WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1 20 August 2015 (15-6801) Page

272 Pages·2015·1.32 MB·English

WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

20 August 2015
(15-6801) Page: 1/272
Trade Policy Review Body Original: English/anglais/inglés
15 and 17 June 2015

TRADE POLICY REVIEW
CANADA
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Addendum
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgaria)
This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO
Members, and replies provided by Canada.1

Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales
15 et 17 juin 2015
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES
CANADA
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION
Addendum
Président: S.E. M. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgarie)
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelles, et les réponses fournies par Canada.1

Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales
15 y 17 de junio de 2015
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES
CANADÁ
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN
Addendum
Presidente: Excmo. Sr. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgaria)
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por
Canadá.1

1 In English only./En anglais seulement./En inglés solamente.
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 2 -

REPLIES PROVIDED BY CANADA TO ADVANCE WRITTEN QUESTIONS
RECEIVED PRIOR TO 18 MAY 2015
ALPHABETICALLY BY MEMBER
ARGENTINA (ORIGINAL QUESTIONS SENT IN SPANISH)
[Argentina Question 1 (First set)]: The sale of alcoholic beverages is provincially regulated in
Canada.
A.- In the case of the province of Ontario, it has come to our knowledge that the LCBO, the
monopoly that regulates the sale of alcohol in the province established minimum sale amounts
that a product must reach to remain on the LCBO list in its business objectives for the fiscal year
2014/2015. This method, which has been applied for many years, was apparently modified by
setting "specific price bands." Such a process imposes different sale targets on foreign wine
categories based on the price at which they would be sold. At the same time, when analyzing the
list of objectives established by the LCBO under that initiative, we note the following:
a.- There is a considerable difference between the sale requirements established for international
wines and local wines. For example, Ontario wines in the "Red Blend" category would need sales of
CAD 140,000 to stay on the shelves, while the targets for Argentinean wines in the same category
are CAD 845,000 (Standard), CAD 495,000 (Premium) and CAD 295,000 (Deluxe).
b.- There are also differences among imported wines, since the price limits that define
subcategories are generally not the same. The target amounts are also not the same.
To conclude, it is worth noting that the representative for "Wines of Argentina" in Canada reported
last March that "Drinks Ontario" (an organization that brings together agents and importers) had
sent correspondence to the LCBO last September stating its members' concern regarding the
situation described, especially the discrepancy between the sales targets for Canadian wines and
imported wines. She added that the response from the LCBO was basically to the effect that there
were no discrepancies in how targets were calculated. The representative further pointed out that,
despite these approaches, the situation regarding sale targets has remained unchanged.
B.- For its part, the province of British Columbia (BC) announced that the sale of domestic
alcoholic beverages in stores other than those run by the BC monopoly is now authorized. More
specifically, the retail flexibilization would include the following options as part of the plan called
"Liquor in grocery stores":
i. Store-within-a-store: this authorizes grocery stores to include a separate store to sell alcoholic
beverages within its premises.
ii. B.C. Wine Stores (also "made in B.C. grocery model"): the provincial government defines this as
a flexible model that will allow the sale of wines produced in BC on supermarket shelves.
In December 2014, the BC government issued a press release announcing that:
"Grocery stores will be able to stock 100% B.C. wine on their shelves as early as April 1, 2015,
creating new opportunities for B.C. wineries, supporting B.C.'s home-grown economy and
addressing calls for added convenience from consumers."
"The second phase of the liquor-in-grocery model will allow existing VQA stores and independent
wine stores to relocate or transfer their licence to an eligible grocery store –as long as the licence
is only used to sell 100% B.C. wine. Of note, these licences are not subject to the one-kilometre
restrictions, allowing more flexibility and choice of locations when moving into a grocery store."
This announcement unambiguously presents better and more flexible sale opportunities for BC
wines to the detriment of imported wines or wines produced in other Canadian provinces. It should
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 3 -

be pointed out that after the announcement mentioned above, the American "Wine Institute" sent
a note to the BC Premier accusing the province of violating international obligations in relation to
NAFTA, GATT and the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.
We would like to ask the Canadian delegation about the measures adopted by—or being
considered by—some provincial governments in relation to trade in wine and its compatibility with
the GATT law.
Canada's Response: In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in
alcoholic beverages is governed by the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA). The
IILA provides the provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over
the sale of intoxicating liquor, and over the importation of such liquor into the provinces and
territories. Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores operated by the provincial/territorial
liquor control authority or through authorized private retailers or a combination of both. Provincial
and territorial liquor control authorities purchase or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages
based on market needs and other commercial considerations, such as price, quality and
availability.
Ontario and British Columbia are both in the process of adopting changes to their liquor
distribution.
In November 2014, the Ontario Premier's Advisory Council issued an initial report including
recommendations with respect to a new pricing policy for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario
(LCBO) and potential changes to the retail distribution of wine. The Advisory Council's
recommendations were incorporated into Ontario's 2015 Budget, announced in April, but are
limited to proposed changes relating to the sale and distribution of beer in Ontario. The Advisory
Council demurred recommendations concerning the sale and distribution of wine, indicating that
further work is required.
As of April 1, 2015, British Columbia began implementing policy changes to the sale and
distribution of alcohol in that province.
These polices are intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the respective liquor
distribution systems. The federal government has worked closely with the provinces to ensure
consistency of these changes with Canada's international obligations.
The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Board (PTLBs) in Canada were established before the GATT was
created, and their existence and activity is consistent with the provisions of GATT Article XVII
["State Trading Enterprises"]. In accordance with that Article, they are notified to the WTO as
STEs.
[Argentina Question 2 (First Set)]: Inspection system, the above-mentioned agency has decided to
re-establish the exportation of Argentinean beef into Canada. This will include boneless cooked
meat and boneless fresh/frozen raw meat. In May 2015, SENASA (Argentinean National Food
Safety and Quality Service) sent the CFIA a health certificate proposal.
Regarding Argentina's interest in exporting poultry to Canada, the CFIA has observed several
stages of poultry processing and is expecting to receive new proposals from SENASA that will
comply with the duly stated requirements.
Argentina would like to mention that the news about recent progress allowing Argentinean beef
into the Canadian market has been most welcome. Argentina is also hoping that the steps leading
to the exportation of Argentinean poultry to Canada will be taken in the near future.
Canada's Response: Canada notes Argentina's remarks. Canada is pleased that the audit results
were favourable and that expanded access for Argentine beef has been allowed for the Canadian
marketplace.
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 4 -

AUSTRALIA
Report by the Secretariat – (WT/TPR/S/314)
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.1.5.2 Excise Taxes and Duties
Page 59, paragraph 3.36

[Australia Question 1]: Australia continues to be aware of a number of differential tax, marketing
and licencing practices at both federal and provincial level, which apply to the distribution and sale
of imported versus domestic wine in the Canadian market:

a) federal excise duty exemptions or reductions for Canadian produced wine, compared to
imported wine
b) various provincial measures which include:
a. the provision of licences to grocery stores for the purposes of selling provincial-
sourced wine only;
b. non-transparent retail 'mark-ups' by provincial liquor control entities with respect of
imported wine;
c. allowing local provincial wine to be retailed free of mark-up in on-premise licensed
establishments as long as local content requirements are met;
d. the supply-chain practice of allowing local wine producers to establish financial
interests in 'tied-houses' through which to sell local product; and
e. the practice of allowing the sale of wine at small markets (e.g. farmers markets) as
long as the wine is produced in the province that the market is held.

Can Canada provide more information on the extent to which there is differentiated treatment
between imported and local wine in the Canadian wine marketplace?
Does Canada agree that these measures, individually or collectively, would appear to be
inconsistent with Canada's WTO obligations?
Canada's Response: In 2006, a federal excise duty exemption was introduced for wine produced
from 100% Canadian-grown agricultural product. Further information regarding the application of
this relief measure can be found on the following Canada Revenue Agency webpage:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/em/edn15/edn15-e.html.
This measure does not impose an additional tax burden on imports vis-à-vis domestic products.
The amount of targeted excise duty relief under this specific measure is relatively small and was
largely modeled after similar programs in other countries. Furthermore, this measure does not
have any significant impact on the demand for wine imports in Canada. Indeed, imports of wine
into Canada have increased 30% since 2006.
In Canada, the importation of and inter-provincial/territorial trade in alcoholic beverages is
governed by the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA). The IILA provides the
provinces and territories, within their respective jurisdiction, with control over the sale of
intoxicating liquor, and over the importation of such liquor into the provinces and territories.
Alcoholic beverages may be sold through stores operated by the provincial/territorial liquor control
authority or through authorized private retailers or a combination of both. Provincial and territorial
liquor control authorities purchase or permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages in line with
market needs as related to such commercial considerations as price, quality, availability and other
conditions of purchase or sale. With respect to retail mark-ups, Canada would note that cost of
service differential charges, which may lead to a higher mark-up on imported products, were found
to be GATT compliant, as long as they are no greater than the additional costs necessarily
associated with marketing imported products.
The provinces of Ontario and British Columbia are both in the process of adopting changes to their
liquor distribution policies with a view to increasing efficiency and effectiveness. The federal
government has worked closely with the provinces to ensure consistency of any changes with
Canada's international trade obligations.
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 5 -

The Provincial/Territorial Liquor Boards (PTLBs) in Canada were established before the GATT was
created, and their existence and activity is consistent with the provisions of GATT Article XVII
["State Trading Enterprises"]. In accordance with that Article, they are notified to the WTO as
STEs.
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing measures
Page 63- 64, paragraph 3.46

[Australia Question 2]: We understand that the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) is able to
self-initiate anti-dumping and countervailing investigations.
How many of the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations initiated in the review period
were self-initiated by the CBSA?
Canada's Response: The CBSA did not self-initiate any anti-dumping or countervailing
investigation in the review period.
[Australia Question 3]: If so, what factors led the CBSA to self-initiate these investigations?
Canada's Response: The CBSA did not self-initiate any anti-dumping or countervailing
investigation in the review period.
[Australia Question 4]: What is the rationale and benefits of having two government authorities
involved in the dumping and countervailing investigation process (CBSA and CITT) as opposed to
having a single investigative authority?
Canada's Response: A bifurcated system with shared responsibility between the CBSA and the
CITT allows for the development of specialized skills, and can be more efficient by allowing
concurrent investigation processes. As well, Canada's trade system provides for impartial decisions
on injury, dumping or subsidizing. The independent, quasi-judicial nature of the CITT as the final-
decision maker is an important aspect of Canada's trade remedy system where there is no political
involvement.
[Australia Question 5]: Does a preliminary injury determination or negative motivated decision
only occur 60 days after initiation or can it occur later?
Canada's Response: Pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the
CITT shall make its preliminary injury determination on or before the 60th day after the initiation of
an investigation.
[Australia Question 6]: Is a preliminary injury determination accompanied by provisional duties?
If so, how is dumping and causation considered when the assessment of dumping by the CBSA has
not yet occurred?
If not, when is the earliest that provisional duties may be levied and what are the necessary
prerequisites before they may be levied?
Canada's Response: A preliminary injury determination is not accompanied by provisional duties.
Pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, provisional duties may only be
applied if the President of the CBSA considers that the imposition of a provisional duty is necessary
to prevent injury, retardation or threat of injury upon the making of a preliminary determination of
dumping or subsidizing in respect of subject goods. Therefore, these duties can only be applied
following a preliminary determination of injury by the CITT and a preliminary determination of
dumping or subsidizing by the CBSA.
[Australia Question 7]: If a preliminary injury determination is not made is it then mandatory to
issue a negative motivated decision that there is no indication of injury?
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 6 -

Canada's Response: Pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA),
the CITT shall make its preliminary injury determination on or before the 60th day after the
initiation of an investigation.
If the CITT finds that there is no reasonable indication of injury or retardation and threat of injury,
it issues a decision to that effect. Upon the making of a negative injury preliminary determination,
the investigation is terminated in accordance with section 35 of SIMA.
[Australia Question 8]: Do stakeholders have an opportunity to respond before the investigation is
terminated? (e.g. as result of a negative preliminary or injury or dumping determination).
Canada's Response: Before the CBSA makes a preliminary determination, interested parties are
given the opportunity to respond to requests for information and present their evidence to the
CBSA. Following a preliminary determination, the CBSA operates a written hearing process.
Interested parties are granted disclosure to evidence on the record and are given the opportunity
to file written submissions presenting facts, arguments and evidence, either in support of or in
opposition to the complaint. The CBSA will consider the submissions received from interested
parties in making its final determination.
The CITT operates a written hearing process prior to making its preliminary finding of injury.
Interested parties are granted disclosure to evidence on the record and are given the opportunity
to file written submissions presenting facts, arguments and evidence, either in support of or in
opposition to the complaint. The CBSA will consider the submissions received from interested
parties in making its preliminary injury finding.
Following CBSA's preliminary determination, the CITT will post questionnaires on its website, which
are to be completed by domestic producers, importers, foreign producers and governments,
purchasers and trading companies. The CITT will prepare and circulate an investigation report
based on the information it has collected in the questionnaire responses and relevant information
on the record.
Interested parties are given the opportunity to submit, in writing, case briefs or submissions, and
witness statements in support of, or in opposition to, a finding of injury, retardation or threat of
injury. Finally, an oral hearing is held to give parties the opportunity to call and cross-examine
witnesses and to argue their case before the CITT. A hearing also provides the CITT with an
opportunity to test written submissions and documentary evidence.
[Australia Question 9]: Can the investigation be terminated at any point, or only as a result of a
negative preliminary or final injury determination, or negative preliminary or final
dumping/subsidy assessment?
Canada's Response: Pursuant to section 35 of the Special Import Measures Act, an anti-dumping
or countervailing investigation may be terminated at any time before the CBSA makes a
preliminary determination if the CBSA is satisfied that there is insufficient evidence of dumping
and/or subsidizing or if the CITT concludes that the evidence does not disclose a reasonable
indication that the dumping or subsidizing of subject goods has caused injury or retardation or is
threatening to cause injury.
However, once the CBSA's preliminary determination has been made, an investigation will only be
terminated following a negative final dumping/subsidy determination by the CBSA (made within
90 days of the preliminary determination) or a negative final injury determination (made within
120 days of the preliminary determination) by the CITT.
[Australia Question 10]: Are the timeframes for each stage of the investigation inviolate or can
they be extended?
Canada's Response: The timeframes for each stage of an investigation are mandatory as
prescribed in the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA). Pursuant to section 39 of SIMA, the
deadline for the CBSA's preliminary determination of dumping and/or subsidizing may be extended
(from 90 days following the initiation of an investigation up to 135 days following the initiation of
investigation).
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 7 -

As well, section 31(1) of the SIMA requires that the CBSA determine within 30 days, after the date
on which the CBSA considers that a complaint is properly documented, whether the initiation of an
investigation is justified. Pursuant to subsection 31(6) of SIMA, the 30-day period may be
extended for the express purpose of addressing and confirming the standing of the complainant(s).
Page 64, paragraph 3.48
[Australia Question 11]: What factors are believed to be the cause of the "steep increase" in the
number of anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14?
Canada's Response: Canada notes that the number of anti-dumping investigations in 2012-14
was not typical of Canada's general declining trend in the number of anti-dumping investigations.
For example, there were only 10 anti-dumping investigations initiated in the preceding three
years, from 2009 to 2011.
The increase in anti-dumping investigations in Canada in 2012-14 is limited to a narrow range of
products that may be affected by underlying issues of global concern (e.g. global steel production
overcapacity). Trade remedies investigations are legitimate tools to address situations where
unfair trading practices of foreign firms and governments are causing or threatening to cause
injury to domestic industry. Canada notes that its experience in anti-dumping investigations in
2012-14 is consistent with global trends over this time period.
Page 66, paragraph 3.53
[Australia Question 12]: Regarding the submissions to expiry reviews, does industry need to fulfil
the same requirements of an original application for an investigation or provide a lesser amount of
information in submissions?
Canada's Response: Given the inherently different nature of original investigations and expiry
reviews, the submission requirements differ for the two processes. Section 31(1) of the Special
Import Measures Act sets out the requirements for initiating an original investigation. The
definition of and requirements for a properly documented complaint are subsection 2(1) of the
Special Import Measures Act and section 37 of the Special Import Measures Regulations. For
expiry reviews, the process is different. Parties filing submissions either requesting or opposing the
initiation of an expiry review must present evidence and arguments relating to the factors set out
in rule 73.2 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules. In both cases, submissions must
contain positive evidence substantiating the claims being made.
Page 67, paragraph 3.56
[Australia Question 13]: Is an interim review a review of measures under Article 11 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement or an administrative or judicial review that challenges CBSA/CITT
findings under Article 13?
Who may apply for an interim review? When may they make such an application? Under what
circumstances can an interim review be undertaken?
Are there any fees (for example, application fees) to applicants or other parties to apply for any
processes under Canada's anti-dumping and countervailing system? If so, what is the amount of
the fees?
Canada's Response: Interim Review
Interim reviews are reviews of measures under Article 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Pursuant to Section 76.01 of the Special Import Measures Act, the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal (CITT) may initiate an interim review upon the filing of a request for an interim review by
the Minister of Finance, the President of the CBSA, or any interested party or government, where
the CITT is satisfied that such a review is warranted. The request for an interim review may be
filed with the CITT at any time while its order is in effect. The CITT may also self-initiate an interim
review if it determines that such a review is warranted.
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 8 -

An interim review may be warranted, where, among other things, there is a reasonable indication
that sufficient new facts have arisen or that there has been a sufficient change in the
circumstances that led to the order. Examples of circumstances that may warrant an interim
review are where domestic industry has ceased all production of like goods since the order was
made, cessation of foreign production of the goods covered by the finding or order, the remand of
the final determination of dumping or subsidizing to the CBSA as the result of NAFTA panel or
Federal Court of Appeal decision, or where sufficient facts were not put into evidence in the course
of the injury inquiry or expiry review despite the exercise of reasonable diligence at that time
(e.g. order was based on perjured evidence that came to light after the order was made).
Fees
There are no application fees for interested parties to apply for processes under Canada's trade
remedies system.
Page 67, paragraph 3.57
[Australia Question 14]: Regarding CBSA's duty assessment determination, does the reference to
duty assessment determination refer to the determination of duty at the conclusion of an original
investigation, or is it a process under Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement?
If it is the latter, is the review self-initiated by CBSA or upon application by importers?
Regarding CBSA's re-determination, can a demand for additional duty, as a result of a duty
assessment re-determination, occur only in circumstances where a lesser duty has been imposed
or any circumstance?
Does the re-determination amount of duty become the new amount of duty payable for the
remaining lifetime of the measure or does it have a fixed period of application?
Canada's Response: Canada's anti-dumping duty assessment system operates on a prospective
normal value basis, whereby anti-dumping duties are only collected in instances where the normal
value exceeds the export price of the imported goods. As per the provisions of Article 9.3.2 of the
WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, Canada provides for re-determination proceedings to be conducted
on the basis of an importer's request or on the initiative of the designated officer. In the case of
goods of a NAFTA country, the government of that NAFTA country or the producer, manufacturer
or exporter of the goods, when they are of a NAFTA country, may file a request.
A re-determination may cover: 1) the normal value; 2) the export price; 3) the amount of subsidy;
or 4) whether the good is subject to the measure. Additional duty may result from a
re-determination in cases where the re-determined normal value and/or export price results in a
higher amount by which normal value exceeds export price or a higher amount of subsidy.
Canada's anti-dumping system operates on the basis of prospective normal value duty
assessment. Individual normal values are established for subject goods exported by cooperative
exporters. Subject goods that are imported for less than the established normal value are charged
anti-dumping duty equal to the difference between the export price and the established normal
value. Re-determinations of the normal value, export price and whether the good is subject to the
measure are made on a transaction-by-transaction basis. However, in situations where an
importer has paid duties in accordance with the "all other" margin of dumping, the normal values
established as part of a re-determination could apply on a prospective basis, provided the exporter
submits the necessary information.
More broadly, all normal values are updated on a prospective basis through a re-investigation
when there is reason to believe that the information used at the time of the final determination or
at the conclusion of the most recent re-investigation should be updated (e.g. where normal values
have risen or dropped considerably because of changing market conditions and/or changes in the
exporter's costs).
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 9 -

3.3.6.3 Use of the IP System
Page 100, paragraph 3.167

[Australia Question 15]: In January 2014, Canada initiated procedures towards accession to:
 Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of
Marks ("Madrid Protocol"); Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks ("Singapore
Treaty"); Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services
for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks ("Nice Agreement"); and
 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial
Designs ("Geneva Act"); and
 Patent Law Treaty.

Australia congratulates Canada on the large reform program which seeks to implement the: Madrid
protocol, Singapore treaty, Nice Agreement, Geneva Act and Patent Law Treaty. Australia would
like further information in relation to Canada's estimated timeframe for accession to the above
treaties?
Canada's Response: Following the adoption of amendments to the Patent Act, Industrial Design
Act and Trade-marks Act, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) is currently developing
proposed amendments to the associated rules and regulations and adjustments to office
procedures in the context of ongoing consultations.
The amendments to the Patent Act and Industrial Design Act in Bill C-43, and the amendments to
the Trade-marks Act in Bill C-31 will come into force on a day fixed by order of the Governor in
Council. This happens at the conclusion of the parliamentary and regulatory processes, which will
then open the door for Canada to accede to or ratify the treaties. That date will be established
after the relevant amendments to the Patent Rules, Industrial Design Regulations and the Trade-
marks Regulations have been prepared and after CIPO's IT systems have been updated
appropriately.
Given the multiple remaining steps of the regulatory process, this will take time. We will continue
to work with WIPO to seek advice on the legal and technical aspects of the treaties, as we continue
to take steps to prepare for implementation.
3.3.6.4 International Initiatives and WTO participation
Page 101-103, table 3.28

[Australia Question 16]: Recently, Canada passed additional PBR legislation through Bill C-18, the
Agricultural Growth Act passed some legislation (which came into force on 27 February 2015) that
aligns it with UPOV 1991.
Australia congratulates Canada on the passage of the agricultural growth act which came into
force on the 27 February 2015. Australia would like further information in relation to
Canada's intentions for accession to the 1991 UPOV convention?
Canada's Response: Recently, the Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) Act was amended as part of the
Agricultural Growth Act to include the provisions of the 1991 Act of the International
Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 91). This amended law has been in
force since February 27, 2015. As per the Government of Canada's policy on tabling treaties, on
February 26, 2015, the UPOV 91 Convention was tabled in Parliament for the requisite twenty-one
sitting days, completing the first step of the ratification process. If Canada is to proceed with
ratification, to complete the process, Canada would need to deposit the instruments of ratification
with the UPOV Secretary General, and would then become bound by the Convention one month
after the date of deposition. Amendments to the PBR Act to conform to UPOV 91 and ratification of
the Convention are strongly supported by the stakeholder community, and continue to be
a priority for the Government of Canada.
WT/TPR/M/314/Add.1

- 10 -

3.3.6.8 Geographical Indications
Pages 106-107, paragraphs 3.194-3.197

[Australia Question 17]: Canada has gone beyond TRIPS requirements in relation to GI protections
following on from new commitments undertaken by Canada in the Canada-Korea FTA (CKFTA).
Canada commits to protect four Korean GIs – three types of ginseng and one type of rice – against
any use on such goods not originating in the place indicated by the GI in question. This is in
exchange for the Republic of Korea providing the same level of protection for "Canadian Whisky"
and "Canadian Rye Whisky". Article 7 of Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement (CETA) establishes similar protection for a list of food GIs contained in an Annex, and
provides exceptions for certain GIs on that list in certain cases.
CETA establishes protection for a list of food GIs, and provides exceptions for certain GIs on that
list in certain cases. Could Canada provide more details in relation to the exceptions under this
GI regime?
Under CETA, the CETA committee on geographical indications can recommend amendments to the
list of GIs in annex I by adding geographical indications.
 Can Canada please explain what safeguards will be available to third parties in relation to
initial protection and any later additions to annex?
 Will there be the opportunity for third parties to object to the protection offered to a
geographical indication?

Canada's Response: The CETA text provides for exceptions to GI protection, including for generic
terms and for prior use by third parties. Any new additions to the annex will be done by consensus
of the Parties. Officials may make use of all means at their disposal to determine whether to
recommend a GI be added to the annex, including a search of existing rights (i.e. trademarks),
prior uses, genericness, and third-party consultations. Implementing legislation will be tabled at a
later time.
3.3.6.4 International Initiatives and WTO participation
Page 100, paragraph 3.170

[Australia Question 18]: Canada advanced IP-related trade interests in a number of bilateral and
regional trade agreement negotiations in particular the:
 Republic of Korea (CKFTA); and
 European Union (CETA)
This has had an impact on the GIs, patents and counterfeit goods.
With regard to explicit new IP standards and cooperation mechanisms with respect to geographical
indications, could Canada describe the specific obligations in the CETA. Does Canada need to
amend its legislation to meet these obligations? What is the timeframe for any legislative
amendments? What safeguards will be available to third parties? For example, will third parties be
provided with an opportunity to object formally to the protection offered to a geographical
indication?
Canada's Response: Under the terms of CETA, Canada is obligated to protect 179 EU-based GIs
for various agricultural products and foodstuffs. Once these terms are protected, any use of those
terms in association with a good found within the specified product class that does not come from
the country identified with the GI will be prohibited. This protection will be provided even where
the true origin of the product is indicated or the GI is used in translation or accompanied by
qualifying expressions such as "kind", "type", "style", "imitation" or the like. Canada is currently
conducting analysis on the best way to implement these obligations, but no timeline has yet been
set to introduce the enabling legislation for GIs.