.  NL is an active member of the SEUS–Canadian Provinces 
Alliance and regularly attends meetings of the Eastern Canadian Premiers and the New England 
Governors. 
 
Manitoba :  The U.S. is Manitoba's single most important market, and U.S. markets purchased almost 
65% of provincial exports in 2010.  The Government  of Manitoba supports this trade through services 
to businesses, investments in critical infrastructur e, and advocacy to address emergent trade issues 
with the U.S.  
Manitoba Trade and Investment (MTI), the Governme nt of Manitoba's trade development arm, offers 
a variety services, including sector-specific trade development advice, market information, and opportunity identification.  Through MTI and the jo int federal-provincial Ca nada/Manitoba Business 
Service Centre, the Government of Manitoba o ffers educational semina rs and workshops about 
exporting (including market specific information on  tariffs, duties, and regulations) and can assist 
potential exporters by reviewing export business plans and through referrals to  appropriate resources 
and contacts in target markets.  MTI also coor dinates export missions, business call programs, and 
trade shows, and maintains a calendar of appropriate  events.  Manitoba also has a "Commercialization 
Support for Business Program" designed to help en trepreneurs and small- and medium-enterprises 
with information about concept and product devel opment and commercialization.  While not specific 
to the U.S., these services and programs are available to Manitoba exporters seeking to enter the U.S. 
market. 
 Related to these services, Manitoba has participated  in a number of business-related events that are 
intended to foster opportunities for Manitoba businesses  in the U.S. and other markets.  For example, 
the Centrallia business forum that was held in Wi nnipeg in October 2010 was an opportunity to 
reinforce the importance of open procurement with  American business and government representatives 
who attended.  Manitoba also participates in the Southeastern United States-Canadian Provinces 
Alliance and the BIO Internationa l Conventions (life sciences). 
 The Government of Manitoba has a direct role in  developing and maintaining infrastructure that 
supports our bilateral trading relati onship with the U.S.  This includes investments in roads and related 
infrastructure.  The Government of Manitoba also  engages in advocacy activities to address emergent 
regulations or issues that affect Canada-U.S. trade.   Provinces and territories were directly involved in 
the negotiation of the Canada-U.S. agreement on government procurement in response to "Buy 
America" rules in the U.S. stimulus package.  Mani toba has also engaged in advocacy at the state and 
national level in the U.S. on matters like mandatory  Country of Origin Labelling for pork and beef, for 
example. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 272  
 
 Québec :  Depuis avril 2003, les membres du gouvernem ent du Québec ont effectué plusieurs missions 
aux États-Unis.  Le premier ministre s'y est rendu à plus de 20 reprises et les ministres titulaires des 
Relations internationales et du Dé veloppement économique, de l'Innova tion et de l'Exportation à plus 
de 10 occasions.  Une vingtaine d'autres membres du c onseil des ministres y ont effectué au moins une 
mission. 
Des visites de membres de gouvernements état iques sont aussi effectuées au Québec, où des 
rencontres avec le premier ministre et/ou certains ministres québécois sont organisées. Celles-ci permettent de renforcer les relations.  De plus, le Québec maintient un réseau de 6 repr ésentations aux États-Unis, soit à Atlanta, Boston, 
Chicago, Los Angeles, New York et Washington, D.C. Celles-ci aident les entreprises québécoises à 
faire des affaires dans les états qu'ils desservent, mais jouent aussi un rôle de première importance 
pour développer des contacts avec les autorités local es afin de les sensibiliser au Québec, mais aussi 
pour valider les possibilités de c oncertation et de partenariats. 
 
De plus, l'action du gouvernement du Québec se dépl oie aussi au sein de divers regroupements ou 
auprès de plusieurs forums, tels: 
 Alliance des États du Sud-Est des États-Unis  et des provinces canadiennes (SEUS-CP); 
 Conférence des gouverneurs de la Nouvelle-Angleter re et des premiers ministres de l'Est du 
Canada; 
 Eastern Regional Conference du Council of State Governments; 
 National Governors Association (NGA); 
 North America's Corridor Coalition (NASCO);  
 Partenariat en innovation stra tégique Canada-Californie; 
 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI); 
 Western Climate Initiative (WCI). 
 Ces regroupements multilatéraux  avec des états améri cains permettent au Qu ébec de mieux connaître 
les états et leurs positions sur des dossiers clés;  faire valoir ses positions et intérêts;  échanger et 
développer avec ses homologues des solutions à d es problématiques communes et développer des 
réseaux de contacts et des occasions d'a ffaires pour les entreprises québécoises. 
 Le Québec a aussi conclu 150 accords bilatéraux av ec des états américains.  Plusieurs de ceux-ci 
contiennent des clauses commercia les ou économiques, notamment cell es avec le Vermont, le Maine, 
New York ou le Wisconsin.  Elles mènent à l' organisation de projets communs, tel le Sommet 
économique Québec-New York, ainsi que des missi ons ou des accueils spécifiques, tels que ceux 
prévus par le Comité conjoint Québec-Vermont.  Lancée en 2010, la Stratégie du gouvernement du Québec à l'égard des États-Unis est un moyen de 
plus pour canaliser les efforts de la province face à so n principal partenaire inte rnational.  Elle touche 
différents aspects de nos relations avec les États-Un is, notamment la culture, la sécurité, l'énergie et 
l'environnement, mais bien évidemment aussi le s échanges économiques.  Diverses actions sont 
ciblées, dont certaines visant le support à l'exportati on et la conformité douanière des entreprises,  la 
participation du gouvernement à des regroupeme nts multilatéraux, la venue d'acheteurs et 
d'investisseurs, le soutien aux part enariats de recherche et la sensibilisation afin de limiter le recours 
au protectionnisme, pour ne nommer que celles-là.  Finalement, le Québec organise une panoplie d'événem ents afin de mettre en contacts les entreprises 
et organismes de différentes industries en lien av ec des partenaires ou clients potentiels aux États-
Unis, que ce soit par l'organisation de missions commerc iales, la participation à des foires, l'accueil 
d'acheteurs américains ou l'organisation de sessions de maillage entre firmes américaines et québécoises.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 273 
 
 
 Alberta :  Relations with the United States are of vital im portance to Alberta.  The U.S. is by far the 
largest customer for Alberta's exports.  Over 85% of  the province's total exports are shipped to points 
in the U.S. and 17 of Alberta's top 20 international export destinations are U.S. states.  Additionally, 
the U.S. is the source of 2/3 of all foreign investme nt in the province. 60% of foreign tourists visiting 
Alberta are American.  Alberta has long been the la rgest exporter of natural gas to the U.S. and has 
recently also become its largest supplier of crude pe troleum.  Alberta's natural gas pipeline collection 
and distribution system will play a key role in de livering Alaska and Northern Canadian gas to major 
markets in the Lower 48.  Alberta participates in a number of trans-boundary  organizations such as the Pacific NorthWest 
Economic Region (PNWER), and the CanAm Border Tr ade Alliance.  Alberta also participates in 
U.S. state government organizations such as the We stern Governors Association and Council of State 
Governments, and has formal consulta tive links with Montana and Alaska. 
 The Alberta Office in Washington, D.C. was ope ned in 2004 to advance Alberta's economic and 
policy interests in key areas such as energy and agricultural trade in the U.S. capital.  Advocacy 
efforts to advance Alberta's interests are focused through the Alberta Washington Office and Canada's 
missions in the U.S., organizations such as the West ern Governors Association, the Council of State 
Governments, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region and by working directly with U.S. legislators 
and officials.  More information about the Albert a Office in Washington, D.C., can be found here:  
http://www.albertacanada.com/us/. 
 
The Ministry has the mandate to market Alberta fo r investment attraction, trade development, and 
government to government relations in the United St ates.  Key activities are managed in coordination 
with Alberta's international office located in Wash ington, D.C.  The Ministry represents and advises 
on Alberta's interests with regard to foreign gove rnments manages Alberta's twinning relationships 
with international jurisdictions, including Alaska a nd Montana;  and coordinates inbound programs for 
visiting foreign officials.  More detailed information about Alberta government activities in the U.S. can be found in the Alberta 
2010-2011 Annual Report, which can be found here:  http://www.international.alberta.ca/651.cfm. 
 
Nova Scotia:  Nova Scotia is proactively involved with other mechanisms such as the Conference of 
New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Prem iers (NEG/ECP), the Southeastern U.S.-Canadian 
Provinces Alliance (SEUS) and the Council of St ate Governments-Eastern Regional Conference 
(CSG/ERC), which ensure that our interests are promoted and protected .  For instance, the 
New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Prem iers meet to discuss topics of mutual concern 
ranging from managing fiscal challenges, enhanc ing trade, and maximizing the region's energy 
resources.  They pass resolutions on issues relating to management of border crossings and ports of 
entry, procurement commitments , energy, and transportation. 
 
For more information, please see:  http://www. scics.gc.ca/english/Conferences.asp?a=view&id= 
2592&y=&m=. 
 
Ontario :  Ontario engages in formal promotions with U.S. states through trade shows and investment 
attraction missions.  Ontario also expands bilate ral trade with the U.S. states through routine 
participation in major meetings such as the Na tional Governors Association, the Council of State 
Governments, the Council of Great Lakes Gove rnors, the Great Lakes Commission, and the 
Southeastern U.S.-Canadian Provinces Alliance.  Add itionally, Ontario's Premier and Ministers with 
relevant portfolios meet with their respective U.S.  counterparts in various forms regarding issues of 
mutual interest.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 274  
 
 Recently, Ontario has expanded its access to government procurement for U.S. states through the 
Canada-U.S. Procurement Agreement 2010.  For more information see: http://www.international. 
gc.ca/trade-agreements-accor ds-commerciaux/fo/gp.aspx. 
 
UKRAINE 
 
[Ukraine Question 1] The document WT/TPR/S/246-04 contains information about the significant 
export support, including financial support to th e Canadian companies.  Could Canada provide 
clarification on how it corresponds with the pr ovisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (including Article 3)? 
 
Canada's Response:   Canada, like many countries, main tains 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).  Canada is particularly mindf ul of the provisions of Article 3 of 
the ASCM, given that export-contingent subsidies are among the most trade-distorting forms of 
support.  Canada does not provide  any subsidy assistance that violates Article 3 of the ASCM.  
 
[Ukraine Question 2] Ukraine welcomes Canada's further decreasing of simple average applied MFN 
tariff from 6.5% in 2006 to 5.4% in 2010.  At the sam e time we see a high level of tariff protection in 
agricultural sector.  For certain agri cultural products tariffs remain very high, particularly for dairy 
products with MFN out-of-quota tariffs averaging 237. 3%, and tariff escalation in certain industries. 
The existing tariff rate quotas (about 110 tariff lines) and restricted out-of-quota tariffs in our opinion are inconsistent with the WTO norms and principles.  In this regard we would like to ask if Canada 
plans to further bring down trade barriers in agriculture? 
 
Canada's Response:   Supply management is a marketing system  that ensures a stable supply of dairy, 
poultry and eggs to Canadian consumers and the ag ri-food industry. Supply management is based on 
matching domestic requirements to domestic supply.  Therefore, predictable levels of imports 
maintained through tariff rate quotas are necessary to the functioning of the system.  The supply 
management system has served Canada well for ma ny years, while complying with Canada's WTO 
commitments, and Canada has no plans to alter the system. 
 
[Ukraine Question 3] Ukraine has noticed that a large number of goods is subject to the import 
licensing requirements.  Besides, Canada plans to  expand SPS-related licensing to of food products 
and ingredients.  In our view such measures could be considered as trade barriers inconsistent to the 
provisions of Article XI GATT, Agreement on licen sing and SPS Agreement.  Could Canada explain 
the rationale for such measures and pr ovide additional clarification on that? 
 Canada's Response:  Canada is developing a regulatory pro posal for the licensing of Canadian 
importers that will enhance the safety of food produc ts and ingredients that are regulated solely under 
the Food and Drug Act , such as alcoholic and non-alcoholic beve rages, fats and oils, juices, bakery 
products, infant formula, cereals, spices and seasoni ngs, coffee or tea, and confectionary.  The purpose 
of this proposal is to strengthen the accountability of importers for the safety of the products they 
import, enhance the Canadian Food Inspection Agen cy's ability to communicate important food safety 
information, and minimize the risk of unsafe products entering the Canadian marketplace. 
The regulatory proposal is not intended to impe de access to the Canadian market and does not place 
new quantitative restrictions on imports.  The li censing provision under the Regulatory Proposal 
would not replace any existing licensing program regulated by the Government of Canada.  
Regardless of the source (domestic or imported), fo od offered for sale in Canada must comply with 
the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations and the Consumer Packaging and  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 275 
 
 
 Labelling Act and Regulations.  Impor ted products that meet Canadian requirements will continue to 
have access to the Canadian marketplace.  Canada has not yet finished drafting the proposed regulations that will set out the importer licensing requirements.  Canada will undertake an add itional consultation peri od, both domestic and 
international, following the publication of proposed regulations in Canada Gazette Part 1.  The CFIA 
will take comments into consideration in the devel opment of the proposed regulations and associated 
program administration guidance documents.  
[Ukraine Question 4] Ukraine would appreciate Canada's clar ification whether various tax breaks, 
excise tax reductions, exemptions , federal and provincial incentives are applied only to local 
producers of beer, wine, film, etc.  Ukraine also requests clarification concerning supporting programs 
for domestic businesses in such areas as investment;  R&D;  mineral exploration and renewable energy. In particular taking into account that at the federal level, the excise duty rates on certain 
domestically brewed beer are lower than on impor ted beer, and 100% Canadian wine is exempt.  
Alcoholic beverages produced in Québec benefit fro m lower provincial excise tax rates under certain 
conditions.  Ukrainian party requests to clarify wh ether the mentioned measures are consistent with 
the requirements of articles 3 and 5 of the Agre ement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and 
Article III of GATT 1994?  Canada's Response:  On the Beer and Wine Excise:  At th e federal level, the reduced excise duty 
rates available for beer produced domestically are lim ited to beer production up to 75,000 hectolitres 
per year.  Beyond this annual production threshold, the same excise duty rates apply for beer products 
of the same alcohol by volume (ABV) content, wh ether manufactured in or imported into Canada.  
With respect to wine, the federal excise duty ex emption is available for wine made from 100% 
Canadian grown agricultural products. 
 
The federal excise measures related to beer and wi ne are modeled after similar programs in other 
countries.  It should be noted that these measures have not had the effect of curtailing growth in 
imports of beer and wine into Canada.  During the review period, imports of  beer (HS 2203) and wine 
(H S 2204) into Canada have increased 32% and 34% respectively.  In contrast, overall imports into 
Canada were lower in 2010 than they were in 2007. 
 
There are two tax credit programs to support the film and television industry in Canada:  the Canadian 
Film or Video Production Tax Credit (CPTC) and th e Film or Video Production Services Tax Credit 
(PSTC) program.  The CPTC provides a refundabl e tax credit for certified film and television 
programming produced and owned by Canadian produc tion companies.  The objectives of the CPTC 
are to encourage Canadian programming and support long-term corporate development.  The PSTC is 
a refundable corporate tax credit designed to sup port the film or television production services 
industry.  It is available to both Canadian and foreign productions th at shoot in Canada. 
 With regard to support for research and developm ent (R&D), the Government of Canada provides 
support in the education, private and not-for-profit sectors, estimated at more than $7 billion in 2009. 
This includes about $4 billion for R&D undertaken by post-secondary researchers, the private sector, 
not-for-profit organizations and other research perfo rmers. Canada's investment in higher-education 
R&D as a proportion of the economy is the highest  among G7 countries.  Support for post-secondary 
research is generally provi ded through competitively allocated programs on the basis of peer review.  
In addition, Canada's Scientific  Research and Experimental Deve lopment Tax Incentive Program is 
the single largest federal program supporting busine ss R&D in Canada, providing over $3 billion in 
tax assistance in 2009.  Budget 2008 established the $250-million Automotive Innovation Fund to support strategic, large-
scale research and development projects in the auto motive sector to develop innovative, greener and WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 276  
 
 more fuel-efficient vehicles.  Through five regional economic development agencies and Industry 
Canada, the Government of Cana da supports economic diversifica tion and creates opportunities in 
communities across Canada.  The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) is a commercial Crown co rporation wholly owned 
by the Government of Canada, reporting to the Minist er of Industry.  Its manda te is to operate as a 
financial institution, with an emphasis on addressing th e needs of small and medium-sized enterprises.  
BDC has more than 90 branches across Canada, serv ing 28,000 businesses through financing – in the 
form of loans, subordinated fina ncing, and venture capital – and consulting services.  BDC provides 
its services directly to Canadian SMEs on a comme rcial basis, at rates commensurate with risk. 
 
Finally, on renewable energy:  Canada is a globa l leader in the generation of clean energy as the 
world's second largest producer of hydroelectricity.  Nearly three quarters of the electricity Canada 
generates produces no greenhouse gas emissions.  To support this objective,  the government has 
provided $1.48 billion over 14 years for the eco ENERGY for Renewable Po wer program to support 
renewable sources such as wind, biomass, low-imp act hydro, and solar.  The Government also 
provides a tax incentive for clean en ergy generation equipment in th e form of an accelerated capital 
cost allowance.  
[Ukraine Question 5] Ukraine expresses its concern about "C racking Down on Tobacco Marketing 
Aimed at Youth Act" (Bill C-32 amendment to the Tobacco Act) in the view of it being more 
restrictive than necessary.  So we ask Canada to provide additional information on its compliance with 
the TBT Agreement.  Canada's Response:  The Canadian approach was deemed to be the best fit to address the public 
health problem faced by Canada. 
 
Canadian analysis suggested that less than one per cent of the total Canadian market for cigarettes was 
expected to be impacted by this legislation.  Since its implementation, Ca nada is not aware that 
amendments made to the Tobacco Act have had a significant effect on the trade of other Members. Canada is also not aware of any American-style brands having been withdrawn from the Canadian 
market since the last provision of the amen dment came into force on July 5, 2010. 
 
[Ukraine Question 6] Ukraine welcomes some liberalization of the foreign direct investment (FDI) 
regime in services, undertaken by Canada over the review period.  At the same time Ukraine is 
seeking to get more additional information about curr ent sector-specific FDI restrictions, in particular, 
in telecommunications, fishing, mining, air transport, cultural businesses, book publishing and 
distribution, periodical publishing, broadcasting, and film  distribution.  In this regard we'd like to find 
out about Canada's plans for further liberalization of regime for oversight and control of FDI in 
services sphere and elimination of sector-specific FDI restrictions.  Canada's Response:  In March 2009, the Government of Canada  passed legislation which eliminated 
the lower investment review thresholds in the Investment Canada Act for transactions in the 
transportation services, uranium production and financial services sectors. 
 The government of Canada is examining the issue of FDI restrictions for telecommunications.  No 
announcement has been made regarding the timing of a decision.  
Canadian air carriers (both passenger and cargo) are cu rrently subject to a restriction in the Canada 
Transportation Act limiting foreign ownership of voti ng interests to 25 percent.  Pursuant to the 
Budget Implementation Act, 2009, the Canada Trans portation Act has been amended to enable an 
increase in the limit on foreign ownership of Canadian airlines, from 25 percent to 49 percent.  Regulations are being developed by the Canadian Tr ansportation Agency to effect this policy change.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 277 
 
 
 The development of regulations requi res consultations with affected stakeholders, and this process is 
underway.  The Investment Canada Act requires that foreign i nvestments in the cultural industries, including the 
publication, distribution or sale of books, periodicals, magazines and the production, distribution, sale 
or exhibition of film or video recordings, be comp atible with national cultural policies in addition to 
being of "net benefit" to Canada.  Copies of these cultural policies are attached and can be found at: 
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/org/sectr/ ac-ca/eiic-csir/index-eng.cfm. 
 Information on the ongoing review of the book policy can be found here:  
www.pch.gc.ca/eng/12 72486502392/126 8255450528. 
 
[Ukraine Question 7] There are over one hundred programmes in support of Canada's agriculture and 
food- stuff.  With tariff quotas, very high out-of- quota tariffs, export subsidies, production quotas, and 
other measures certain agricultural subsectors (dai ry and poultry, and rela ted products) are highly 
protected.  What measures and reforms has Canada introduced or has plans to do so to make this 
highly protected area more market-oriented?  Canada's Response:  Supply management is a marketing system that ensures a stable supply of dairy, 
poultry and eggs to Canadian cons umers and the agri-food industry.  Supply management is based on 
matching domestic requirements to domestic supply.  Therefore, predictable levels of imports 
maintained through tariff rate quotas are necessary to the functioning of the system.  The supply 
management system has served Canada well for ma ny years, while complying with Canada's WTO 
commitments and Canada has no plans to alter the system.  
UNITED STATES 
 
[United States Question 1]   "During the re-determination period , if one entry was made above the 
Normal Value and another below the Normal Value,  does the authority grant an offset between the 
two?  If yes, please explain how it is done and wh ether it is done on an importer-specific or exporter-
specific basis?  If no offsets are granted, please explain why. 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's anti-dumping duty assessment syst em operates on a prospective basis, 
whereby anti-dumping duties are only collected in instances where the normal value exceeds the 
export price of the imported goods.  As per th e provisions of Article 9.3.2 of the WTO Anti-dumping 
Agreement , Canada provides for re-determination proceed ings to be conducted on the basis of an 
importer's request.  Each re-determination theref ore addresses the goods identified in an import's 
request for re-determination, regardless of the exporter.  A request for re-determination may cover: 
1) the normal value; 2) the export price;  3) the amount of subsidy;  4) the amount of the export subsidy;  or 5) whether the good is subject to the measure.  If the amount of duties owing changes as a 
result of the re-determination, the Canada Border Services Agency will refund the amount collected in 
excess or may collect additional duties if the original amount collected was insufficient.  
 
[United States Question 2]  What steps is Canada taking to en sure that both brand companies and 
generic companies have equitable access to an a ppeal process should a brand company lose a patent 
challenge to a generic manufacturer? 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada is committed to maintaining a balanced drug patent framework that 
provides new and innovative drugs with strong, stab le protection while encouraging market entry of 
lower cost generic products once patents expire.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 278  
 
 REPLIES PROVIDED BY CANADA TO ORAL QUESTIONS 
 
BY COUNTRY 
 CHINA 
 
[China Question 1] Canada's legislation maintains relatively low thresholds for the initiation of trade 
remedy measures.  In addition, most countervailing investigations were conduc ted in conjunction with 
anti-dumping enquiries, resulting in "double remedies" which is contrary to WTO rules.  As the 
Secretariat Report points out, during the review period, the CBSA initiated 18 anti-dumping measures, 
out of which 8 target Chinese products, while regardi ng countervailing measures, the ratio is 6 out of 
7.  China remains most affect ed by Canada's anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force. 
China hopes Canada will make every effort to avoi d using trade remedy measures for protectionist 
purposes, or in a discriminatory manner, so as to create a fair environment for competition among traders. 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada agrees with the importance of ensuring that trade remedy measures are 
not used for protectionist purposes, or in a discrimin atory manner, so as to ensure a level-playing field 
for domestic and imported goods.  Ca nada maintains a fair and transparent trade remedies system 
which is operated on a quasi-judicial basis, in full accordance with WTO rules.  Trade remedy 
investigations are initiated on the basis of a duly- substantiated complaint from domestic industry and 
the government exercises no discretion over which countries or products a complaint is directed 
against.  Anti-dumping and/or countervailing duty m easures are only imposed where an investigation 
finds that dumped and/or subsidized imports ar e injuring the domestic industry.  These measures are 
not imposed for protectionist purposes, rather, they respond to the unfair trading practices of foreign 
firms and governments. 
 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN, AND MATSU 
 
[Chinese Taipei Question 1] In 2010, the volume of imports a nd exports between us rebounded by 
more than 30%, recouping more than was lost dur ing the global recession.  Having said that, the fact 
that Canada continues to exclude us from the list of beneficiaries of its General Preferential Tariff 
(GPT) programme means our products are prevente d from competing on a level playing field in the 
Canadian market versus those from countries of a similar development level.  Our economy, like 
Canada's, relies heavily on an open, transparent,  and rules-based multilateral trading system.  We 
appreciate Canada's general openness to trade and its commitment to reducing barriers.  May we 
sincerely urge it to once again review this particul ar practice and rectify any unjustified discrimination 
as soon as possible?  Canada's Response:  Under section 34 of Canada's Customs Tariff  the Government may, by Order-
in-Council, extend entitlement to the GPT to a trading partner if the Government is satisfied that the 
economy in question is a developing economy.  
 The Customs Tariff  also specifies that the General Preferential Tariff (GPT) is on a ten-year cycle.  
Since its establishment in 1974, it has been renewed three times, in 1984, 1994 and 2004 and is now 
set to expire in mid-2014.  No changes to the GPT are contemplated at this time but if/when such 
changes are contemplated, stakeholders w ill be provided an opportunity to comment. 
 
EL SALVADOR 
 
[El Salvador Question 1] Notwithstanding the above, and in specifi c regard to the agricultural sector, 
which is of fundamental importance to both countries,  we feel that the set of programs provided to 
Canadian agriculture and livestock producers unde r Canada's new agricultural policy framework  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 279 
 
 
 "Growing for the Future" should be re-evaluated in light of the current round of negotiations in this 
house.  Canada's Response:  The Growing Forward agriculture policy framework looks to develop a 
profitable and innovative agricultural industry th at seizes opportunities in responding to market 
demands and contributes to the health and well-be ing of Canadians.  The agreement will expire 
on March 31, 2013.  Federal a nd provincial governments have begun work on the successor 
framework to Growing Forward, to be launched on April 1, 2013.  The development of Canada's 
domestic programs takes into account the rules an d obligations of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
including Canada's domestic support commitment. 
 
Canada's objective in regards to the domestic support pillar in the Doha Round is substantial 
reductions and disciplines on trade distorting domestic  support and we share El Salvador's desire for 
an ambitious and balanced Doha outcome.  EUROPEAN UNION  
[EU Question 1] [In regards to] Canada's Ontario Green Energy Act and to the local content 
requirements in the feed-in tariff programme for re newable energy;  this Act, introduced in 2009, 
includes significant domestic content requirements for the procurement of renewable energy projects.  
According to this new policy, developers of a ll solar projects and of specific wind projects are 
required to have a certain percentage of their co sts come from Ontario good and labour at the time 
they reach commercial operation in order to benefit from the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) programme.  In addition, it is stipulated that the minimum requi red amount of Ontario-based content will increase over 
time.  However, pursuant to Canada's national treat ment obligations, Ontario must accord treatment to 
imported equipment used in the pr oduction of renewable energy which is no less favourable than that 
granted to like products originating in Canada.  This  principle is laid down in several obligations as 
for example Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, Arti cle 3.1(b) of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.  We are interested in Canada's 
plan to eliminate this discriminatory treatment.  Canada's Response:  Canada will not comment on measures subject to a WTO panel proceeding.  
 
[EU Question 2] Canada is one of the few developed countries in the world to retain a foreign equity 
cap in the telecommunications sector.  A lack of compe tition in this sector is likely to affect the prices 
which consumers pay for what today have become basic services – internet and wireless access.  Canada has recently undertaken an open consultatio n on how to open up this sector further to access 
by foreign suppliers.  We would like to know how the results of this consultati on are likely to be taken 
into account in future Canadian plans for this vital sector.  Canada's Response:  The government of Canada is examining this issue.  No announcement has been 
made regarding the timing of a decision. 
 
[EU Question 3] We welcome Canada's intentions to refo rm its copyright law, although we are 
worried by the scope and number of the proposed ex ceptions, as well as by the fact that Canada still 
hasn't ratified WIPO's Internet trea ties, despite having signed them about  15 years ago.  In addition we 
still have on-going concerns, in par ticular regarding the protection of pharmaceuticals, which is far 
below the standards applicable in the other deve loped countries, and the border enforcement of IP 
rights.  We are interested to hear  more about the recent legislative developments and to learn Canada's 
further plans for improvement.  Still related to th e point of intellectual property, on Geographic 
Indications (GIs) we would like to hear about Cana da's views concerning consistency with TRIPS of 
some provisions of its trademark act. 
 WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 280  
 
 Canada's Response:  Canada's regime for the protection a nd enforcement of intellectual property 
rights is consistent with its international tr ade obligations, including  under the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Tr ade Agreement (NAFTA).  The Government is 
committed to modernizing Canada's intellectua l property regime, which includes combating 
counterfeiting and piracy. 
 
As mentioned in both the Report of Canada  and the Secretariat Report, Bill C-32, the  Copyright 
Modernization Act , tabled by the Government in the l ast Parliamentary session, would have 
implemented the rights and protections of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 
Internet treaties.  Bill C-32 died on the Order Pape r when Parliament was dissolved due to the general 
election in May of this year.  In the June 3, 2011  Speech from the Throne  the government committed 
to introduce and seek swift passage of copyright le gislation that balances the needs of creators and 
users.  In respect of Geographic Indications, Canada's  Trade-Marks Act  is consistent with TRIPS. 
 
[EU Question 4] The practices of provincial liquor boards a ppear discriminatory and substantially 
hinder access to the Canadian market.  These monopoli es are owned and controlled by their respective 
provincial governments (mostly crown corporations  or crown agencies) and have control over the 
import, distribution and sale of all alcoholic bevera ges in the provinces concerned.  We are concerned 
about a range of practices, including product mark- ups and differential cost-of-service fees, alleged 
discriminatory listing and de-listing practices and co mmercial activities of these Boards outside those 
necessary to fulfill their monopoly obligations as we ll as discriminatory distribution practices.  These 
can vary on a province-by-province basis, can represen t a different combination of practices for wines, 
spirits and beers and can also vary between local, national, U.S. and other imported products.  We 
want to achieve fair trading conditions for our Eur opean alcoholic beverage producers in the different 
Canadian provinces.  Hence, we invite Canada to  accord national treatment and most-favoured nation 
treatment to EU alcoholic be verages imported into Canada. 
 
Canada's response:   EU products continue to be treated according to the terms of the recent 2004 
Canada-EU Agreement on Trade in Wines and Spirits Drinks.  Canada would be happy to discuss any 
concerns the EU may wish to raise in relation to  these products in the Join t Committee established in 
accordance with the 2004 Agreement. 
 
HONG KONG, CHINA 
 
[Hong Kong, China Question 1] We should hope that Canada could continue to exercise caution in 
this respect, and would ask Canada to critically examine the need for continued imposition of anti-
dumping and countervailing measures duri ng sunset reviews, in order to prevent continuation of such 
trade remedy measures in the absence of justifiable grounds. 
 Canada's Response:   Canada agrees with the importan ce of conducting rigorous and fact-based 
sunset reviews to ensure that trade remedy measures are only continued where positive evidence 
demonstrates that dumping and/or subsidizing and inju ry are likely to continue or recur in the absence 
of the measure.  In Canadian practice, expiry re views are initiated only where the Tribunal determines 
that an expiry review is warranted based on an anal ysis of submissions received by interested persons 
and governments.  If an expiry review is initia ted, Canadian investigating authorities conduct an 
extensive assessment of relevant factors to determ ine the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping 
and/or subsidizing and injury, as outlined  in Article 37.2 (1) and (2) of the Special Import Measures 
Regulations . 
  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 281 
 
 
 [Hong Kong, China Question 2]  We urge Canada to make an extra effort to look into the trade 
impact of this [Canada Consumer Product Safety  Act (CCPSA)] Act, an d promulgate relevant 
guidelines to facilitate compliance and trade. 
 
Canada's Response:  The CCPSA is an important piece of legislation that will enhance the protection 
afforded to Canadians from potentially dangerous  consumer products.  The Act recognizes that 
suppliers of consumer products ha ve an essential role to play in addressing any dangers to human 
health or safety that may be posed by these products in today's global marketplace.  Health Canada is aware of industry stakeholders' concerns with regards to the General Prohibition 
under the CCPSA.  Health Canada is committed to active communication with industry stakeholders 
to provide the information and tools that will help stakeholders understand th eir obligations under the 
CCPSA. A variety of guidance documents are being developed and will be ma de available through 
Health Canada's website as they are finalized.  
For the most up to date information on the status of the CCPSA please visit:  http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/legislation/acts-lois/ccpsa-lcspc/inde x-eng.php.  On that page, you are also able to 
subscribe for email updates on the CCPSA so that you can keep informed of developments as they 
arise.  
INDIA 
 
[India Question 1] We have read a recent report of Bank of  Canada Governor pointing out that the 
challenges the Canadian economy has with competitiv eness is a product of two factors:  first, the 
persistently strong Canadian dollar and secondly, th e relatively poor productivity performance.  We 
would be interested to know the steps Canada proposes to take to overcome these challenges. 
 
Canada's Response:   A sound policy framework creates an environment conducive to productivity 
growth, which is necessary to improve our competitiven ess particularly in light of the recent rise in the 
Canadian dollar.  In this respect, significant progr ess has been made since 2006.  For example, Canada 
has: 
 moved from one of the least to the most competitive business tax systems in the G7; 
 introduced the Tax-Free Savings Account and the Working Income Tax Benefit; 
 created a tariff-free zone for manufacturing industries; 
 improved its immigration system;  and 
 invested in critical public infrastructure. 
 These policy changes should help improve both Cana da's productivity and labo ur market performance 
in the future.  But work can be done to both pr omote productivity growth further and preserve the 
gains that have already been made.  Going forward, the first priority should be to return to balanced 
budgets to maintain and enhance Canada's fiscal advantage. 
 
MEXICO 
 
[Mexico Question 1] Canadian government's efforts to strengt hen its competition laws, privileges and 
immunities continue to be granted to State-owned entities, in particular Crown corporations, which 
have monopolies or exclusive rights with respect to  certain economic activiti es. Such entities also 
enjoy certain tax exemptions. We would like to k now whether the government has plans to eliminate 
those privileges.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 282  
 
 Canada's Response: 
a) As of June 2011, 29 federal Crow n corporations are "agent" Crow n corporations.  Such agency 
status is generally intended by Parliament to c onfer the privileges and immunities of the Crown on 
the corporation. One of these benefits or immun ities is that agent Crown corporations are free 
from provincial and municipal tax statutes and charges.  However, the federal government,
 
including Crown corporations, compensates other le vels of government in the form of Payments 
in Lieu of Taxes15, which approximate the taxes that would apply to the organization. 
 
b) Canada's Competition Act  (the "Act") applies to the commercial activities of all Crown 
Corporations.  In the case of agent Crown corpora tions, the Act specifies that they are subject to 
competition law when they are in a situation of actual or potential competition.  When there is no 
actual or potential competition, the Competition Act  does not apply because there is no possibility 
for anti-competitive behavior.  Section 2.1 of the Competition Act provides as follows: 
 
" 2.1. This Act is binding on and applies to an  agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada 
or a province that is a corporation, in r espect of commercial activities engaged in by 
the corporation in competition, whether actual or potential, with other persons to the 
extent that it would apply if the agent were not an agent of Her Majesty."  
c) Section 79 of Canada's Compe tition Act (the "Act") authorizes the Commissioner of Competition 
to apply to the Competition Tribunal for a remedial  order where a person or firm that substantially 
or completely controls a class of business, has e ngaged in, or is engaging in, a practice of anti-
competitive acts, with the effect or likely e ffect of substantially preventing or lessening 
competition in a market.  An order issued unde r this section enjoins the dominant firm from 
continuing its conduct, and may also include an ad ministrative monetary penalty to ensure future 
compliance.  Generally speaking, any entity in the marketplace, including Crown Corporations, 
engaging in actual or potential commercial activities, is subject to the abuse of dominance 
provision of the Act.  Crown Corporations created  by Parliament that are not however engaged in 
commercial activities (whether actual or potential), are not subject to the provisions of the Act, 
including those regarding abuse of dominance. 
 
d) Decisions to grant the agency status or ex clusive rights are made on a case-by-case basis 
determined by the government concerned and woul d be consistent with any commitments under 
international treaties. 
 PARAGUAY  
[Paraguay Question 1] The [Secretariat's] report indicates that  one of the objectives of the Global 
Commerce Strategy is to double the number of ag reements for the promotion and protection of 
Canadian investments abroad within a five-year period.  In that regard , it would be interesting to know 
which specific sectors will be covered by the invest ment protection and promotion agreements and the 
experiences they have had with the implementation of such agreements.  
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's Foreign Investment Prom otion and Protection Agreements are 
'negative list' agreements, so they cover all sector s of the parties economies, with the exception of 
certain aspects of some sectors that may be reserved by Canada or the other country.  For example, Canada typically reserves flexibility to maintain or adopt measures that might  be inconsistent with 
some aspects of the treaty, such as national tr eatment, most favoured nation treatment, senior 
management and board of director and performance  requirements provisions with respect to certain 
sectors or sub-sectors of its economy which include, among others, cultural industries, 
                                                      
15 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act :  http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-13/index.html.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
 Page 283 
 
 
 telecommunications services and so cial services.  The other count ry also has the opportunity to 
propose reservations from certain provisions of the treaty for its sensitive policy areas.  Canada has 
not experienced any difficulties in implementing these agreements.  
SOUTH AFRICA 
 
[South Africa Question 1] The secretariat report highlights that Canada's Investment Act contains 
new provisions that provides for the Minister of Industry to review any proposed or existing foreign investment on national security grounds.  It is pointed out that this creates uncertainty for investors.  
We are concerned that this requirement could prov e to be a limitation to investment, and we trust 
Canada will, over time, endeavour to elaborate on what criteria guides the concept of national 
security.  Canada's Response:   Canada continues to welcome and activ ely encourage foreign investment as an 
important driver of its economic success.  The introduction of a national security review process, 
which was recommended by an expert parliament ary panel tasked with recommending ways to 
improve Canada's competitiveness, brings Canada in line with what other developed countries are 
doing to safeguard their national security.  Canada w ill ensure that the application of the new national 
security mechanism is consistent with its internationa l trade obligations and the best practices of other 
industrialized economies.  THAILAND  
[Thailand Question 1] We would like to know how Cana da's tariff quotas under preferential 
agreements reconcile with its  WTO tariff-quota commitments. 
 
Canada's Response:  Canada's tariff quotas established un der the Canada-US FTA (CUSFTA) and 
subsequently incorporated into NAFTA are generally  set on an annual basis at the higher of the WTO 
or global tariff quota volume specified in CUSFTA.  These tariff quotas are administered on a global basis and are open to all WTO Members.  This  practise is consistent  with Canada's WTO 
commitments. 
 
TURKEY 
 
[Turkey Question 1] It is clear that Canada's stimulus me asures which were one of the biggest among 
the advanced economies paid off well in tackling the crisis.  In this respect, we will be very much 
pleased to hear from Canada any add itional explanation on the current st atus of the stimulus package. 
 
Canada's Response:  The vast majority of stimulus under th e Economic Action Plan ended on March 
31, 2011, as planned.  However, a one-time extension of the completion d eadline, from March 31, 2011 to October 31, 2011, 
has been announced for four infrastructure program s.  These four programs are cost-shared with 
Canada's provincial and territorial governments.  As  of April 2011, provinces and territories indicated 
that approximately $5.7 billion out of a total of $7 billion in federal contributions available through 
the four infrastructure programs would be claimed within the original two-year window, with the 
remaining $1.3 billion expect ed to flow in 2011–12. 
 
An update on Canada's Economic Action Plan implementation, including the above noted 
infrastructure program extension, was provided in Chapter 3 of Budget 2011, available at:  
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2011/home-accueil-eng.html.  WT/TPR/M/246/Add.1 
Page 284  
 
 [Turkey Question 2] The Secretariat's report points out that Canada has been lagging behind the 
other developed countries in terms of productivity.  In fact, this was cited as one of the few problems 
in the economy in the previous report as well.  In this  sense, it will be interesting to learn what further 
changes Canada is planning to introduce, if any, to improve the dynamism of the economic structure. 
 
Canada's Response:   sound policy framework creates an environment conducive to productivity 
growth, which is necessary to improve our competitiven ess particularly in light of the recent rise in the 
Canadian dollar.  In this respect, significant progr ess has been made since 2006.  For example, Canada 
has: 
 moved from one of the least to the most competitive business tax systems in the G7; 
 introduced the Tax-Free Savings Account and the Working Income Tax Benefit; 
 created a tariff-free zone for manufacturing industries; 
 improved its immigration system;  and 
 invested in critical public infrastructure. 
 These policy changes should help improve both Cana da's productivity and labo ur market performance 
in the future.  But work can be done to both pr omote productivity growth further and preserve the 
gains that have already been made.  Going forward, the first priority should be to return to balanced 
budgets to maintain and enhance Canada's fiscal advantage.  
__________