15. The representative of Canada thanked the European Communities for having provided a written version of their oral answers. This had been useful in better understanding some of the EC's propositions. While the EC paper had answered many of Canada's questions, there were still others that needed to be addressed, and replies that would require further clarifications and explanations. His delegation did not see why the discussion should be limited to only a few items. There should be a wide discussion to ensure that all Members had a better understanding of the EC's proposal.
16. His delegation also considered it useful to compare the EC's ideas with the ideas in the joint proposal. In this regard, he pointed out that there were not "proponents" on one side and "opponents" on the other but rather "supporters" of another approach. The joint proposal fully satisfied the mandate. As was suggested by the Chairman, questions from the floor on the joint proposal would be welcome.
17. In response to the EC's fax of 25 February, Canada had identified, and communicated to the EC, a number of questions that had not been answered or only partly answered. His delegation had some difficulties in fully understanding the EC's ideas on elements such as prima facie evidence, burden of proof and genericness exceptions, for various reasons: partly because they had not fully understood the EC's explanations, partly because of basic policy disagreement and partly because they did not see how these elements would fit into the Doha mandate. Some of Canada's requests for clarification and related policy, legal and procedural questions had been addressed in the EC's statement. The EC had indicated in many instances that key legal and procedural issues would be decided according to the receiving country's domestic laws and procedures, which was in compliance with Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. As an exporter of wines and spirits, Canada was seeking information on how individual co-sponsors, the EC and the other Members, saw key issues in relation to their legal systems and processes. The EC representative had, at a previous meeting, said that the WTO was about market access and practical effects and not just policy. His delegation wished to have a better understanding of the effects of the EC's ideas in those regards. Finally, the EC itself had chosen not to answer certain questions. As many of them were important to assess the EC's latest ideas, his delegation would therefore reiterate them.
18. On legal effects, his delegation wished to receive replies in greater detail from the EC and other co-sponsors of TN/C/W/52 with regard to how some issues were being addressed in their respective systems. It was indicated that decisions and procedures would be left to domestic authorities. This would raise two questions. Firstly, would all Members have the same view regarding terms such as "proof", "evidence to the contrary" and "substantiation", or would they not be creating a new fertile area for disputes in the WTO? Secondly, as his country was a producer and exporter of wines and spirits, he wished to know what Canadian producers and exporters could expect in key foreign markets of interest. In this regard, he noted that the joint proposal would not create the same type of uncertainties.
19. On participation, he recalled that this negotiating group's mandate clearly referred to "those Members participating in the system" only, and that wine and spirits trade was of interest to a subset of WTO Members only. Why did the EC want to require all WTO Members to participate? In contrast, the joint proposal did not require participation by all Members.
20. In response to the EC's request that delegations should further reflect on the replies it had given, his delegation would try to expand on some of them, and hoped it would receive full answers. Question 27 dealt with the situation where two countries would take two different decisions on the same GI: for example, the national authorities of one country could decide that the notified GI did not meet the Article 22.1 definition while the authorities of another country could decide the opposite. Would the GI that was registered on the multilateral register still be considered to meet the definition of a GI? In this connection, Canada's view was that the definition of a GI on the register also related to whether it was a wine or a spirit and would not be limited to Article 22.1. He asked whether or not the GI would be removed from the register if it failed to be considered a GI in one WTO Member.
21. Question 30 raised the issue of what would happen if a person was of the view that the registered GI did not meet the TRIPS definition. What would this person need to do to rebut the presumption?
22. Question 32 concerned the issue of evidential burden. Was it the EC's intention to have the party opposing the GI bear a greater evidential burden than the party seeking to register the GI? As regarded question 34, could the EC clarify whether it was the intention of the co-sponsors of TN/C/W/52 to change established WTO jurisprudence as to the burden of proof?
23. Finally, question 9 on how GIs protected through tradition or by convention would be treated under the EC's ideas was of particular interest to Canada and other common law countries.
