Canada’s Arguments Clause Samples
The "Canada’s Arguments" clause outlines the specific legal or factual positions that Canada presents in a dispute or negotiation. This section typically details the reasoning, evidence, and precedents that Canada relies on to support its case, and may address points raised by the opposing party. By clearly stating Canada’s stance, this clause ensures that all parties understand the basis of Canada’s claims or defenses, promoting transparency and facilitating a focused resolution of the issues at hand.
Canada’s Arguments. Canada argues that the term “TRQ quantities” in Article 2.29(1) means the specified amount allocated or granted to individual importers, not the full amount of the TRQ.81 Therefore, Article 2.29
Canada’s Arguments. Canada’s principal objection to New Zealand’s interpretation lies with the phrase “an allocation” and with the interpretation of both words within that phrase. For Canada, the word “allocation” means a share of a TRQ that may be “granted to an individual applicant” that “provides the recipient certain rights, including the right to import [a] specified amount at the TRQ’s preferential rate.”52 According to Canada, the term “allocation” does not simply refer to a “portion” or volume of the TRQ and the “size of an allocation is indeterminate and irrelevant for the meaning of the term as used in Section D.”53 For Canada, this means that the Processor Clause does not concern the size of allocations or the proportionate amounts allocated to processors and non-processors, individually or as a group.54 According to Canada, “allocation” cannot have the broader meaning suggested by New Zealand of “a portion of the TRQ that may be granted to applicants (plural)–such as a processor pool.”55 For Canada, the distinction between an “allocation” and a “pool” turns on an “allocation” to a single applicant granting the right to import goods subject to the TRQ versus the reservation resulting from the pooling system, which creates an initially reserved volume of TRQ for a group of potential applicants, but does not grant anyone the right to import goods subject to the TRQ.56
Canada’s Arguments. For Canada, the important interpretative element is what is meant by the phrase “fulfils the importing Party’s eligibility requirements” in Article 2.30(1)(a). Canada notes that Article 2.30
Canada’s Arguments. Canada argues that New Zealand’s claims fall outside the scope of Article 2.29(2)(a) altogether. According to Canada, Article 2.29(2)(a) is applicable only to product-focused conditions, limits, and eligibility requirements and only those that relate to the actual use of a TRQ when importing a good. 168. Canada explains the term “utilisation of a TRQ for the importation of a good” does not include the allocation phase of TRQ administration because the word “utilisation” in this context emphasizes the actual use of the TRQ for the importation of a good.123 169. This interpretation of the scope of Article 2.29(2)(a) is supported by the items in the illustrative list it provides (specification or grade, end use, package size), which are all product focused. Furthermore, because Canada’s pooling system in its Notices to Importers are entirely directed at who is eligible to apply for a quota and not any product-focused requirements, the pooling system falls outside the scope of 2.29(2)(a).