WT/REG389/2  
 
6 June 2018  
(18-3464) Page: 1/26 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English/Spanish  
 
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOM IC AND TRADE AGREEME NT BETWEEN CANADA AN D 
THE EUROPEAN  UNION (GOODS AND SER VICES)  
QUESTIONS AND REPLIE S 
 The following communication, dated 5 June 2018, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of  Canada and the European Union . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Questions from the delegation of Australia  
 
Duty -drawback  
  
1.1.  What was the rationale for the Parties  not allowing duty drawback for products 
claiming preferential treatment under the agreement?  Why is the use of duty drawback 
permit ted for the first three years of the Agreement?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The P arties agreed to prohibit the use of duty  drawback on trade between the Parties  
claiming the CETA preferential tariff so as to focus the tariff preferences of the CETA on the 
Parties ; otherwise a resulting good of the other party could benefit from duty drawback and have 
an advantage over domestic producers that must pay a duty on that same input from a third 
party.  The prohibition does not take effect for three years so as to afford a transition period to 
producers that are currently using drawback. The prohibition only applies to product claiming 
preferential treatment under the agreement as otherwise, it would affect MFN trade between the 
Parties .  
 
1.2.  Why did Canada allocate 80 0 tonnes of its WTO Tariff Rate Quota for cheese to the 
EU under the Agreement?  
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 The transfer of 800,000 kilograms of Canada 's 20,411,866 kilograms WTO TRQ for cheese to 
the European Union was done to maintain the re lative shares of supply due to EU Member State 
expansions in accordance with Article XIII:2.  
Export Subsidies  
 
1.3.  Australia opposes export subsidies, and played a leading role in the WTO Ministerial 
Conference decision in December 2015 to remove all agricultural export subsidies. 
Consistent with this approach, Australian FTA Goods Chapters include commitments 
banning export subsidies. We note that CETA includes a separate Chapter on subsidies.   
 We would be interested in further information on what subsidies are in place under 
CETA, what is Canada's approach to subsidies in future FTAs and how this approach is 
consiste nt with commitments to multilateral trade liberalization?   
 
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Response from the delegation of Canada  
In CETA , Canada and the European Union committed to work jointly to enhance multilateral 
disciplines on subsidies. This approach will support multilateral trade liberalisation and achieving 
an effective outcome on enhancing certain subsidies disciplines at the WT O.  
 Under Article 7.5 of CETA, no Party shall use an export subsidy on an agricultural product 
that has undergone full tariff elimination (close to 94% of EU agricultural tariff lines and 92% of 
Canadian agriculture tariff lines are now duty free since pr ovisional application). In addition, in 
accordance with the 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, Canada will eliminate 
the use of its agricultural export subsidies by the end 2020.  
 
Government Procurement  
 
1.4.  Paragraph 5.34 of the factual  presentation indicates:  Both Parties' commitments 
under the Agreement build upon those they have under the 1994 Government 
Procurement Agreement (GPA) negotiated under the auspices of the GATT/WTO and the 
revised GPA, to which both Parties are party. Whil e the corresponding thresholds are 
kept unchanged, as compared to their commitments under the revised GPA, the 
applicability of the procurement commitments at central and sub -central governmental 
level and with respect to other entities is expanded under t he Agreement. For Canada, 
with the expansion of government procurement commitments to new central 
government entities; to other entities (such as Crown Corporations); and to more 
entities at the sub -central government entities.  
 Does the EU's commitments u nder CETA built upon its GPA commitments?  
 
Response from the European Union  
 
 The EU confirms that its commitments under CETA built upon its GPA ones.  
 
Services  
 
1.5.  In relation to the Joint Interpretative Instrument to CETA, what was the basis of 
using a separate instrument as an aid to interpretation?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The Joint Interpretative Instrument provides a clear and unambiguous statement of what 
Canada and the EU and its Member States have agreed to in a number of CETA provisions that 
have been subject to public debate and concerns and provides and agreed interpretation thereof. 
This includes CETA 's preservation of the ability of governments to regulate in the public interest, 
as well as the provisions on investment protection and disput e resolution, and on sustainable 
development, labour rights and environmental protection.  
 
1.6.  The CETA uses a "negative list " approach for scheduling cross -border trade in 
services and investment.  However, Annex 9 -B (Understanding on New Services Not 
Classified in the United Nations Provisional Central Product Classification (CPC), 1991) 
provides that "Articles 9.3, 9.5, and 9.6  do not apply to a measure relating to a new 
service that cannot be classified in the CPC 1991 ". In the future, with the potential 
creation of new services not yet envisaged, and noting that CPC classifications are 
subject to formal updates, is it expected  that Parties  will increasingly seek to utilise 
paragraph 3 of Annex 9 -B to incorporate new services?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The EU and Canada are not currently planning to make use of paragraph 3 of the 
Understanding in relation to any specific servi ces at this stage. Future developments in the 
services sectors will define the extent to which the paragraph may be used.  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Question s from the delegation of Brazil  
 
1.7.  Could the Parties explain what they mean by "expressly conditioned" in 
Article  2.5.2? Do the y refer to the text of national legislation that authorizes the tariff 
reduction, suspension or remission? Will the tariff reduction, suspension or remission be 
allowed if the national legislation only implicitly conditions such reduction, suspension 
or re mission on the exportation of a good?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The CETA contains a restriction on programs that provide duty drawback, duty deferral or 
duty suspension.  Article 2.5.2 states that the prohibition of such programs only applies where the 
duty is "expressly conditioned " on the exportation of a good.  What matters is not where an 
express condition of exportation exists – it could be in the body of law of a count ry (e.g., a 
statute, a regulation) or in administrative policies – but whether the drawback, deferral or 
suspension is conditioned on exportation.  Thus, if the drawback, deferral or suspension is available 
for a good, or an identical, equivalent or similar  substitute, that is used as material in producing 
another good and that resulting good is never exported – that is, relief granted on an exported 
good would have been equally available had the  good never been exported –the restriction of 
Article 2.5 does not apply.   
1.8.  Articles 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the TBT Agreement have been incorporated into CETA 
and can thus be invoked by the RTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism. However, according 
to Article 4.1.5, it may be understood that the Parties are exempted to ensure t hat all 
necessary measures are taken in order to give effect to the provisions of those 
incorporated Articles, including their observance at all levels of government. Could the 
Parties explain what do they mean with Article 4.1.5?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The extent of obligations of the Parties provision as set out in Article 1.8 of the CETA 
requires the Parties to ensure that they take all necessary measures to give effect to the 
provisions of the CETA including that the CETA provisions are observed by  all levels of government 
within the territory of the Party.  Article 1.8, by virtue of Article 4.1.5, does not apply to the Articles 
3,4,7,8 and 9 of the TBT Agreement that are incorporated into the CETA. Therefore, the Parties 
are not required to take nec essary measures to give effect to the incorporated articles to all levels 
of government within the territory of the Parties.  However, the Parties are still responsible for any 
violation of Articles 3,4,7,8 and 9 due to the actions of local governmental bodies or non -
governmental bodies. Further, Article 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 8.1 of the TBT Agreement still require the 
CETA Parties to ta ke reasonable measures to ensure compliance by local government and non -
governmental bodies.    
 
1.9.  What do the Parties mean by the provision in Article 4.2.3 that the results achieved 
under the RTA Dispute Mechanism shall "be equivalent to those as if the bod y in 
question were a Party"?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Article 4.2.3 of the TBT Chapter is based on Article 14.4 of the TBT Agreement. Local 
government and non -governmental bodies may adopt and maintain technical regulations, 
standards, and conformity as sessment procedures. For that reason, Article 4.2.3 of the TBT 
Chapter and Article 14.4 of the TBT Agreement provide that dispute settlement provisions are 
applicable where a Party considers that the other Party has not achieved satisfactory results under 
these Articles and its trade interests are significantly affected. The term "body" in the phrase "be 
equivalent to those as if the body in question were a Party" refers to a local government and non -
governmental body. The phrase "be equivalent to those as if the body in question were a Party " 
means that in determining whether a Party has achieved satisfactory results or not,  the results of 
the local government and non -governmental bodies can be viewed as being the results of a Party.  
1.10.   Related to the Protocol  on Mutual Acceptance of the Results of Conformity 
Assessment, could the Parties clarify why they have expressively excluded agricultural 
goods from its scope?  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Response from the Parties  
 
 The Protocol relates to Conformity Assessment that is only relevant for industrial products. It 
is the result of the negotiations where both Parties agreed to exclude agricultural goods. See 
Annex 1 (Product coverage) for the list of goods that are covered .  
 
1.11.   Why have the Parties chosen to "affirm their rights and obligations under the SPS 
Agreement" and not to incorporate SPS provisions? Does this mean the SPS cannot be 
invoked by the RTA Dispute Mechanism? Have the Parties foreseen any specific 
challenge in incorporating the WTO SPS Agreement?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The Parties have chosen to focus the SPS Chapter, which is subject to the CETA dispute 
settlement provisions, on a number of specific elements, while also affirming their rights and 
obliga tions under the SPS Agreement. Violations of the WTO SPS agreement provisions are not 
subject to the dispute settlement mechanism under the CETA.   
 
1.12.   Could the Parties explain why does the definition of net weight of the product, in 
Article 1 of the Protocol  on rules of origin (Section A), singularize "heating or drying"  
operations and mention the exclusion of "water of heading 22.01 added"?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The production process of certain goods, notably processed agricultural goods, may include 
a heating or drying operation that would reduce the weight ratio of any liquid or moisture -
containing ingredients in the final product compared to that of any dry ingredients. In these 
circumstances, the net weight of a product may be calculated as the wei ght of all materials used in 
production, excluding added water of heading 22.01. This method takes into account the weight of 
individual ingredients used in a production process as opposed to relying solely on the final weight 
of the product, minus packagi ng.  
 
1.13.   Also related to Article 6 of the Protocol on rules of origin (Section A), could the 
Parties clarify why they provided for the use of the tolerance rule for the sum of 
materials that, according to the product -specific rules of origin (PSR), should be wholly 
obtained? Could  not this be seen as a way of circumventing PSR rules for some 
products?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Some products are made using very small amounts of non -originating materials that are 
excluded under the PSR that applies to them. To  prevent a very small amount of non -originating 
materials from blocking a product from obtaining originating status, the CETA Article on Tolerance 
also applies to goods that are wholly obtained which is a very high production threshold to meet. 
The Parties  do not view the minimal use of non -originating materials to be a circumvention of the 
PSRs. This tolerance rule applies only to processed products for which the rule of origin requires 
that some of its materials are wholly obtained (e.g. in case of prepar ation of meat in Chapter 16). 
It does not apply to basic products as a unit of qualification need to be wholly obtained.  
 
1.14.   Could the Parties explain the rationale behind Article 16 of the Protocol on rules of 
origin (Section A) and the reason for dedicatin g an entire Article for sugar?  
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 Article 16 (Sugar) establishes the parameters for the calculation of the net weight of any 
non-originating sugar used in the production of a good. There are numerous product -specific r ules 
of origin in Annex 5 that contain specified maximum thresholds, typically in the form of net weight, 
for non -originating sugar that can be used in the production of an originating good. An exporter 
may calculate the net weight of non -originating sugar  used in production by either:  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1. using the total net weight of all mono -saccharides and di -saccharides contained in a 
good or in the materials used in production; or  
2. using the net weight of non -originating sugar classified in headings 17.01 and 17.02 
(with certain exceptions) or specific non -originating sugar -containing materials that 
are used as such in the production of a good.  
1.15.   Paragraph 3.7. Please clarify the meaning of the restriction contained in 
Article  2.5 of the Agreement, taking into account  that it "does not apply to a Party 's 
regime of tariff reduction, suspension or remission if the restriction, suspension or 
remission is not expressly conditioned on the exportation of a good."  
Response from the Parties  
 
 See response to Question 1. 7.  
 
1.16.   Paragraph 3.9. Please provide information with regard to the application of 
"temporary suspension of preferential tariff treatment" under Article 2.8 of the 
Agreement. In particular, what do the Parties agree to consider to be "systematic 
breaches of customs  legislation"?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Article 2.8 allows an importing Party to suspend preferential tariff treatment for a good if an 
exporter is found to have systematically committed breaches of legislation in order to falsely 
obtain the benefit of the CETA preferential tariff for that good.  It also allows suspension of 
preferential tariff treatment if a party has systematically and unjustifiably refused to cooperate 
with investigations into breaches of customs legislation when objective, compelling and verifiable 
information provides reasonable grounds to conclude the exporter has committed systematic 
breaches of legislation in order to falsely obtain the benefit for the CETA preferential tariff for that 
good, provided certain conditions are met. Bef ore preferential tariff treatment is suspended, 
Parties are first required to hold consultations to ensure that this provision is not used as a 
disguised barrier to trade.  
 
1.17.   Paragraph 3.15. Please explain in further detail how category "S" works in terms 
of tariff staging and the rationale behind it.  
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 Originating goods in staging category "S" – which is the tariff commitment of Canada for two 
refined sugar tariff lines – have a back -end loaded tariff phase -out. The MFN tariff that is in 
indicated in the tariff schedule as the base rate – C$30.86/tonne – is the CETA preferential rate for 
originating goods of these tariff lines for the first five years that the CETA is in effect or from the 
date on which the tariff  commitments are provisionally applied.  On the day that is the fifth 
anniversary of the CETA coming into effect/being provisionally applied, the tariffs on these 
originating goods are removed through three equal reductions, beginning on that day.  The 
following two reductions of the CETA preferential tariff occur on each subsequent January 1.  Given 
that the CETA – including tariff commitments – was provisionally applied as of 21 September 
2017, the tariff phase -out will be as follows:  
Date  CETA preferential tariff for originating goods of staging category "S" 
before 21 Sept 2017  MFN tariff applies (C$30.86/tonne)  
as of 21 Sept 2017  CETA preferential tariff created at C$30.86/tonne  
as of 21 Sept 2022  CETA preferential tariff reduced to two -thirds of the base rate (to 
C$20.57/tonne)  
as of 1 January 2023  CETA preferential tariff reduced to one -third of the base rate (to 
C$10.28/tonne)  
as of 1 January 2024  CETA preferential tariff reduced to a rate of Free  
 
1.18.   Paragraph 3.28. Please clarify the methodology used to determine the conversion 
factors agreed for the conversion of Product Weight to Carcass Weight Equivalent for 
meat products. What standards or calculations are they based on?  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Response from the Parties  
 
 The conversion coefficients laid down in the EU -Canada Comprehensive and Economic 
Agreement (CETA) have been agreed in the framework of the negotiations between the EU and 
Canada. They are the result of technical discussions and information provi ded by the meat sector 
on estimated average yields: live to carcass weight, carcass weight to product weight, etc.  
 
1.19.   Paragraph 3.34. How does the " de minimis " tolerance apply to wholly obtained 
products? Please specify with relation to the following cases: products within the 
meaning of Article 4; products agreed as wholly obtained in Annex 5 (Product - Specific 
Rules - PSR) to the Protocol on Rules of Origin; and materials/inputs required to be 
wholly obtained in product - specific rules of Annex 5 where the product PSR has 
different input requirements (e.g. a sugar threshold combined with wholly obtained milk 
for a final product of Chapter 4).  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Article 6 (Tolerance) does not apply to wholly obtained products when a producer is claim ing 
preference under Article 4. Article 6 (Tolerance) does apply to products when a producer is 
claiming preference under the PSRs found in Annex 5, even if the PSR includes a wholly obtained 
requirement for one of the inputs, which is a very high producti on threshold to meet. The Parties 
do not view the minimal use of non -originating materials to be a circumvention of the PSRs.  This 
tolerance rule applies only to processed products for which the rule of origin requires that some of 
its materials are wholly  obtained (e.g. in case of preparation of meat in Chapter 16). It does not 
apply to basic products as a unit of qualification need to be wholly obtained.  
 
1.20.   Paragraph 3.37. How do the Parties envisage the implementation of the 
accumulation of origin provisions, in particular with regard to accumulation with third 
Parties ? In this case, what is meant by "equivalent provisions in force between each 
Party and the  third -party"? Do these "equivalent provisions" relate only to rules of 
origin procedures, or also to product -specific rules and/or tariff schedules?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The cumulation of origin with third parties would act as an expansion of the F TA territory for 
the purposes of sourcing and accumulating materials. In order to take effect, each CETA Party 
would have to have equivalent provisions in their bilateral FTAs that would enable them to 
consider expanded cumulation. Prior to this accumulati on entering into force, the CETA Parties and 
the third Party would need to reach agreement on the applicable conditions under which the 
accumulation would have effect. These rules of origin, product -specific rules of origin and tariff 
schedules do not need  to be equivalent in order for paragraphs 8 through 10 of Article 3 
(Cumulation of Origin) to enter into force.  
 
Provisions on Tra de in Services and Investments  
1.21.   Please specify reservations, should any exist, for existing measures and 
liberalization commitm ents, on both Sides, with regards to fisheries and maritime 
transport.  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Canada 's services and investment reservations for existing non -conforming measures 
related to maritime transport and fisheries are listed below. Note that CE TA is scheduled on a 
negative -list basis and therefore does contain sectoral "liberalization commitments ".  
 
Maritime Transport  
Reservation I -C-23 
Reservation I -C-24 
Reservation I -C-25 
Reservation I -C-26 
Reservation I -PT-147 
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Fisheries  
Reservation I -PT-28 
Reservation I -PT-29 
Reservation I -PT-43 
Reservation I -PT-51 
Reservation I -PT-66 
Reservation I -PT-91 
Reservation I -PT-133 
Reservation I -PT-139 
Reservation I -PT-161 
 
 Details of each of the above reservations can be found at the following links:  
Federal Anne x I: 
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade -commerce/trade -agreements -accords -commerciaux/agr -
acc/ceta -aecg/tex t-texte/A1 -F.aspx?lang=eng  
 
Provincial/Territorial Annex I : 
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade -commerce/trade -agreements -accords -commerciaux/agr -
acc/ceta -aecg/text -texte/A1 -PT.aspx?lang=eng  
 
For the EU, the general obligations relating to international maritime transport is found in 
Chapter 14 of the FTA, in part icular Article 14.3.  See http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in -
focus/ceta/ceta -chapter -by-chapter/ ) 
 With the respect registration of maritime vessels and vessels used fo r fishing and other 
purposes, the reservations are specified for each Member State of the European Union in the so -
called Annex I.  (See http://data.consilium.europa.eu /doc/document/ST -10973 -2016-ADD-
11/en/pdf ) 
 With respect to fisheries an EU -wide reservations sets out the general conditions and is 
complemented by specific reservations found under some Member States. These are found in the 
so-called Annex II.  (See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST -10973 -2016-ADD-
14/en/pdf ) 
1.22.   Paragraph 5.27. Please explain the objective of Annex 30 -D and which countries 
currently fall into  the category subject to that Annex.  
Response from the Parties  
 
 "The objective of Annex 30 -D is that Canada endeavours to start to negotiate a bilateral 
agreement of the type described in paragraph 2 with countries that fall within the scope of the 
Annex to ensure that the trade regime of these countries is aligned with the trade regime of the 
EU. The only country that currently falls into the category subject to Annex 30 -D is Turkey. " 
 
Questions from the delegation of Chile  
 
1.23.   Paragraph 4.3 indicates that c hapter 9, which applies to measures adopted or 
maintained by a Party affecting cross -border trade in services, does not apply to 
measures affecting "audiovisual services " for EU and "cultural industries " for Canada.  
 Chile would be thankful if each country would further explain these concepts, 
"audiovisual services" by EU and "cultural industries" for Canada.  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 In consideration of the rapidly -changing nature of the audiovisual sector, the EU does not 
include a closed defini tion of "audiovisual services" in its trade negotiations.  
 The following definition is taken from CETA Chapter one: General definitions and initial 
provisions:  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 8 - 
 
   Cultural industries  means persons engaged in:  
1. the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers in print 
or machine -readable form, except when printing or typesetting any of the foregoing is the 
only activity;  
2. the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video recordings;  
3. the production, distributio n, sale or exhibition of audio or video music recordings;  
4. the publication, distribution or sale of music in print or machine -readable form; or  
5. radio-communications in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the 
general public, and all radio, television and cable broadcasting undertakings and all 
satellite programming and broadcast network services;  
1.24.   Paragraph 4.12 expresses that national treatment and MFN clauses contained in 
Chapter 9.3 and 9.5 respectively do not apply to measures rela ting to a new service that 
cannot be classified in the C PC 1991.  
Chile would be thankful if the EU and Canada would clarify if they have considered 
some mechanism regarding the appearance of new services and the treatment they 
would receive.  
 
Response from  the Parties  
 
 Paragraph 1 of Annex 9 -B states that, inter alia , Article 9.5 (Cross -Border Trade in Services 
– Most Favoured Nation Treatment) shall not apply to a measure relating to a new service that 
cannot be classified in the CPC 1991.  
 
 The Annex fur ther states that, to the extent possible, each Party shall notify the other Party 
prior to adopting such an inconsistent measure as permitted by paragraph 1 and that, at the 
request of a Party, the Parties shall enter into negotiations to incorporate the n ew service into the 
scope of CETA.  
 
 Importantly, the Annex clarifies that paragraph  1 does not apply to an existing service that 
could be classified in the CPC  1991, but that could not previously be supplied on a cross -border 
basis due to lack of technica l feasibility.  
 
1.25.   Paragraph 4.24 expresses that the rules governing temporary stay of natural 
persons for business purposes are contained in Chapter 10.  
Chile would be thankful if both the EU and Canada would give more detail about 
the treatment for family and spouse travelling with business persons under the different 
categories defined in the Chapter.  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 The only category under the CETA that provides treatment for spouses is for ICTs. 
Annex  10-F, the Understanding on Spouses of In tra-corporate Transferees, extends to spouses of 
Canadian ICTs the right of temporary entry and stay equivalent to that granted to spouses of ICTs 
under the EU ICT Directive. Canada grants treatment to spouses of EU ICTs equivalent to the 
treatment of Cana dian ICT spouses in the Member State of origin of the EU ICT. For all other 
categories under the CETA TE Chapter, no treatment is extended, and the domestic regime applies 
for entry of spouses and family.   
 
1.26.   Paragraph 4.30 indicates that Canada may take fut ure non -conforming measures 
under the Agreement in favour of aboriginal groups . 
Chile would be thankful if Canada would further explain what kind of future 
measures may be included in this non -conforming measure, and to provide examples for 
better understa nding this provision.  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
In its Federal reservation II -C-1, Canada reserves the right to adopt or maintain a measure 
denying investors of the European Union and their investments, or service suppliers of the 
European Union, rights or preferences provided to aboriginal peoples.  
 
 Through this reservation, Canada preserves policy flexibility to deny EU investors and 
service providers any rights or preferences provided to aboriginal peoples. This reservation is 
taken by Canada in all its Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements and 
investment chapters of Free Trade Agreements in order to afford Canada the flexibility to adopt 
measures aimed at addressing social and economic disadvantages faced by aboriginal peoples, 
without being required to extend these preferences to foreign services suppliers or investors. 
These measures follow from principles that are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, Laws and 
Regulations.  
 
1.27.   Paragraph 4.31 indicates that horizontal l imitations cover the acquisition of 
control of a Canadian business by a non -Canadian.  
Chile would thank Canada to provide more detail for this limitation and its 
application in the internal legislation.  
 
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 The legisla tion that covers horizontal limitations regarding the acquisition of control of a 
Canadian business by a non -Canadian is the Investment Canada Act.  We offer a great deal of 
information about the Act here:  
 
 https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ica -lic.nsf/eng/home  
 
 In Canada 's GATS schedule of commitments there is a reference to a list of factors to be 
considered by the responsible Minister when determining whether an investment will likely be of 
net benefit and therefore approved.  This list of factors matches section 20 of the Investment 
Canada Act.  
 
1.28.   Paragraph 4.56 refers to reservations of rights for some EU member States, to 
take non -conforming measures in activities with respect to soil managem ent. 
 Chile would thank the EU to provide more detail regarding the soil management 
activities, and if they may affect agricultural related businesses.  
 
Response from the delegation of the European Union  
 
 The measure is listed under environmental services  for one Member States of the EU. It 
deals with soil treatment, including also ecological system protection services, e.g. of lakes, 
coastlines and coastal waters, dryland, etc. In some cases, such services will be performed in an 
agricultural context.  
 
1.29.   Paragraph 4.74 regarding resolution of investment disputes between investors 
and States, speaks about the investment court system (ICS) established by the 
Agreement.  
 Chile would thank Canada and the EU to provide more detail regarding the 
implementation of the ICS, and its implementation once the Agreement entered into 
force.  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 The Parties are committed to work expeditiously on the implementation of the CETA  
provisions on the resolution of investment disputes between investors and states, pursuant to 
Section F of Chapter 8 of the Agreement (the so -called "Investment Court System" (ICS)).  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 10 - 
 
   In line with Council Decision (EU) 2017/38 of 28 October  2016 (OJ L 11 , 14.1.2017, 
p. 1080), the ICS is one of the areas that are not provisionally applied and that will only become 
operational after the completion of the national approval procedures in the Member States of the 
European Union.  
 
 The European Union and Canada  are in the process of working on the implementation of the 
ICS. The aim of the Parties is to conclude the implementation of the  ICS by the entry into force 
of CETA.  
 
Question from the delegation of China  
 
1.30.   Could the Parties  kindly confirm is there any FTA between the United Kingdom  and 
Canada after BREXIT? If yes, w hat are the possible  differences between the 
United  Kingdom's schedule of manufacturing  goods and that of the European  Union ? Is 
it possible to cause substantial impairment of the interests that Canada  derives under 
the Agreement?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Upon withdrawal, the UK will no longer be covered by the EU's trade agreements such as 
CETA. However, the UK will be in a position to negotiate, conclude and a pply its own trade 
agreements with third countries. The EU will maintain the rights and obligations in relation to the 
agreement. Should there be a transition period as part of a withdrawal agreement to be agreed 
between the EU and the UK, the Union acquis  including EU trade agreements like CETA will apply 
to and in the UK. The UK will be bound by the obligations stemming from these trade agreements 
and in particular the UK will have to provide access to its market according to the conditions set 
out therei n for the duration of the transition period. At this stage of the negotiations on the UK's 
withdrawal from the EU, the EU and UK negotiators have agreed that the transition period should 
last until 31 December 2020.  
 
Question s from the delegation of Japan  
 
Provisions on trade in services and investment  
Movement of natural persons  
 
1.31.   Paragraph 4.25 : How do we interpret the relation between mode 4 services and 
Chapter 10? Do the schedules of reservation include reservations for mode 4 services?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Chapter 10 of CETA  incorporates rules affecting the movement and treatment of natural 
persons. Provisions such as national treatment and market access affecting the treatment of 
natural persons for business purposes present in the territory have been incorporated from 
Chapt er 9 and vary by category of business persons. Reservations taken by Parties affecting the 
treatment of natural persons have been listed in Annex I and II of the agreement whereas barriers 
affecting the entry of a natural person have been listed in Annex 1 0-B and 10 -E of the CETA.  
1.32.   According to the explanation provided, mode 4 services are covered in Chapter 10 
and the obligations in another Chapter (Cross -border trade in services) apply to mode 4 
services. Why did you decided to separate mode 4 services fro m the other mode? 
Is there any merit to do so?  
Response from the Parties  
  
Parties came to an agreement to cover all mode 4 related issues under Chapter 10. 
However, reservations affecting the treatment of natural persons for business purposes, once they 
have crossed the border, are covered separately from Chapter 10 in Annex I and II.   
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Liberalization commitments  
Sector specific commitments (of Canada ) 
 
1.33.   According to the description on commitments of Canada, Canada has improved the 
level of liberalization a nd has not scheduled MFN exemptions for rail and road transport 
services. Could you please explain your domestic regulation regarding these services 
mainly on foreign suppliers?  
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 With respect to road and rail transpo rt, Canada does not maintain any measures at the 
federal level that discriminate against foreign suppliers, except as set out in Reservation I -C-22 of 
CETA.  This reservation states that only persons of Canada using Canadian -registered and either 
Canadian -built or duty -paid trucks or buses, may provide truck or bus services between points in 
the territory of Canada.  
 
Sector specific commitments (of the EU ) 
 
1.34.   According to the Table 4.2 "EU: comparison between GATS and Agreement specific 
commitments ", professio nal services, financial services and transport services have 
been improved compared with GATS. Could you explain specifically the sub -sector and 
its measures which have been improved?  
Response from the delegation of the European Union  
 
 The improvements mentioned in the table cover both extension of scope and fewer or lighter 
limitations, including the following:  
 
Professional services  
 
 Legal services: broader scope of commitments. The scope of commitments are extended to 
cover most act ivities related to legal services, and not only advisory services on home country law 
and public international law.  
 
 Accounting, bookkeeping, auditing, architecture, engineering, integrated engineering 
services: Reduced number and/or level of restrictiveness of the specific limitations for individual 
Member States of the EU.  
 
 Financial Services - Insurance services, banking and other financial services: Reduced 
number and/or level of restrictiveness of the specific limitations for individual M ember States of 
the EU.  
 
Transport services  
 
 International maritime services: covered both for cross -border provision, and with 
requirements specified for establishment.  
 
Inland waterway services: Requirements for establishment specified.  
 
Air transport: Some auxiliary services such as ground handling committed.  
 
 Rail transport: EU regulations on establishment are specified.  
 
 Road transport, pipeline transport, and services auxiliary to all modes of transport: Reduced 
number and/or level of restrictiven ess of the specific limitations for individual Member States of 
the EU.  
 
 Other Transport services: EU regulation with specific requirements for combined transport is 
specified.  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Questions from the delegation of Mexico  
 
Provisions on trade and services and  investment : 
 
1.35.   According to paragraph 4.14 (page 30), "[…] in Annex 9 -A to the Agreement, the 
Parties clarify their mutual understanding of the application of the national treatment 
obligation to cross -border trade and services by a provincial or territoria l government in 
Canada,  or by a Government of or in a m ember State of the EU." What is the difference 
between the scope of this Annex and the article on national treatment in the chapter on 
cross -border trade in services . 
Response from the Parties  
 
 Within  the EU and within Canada, services may be supplied across internal borders, creating 
situations where internal legislation or agreements may result in positive discrimination being 
given to a cross -border service supplier from another subnational territor y. In the EU, this means 
that one EU Member State may grant better treatment to a cross -border supplier of a service from 
another Member State than it would to its own nationals, due to differences in their respective 
domestic legislation. Hence, for the E U, the Understanding on national treatment with respect to 
the cross -border supply of services clarifies how the national treatment obligation found in 
Article  9.3 applies to services suppliers from each Party, and makes it clear that foreign service 
suppl iers are entitled to receive the treatment granted to nationals. Similarly, for Canada, the 
Understanding confirms that Article 9.3 does not require the more favourable treatment deriving 
from the benefits of an internal agreement such as The Canadian Free  Trade Agreement  to be 
extended to foreign cross -border services suppliers.  
 
1.36.   Paragraph 4.25 (page 32) sets out the categories of business visitors contained in 
Chapter  10. Mexico would like to know if there has been any thought or any future plan 
to includ e the category of technicians and/or technical professionals . 
Response from the Parties  
 
 In accordance with footnotes 17 and 19 of the Temporary Entry chapter, CETA already 
includes commitments for engineering technologists and scientific technologists th at comply with 
the requirements of Annex 10 -C, and subject to the reservations in Annex 10 -E.  
 
1.37.   Paragraph 4.64 (page 43) states that "[…] in Annex 9 -B to the Agreement, the 
Parties agree that Chapter 12 (Domestic Regulation) does not apply to a measure 
relating to a new service that cannot be classified in the CPC 1991. " What treatment will 
be given to services that cannot be classified in the CPC 1991?  
Response from the Parties  
  
The Annex clarifies that Chapter 12 and several provisions of the CBTS Chapter, namely, 
Articles 9.3 (National treatment, 9.5 (MFN) and 9.6 (Market access) do not apply to these services. 
At this stage, neither the EU nor Canada foresee any future treatment for specific new services 
that would not comply with the treatment se t out in Chapter 12.  
 
1.38.   Paragraph 4.65 speaks of mutual recognition agreements. Mexico would like to 
know what professionals can conclude this type of agreement . 
Response from the Parties  
 
 Chapter 11 of CETA, on mutual recognition of professional qualificat ions, applies to 
professions which are regulated in each Party, including in all or some EU Member States and in all 
or some provinces and territories of Canada.  
 
1.39.   Paragraph 4.66 (page 43) mentions a Joint Committee on Mutual Recognition of 
Professional Qua lifications. Who participates in this committee and how often is it 
supposed to meet? . WT/REG389/2  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Response from the Parties  
 
 As set out in the Article 11.5 of CETA, the Joint Committee on mutual recognition of 
professional qualifications shall be composed of and co -chaired by representatives of Canada and 
the EU, which must be different from the relevant authorities or professional bodies who might be 
working on joint recommendations on proposed MRAs referred to in Article 11.3. The Committee is 
set to meet within on e year after the Agreement is entered into force, and thereafter as necessary 
or as decided.  
 
1.40.   Paragraph 4.77 states that "the […] Agreement establishes a Committee on 
Services and Investment […]". Mexico would like to know how this committee is 
composed a nd whether it can issue any kind of recommendation or amendment to the 
Chapter 8 provisions . 
Response from the Parties  
  
 The specialised committee, Committee on Services and Investment, is co -chaired by 
representatives of Canada and the EU. The Committee on Services and Investment shall report to 
the CETA Joint Committee on results and conclusions from each of its meetings a nd may make 
recommendations or amendments to Chapter 8 in accordance with Article 8.44.  
 
1.41.   According to paragraph 4.82 (page 46), "Chapter 13 also contains disciplines on 
transfer and processing of information (Article 13.15)." Could you please provide more 
detail on the scope of those disciplines . 
Response from the Parties  
 
 Article 13.15 solely relates to financial services and does thus not cover other sectors.  
 
1.42.   Regarding Part 4.5.6.3 on telecommunication services (page 47), Mexico would 
like to know if th ere are any provisions which grant different or special treatment to the 
dominant operator . 
Response from the Parties  
 
 The Provisions in Chapter 15 (Telecommunications) do not grant different or special 
treatment to the dominant operator beyond the extent  to which such special treatment is already 
present in the GATS reference paper on Telecommunications Services in relation to Major 
suppliers. In particular, articles in Chapter 15 on Competitive Safeguards on Major Suppliers, on 
Access to Essential Facili ties and on Interconnection guarantee that Major Suppliers are not 
allowed to use their dominant position to engage in anti -competitive practices in general, and 
specifically, that they do not harm potential competitors by way of denying them access to 
essential facilities or by way of denying them interconnection on reasonable terms and conditions.  
 
General Provisions of the Agreement : 
Intellectual property rights  
 
1.43.   Paragraph 5.42 (page 56): One of the exceptions to geographical indication 
protection provided in Article 20.21 consists in not preventing the use of the indication 
by any persons, including their successors and assignees, who made commercial use of 
those indications with regard to products in certain classes at least five years prior to 
the date of 18 October 2013. How are the users covered by this exception determined? 
Is there a list of users that meet this condition, or are they determined on a case by case 
basis when there are judicial proceedings ? 
Response from the Parties  
 
The users o f the exceptions foreseen in Article 20.21 of CETA would have the responsibility 
to demonstrate that they fall within the exceptions established under CETA.  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.44.   Paragraph 5.44 (page 56): With respect to sui generis protection for 
pharmaceuticals, the second s entence of paragraph 3(b) of Article 20.27 states that 
where a first marketing authorization is granted before the patent is granted, each Party 
will provide a period of at least 60  days from the grant of the patent to request a period 
of sui generis prote ction. What  sui generis protection do Canada and the European Union 
apply to products whose owner has obtained marketing authorization prior to the date 
on which the patent was granted? Does the protection mechanism differ depending on 
the time of first ma rketing authorization (prior to or following the grant of the patent) ? 
Response from the Parties  
  
 The European Union's mechanism of sui generis  protection for pharmaceuticals is a 
supplementary protection certificate. Pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, the 
application for this certificate shall be lodged within six months of the date on which the marketing 
authorisation was gra nted. Where the authorisation to place the product on the market is granted 
before the basic patent is granted, the application for a certificate shall be lodged within six 
months of the date on which the patent is granted. Consequently, the protection mec hanism does 
not differ depending on the time of the first marketing authorisation.  
 
 Canada 's mechanism of sui generis  protection, which is known as a certificate of 
supplementary protection (CSP), does not differ depending on whether the first marketing 
authorization was prior to or following the grant of the patent. Pursuant to subsection 106(3) of 
the Patent Act , an application for a CSP shall be filed before the end of the prescribed period (120 
days) that begins on the day on which the authorization fo r sale is issued, if the patent is granted 
on or before that day, or the day on which the patent is granted, if the patent is granted after the 
day on which the authorization for sale is issued.  
 
Labour, environment and sustainable development  
 
1.45.   Paragraph 5.68 (page 59): Article 24.4.4 states that the Parties acknowledge their 
right to use the general exceptions Article in relation to environmental measures. Does 
this paragraph entitle the Parties to justify a measure adopted under a multilateral 
agreement on the environment on the basis of the exceptions? Without this paragraph, 
would the Parties not have the right to justify such measures? Why does Chapter 23 
(Trade and Labour) not contain this recognition? What is the purpose of its inclusion ? 
Response fr om the Parties  
  
 The paragraph reconfirms the existing right of the Parties to use the general exception 
Article XX of GATT 1994 to justify a measure adopted under a multilateral environmental 
agreement on the basis of the exceptions of the Article XX of GATT. This right e xists regardless of 
the Article 24.4.4 of CETA. The exceptions of the Article XX of GATT are of particular relevance to 
the protection of the environment.  
 
1.46.   Paragraph 5.68 ( page 59): According to Article 24.6.1(a), persons residing or 
established in the te rritory of the Parties may submit cases of alleged violations of 
environmental law. Why is a person not residing in the territory of the Parties not given 
the possibility of submitting such cases? What legislation prevents this from happening? 
What documen tation has to be submitted as evidence that a person is residing or 
established in the territory of the Party in question ? 
Response from the Parties  
 
 While this commitment focuses on persons residing or established in the territory of the 
Parties, it does  not prevent a Party from considering allegations received from non -residents, as 
long as this is done in accordance with a party 's law.  
 
1.47.   Paragraph 5.44 (page 56): With respect to sui generis protection for 
pharmaceuticals, the second sentence of paragraph  3(b) of Article 20.27 states that 
where a first marketing authorization is granted before the patent is granted, each Party 
will provide a period of at least 60  days from the grant of the patent to request a period 
of sui generis protection. What  sui gene ris protection do Canada and the European Union WT/REG389/2  
 
- 15 - 
 
  apply to products whose owner has obtained marketing authorization prior to the date 
on which the patent was granted? Does the protection mechanism differ depending on 
the time of first marketing authorizatio n (prior to or following the grant of the patent) ? 
 Article 24.8 reconfirms the possibility – existing for the Part ies regardless of the 
Agreement  - of using the precautionary principle when introducing measures to address the threat 
of serious or irrevers ible damage to the environment where there is a lack of full scientific 
certainty. It reconfirms the possibility for a Party to defend itself in case it is challenged because it 
has taken measures based on the precautionary principle. The precautionary pri nciple is one of the 
basic principles related to sustainable development as introduced by the 1992 Rio Declaration and 
it is enshrined in the EU Treaties. It is also a principle that is reflected in Canadian environmental 
legislation.  
 
Question s from the d elegation of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu  
 
Market access  
Provisions on trade in services and investment  
Scope and definitions  
 
1.48.   Paragraph 4.2: Some sections of Chapter 8 do not apply to measures relating to 
activities carried out in the exercise of governmental authority and certain air services. 
In addition, certain sections of that chapter do not apply to measures with respect to  
(i) for the EU, audio -visual services and (ii) for Canada, cultural industries .  
 Paragraph 4.3: Chapter 9 does not apply to measures affecting (i) for the EU, 
audiovisual services; (ii) for Canada, cultural industries; (iii) financial services; and (iv) 
certain air services.  
 
Sector specific commitments  
 
Paragraph 4.33: Table 4.1 Canada: comparison between the GATS and Agreement 
specific commitments  
Sectors / Sub -sectors  GATS  Compared 
to GATS  FTA 
Trade in services  investment  
Existing 
Measures 
(Annex I)  Reserved 
sectors 
(Annex II)  Existing 
Measures 
(Annex I)  Reserved 
sectors 
(Annex II)  
10. Recreational and 
cultural and sporting 
services        
A. Entertainment 
services  --- New Full Full Full Full 
 
 Based on the factual presentation of CETA  between the EU and Canada 
(WT/REG389/1 ), Chapter 8 investment and Chapter 9 cross -border trade in services do 
not apply to measures with respect to for Canada, cultural industries.  However, in 
Table  4.1 Canada: comparison between the GATS and Agreement sp ecific commitments, 
the results show that Entertainment services a re not subject to limitations.  
 
 Please clarify whether there is any contradiction in the above statement.  
 
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 Entertainment services, as classified in  the W120, are disaggregated under CPC 9619.  This 
subclass of services covers forms of entertainment performed live, such as theatrical and musical 
performances. Live performances are not covered by Canada 's cultural exemption; therefore, there 
is no contradiction in Table 4.1. (Note that CPC 9619 does not include services related to any 
broadcast or transmission of a live performance.)  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Domestic regulation  
Provisions on trade in services and investment  
Regulatory provisions  
Recognition and temporary l icensing  
 
1.49.   Paragraph 4.66: The Agreement establishes a Joint Committee on Mutual 
Recognition of Professional Qualifications (the "MRA Committee"). The Parties agree to 
encourage their relevant authorities or professional bodies to develop and provide to th e 
MRA Committee joint recommendations on proposed MRAs. The MRA Committee shall 
then review the recommendation with a view to ensuring its consistency with the 
requirements of Chapter 11.  
 Who is the authority responsible for accrediting professional quali fications of art 
talents in the EU and Canada? How does the EU and Canada mutually authenticate art 
talents?  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 Chapter 11 of CETA, on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, applies to 
professions which are regulated in each Party, including in all or some Member States of the 
European Union and in all or some provinces and territories of Canada.  
 
 In the EU, it is the Member States of the European Union that have the responsibility for 
qualifications in the areas of a rt and culture, while in Canada, it is a shared responsibility of federal 
and provincial/territorial governments. CETA does not directly address or foresee any mutual 
recognition in relation to art talents.   
 
Sui generis  protection for pharmaceuticals  
 
1.50.   Page 162, Article 20.27 (5) : Each Party shall provide that the period of sui generis 
protection be for a period equal to the period which elapsed between the date on which 
the application for the basic patent was filed and the date of the first marketing 
authorisation, reduced by a period of five years.  
Article 20.27 (6) Notwithstanding paragraph 5 and without prejudice to a possible 
extension of the period of sui generis  protection by a Party as an incentive or a reward 
for research in certain target popu lations, such as ch ildren, the duration of the 
sui generis  protection may not exceed a period of two to five years, to be established by 
each Party.  
 
 According to Article 20.27 (5), the period of sui generis  protection is equal to a 
period of up to five y ears from the date of filing the application for the basic patent to 
the date of the first marketing authorisation. However, according to Article 20.27 (6), 
the duration of the sui generis  protection may not exceed a period of two to five years. 
What is th e purpose of instituting the two -year lower limit for sui generis  protection?  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 Article 20.27(6) provides for a minimum and a maximum period of sui generis  protection to 
reflect (i) Canada 's approach to establishing a new regime of Certificates of Supplementary 
Protection (CSPs), which is capped at two years, and, at the same time, (ii) the EU's regime of 
Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) which provides for a maximum additional five years 
of protection, as well as a pos sible extension as an incentive or a reward for research in certain 
target populations, such as children.  
 
1.51.   Page 162, Article 20.27 (9): Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 through 8, each Party 
may also limit the scope of the protection by providing exceptions fo r the making, using, 
offering for sale, selling or importing of products for the purpose of export during the 
period of protection.  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 17 - 
 
   What is the purpose of Article 20.27 (9)? Under what circumstances might 
pharmaceutical products be provided exceptions? An d what are the specific criteria for 
providing exceptions to making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing of products 
for the purpose of export during the period of protection? Does this article run counter 
to the purpose of patent protection?  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 Article 20.27(9) allows Parties to tailor the scope of additional protection to reflect the 
nature of any losses suffered as a result of delays in obtaining marketing authorization.  
 
 In Canada, a delay in marketing authorization can delay access to the Canadian market but 
does not delay access to export markets. As Canadian market authorization does not impact 
access to other markets, supplementary protection is not warranted and, thus , it is not an 
infringement of certificate of supplementary protection for any person to make, construct, use or 
sell the medicinal ingredient or combination of medicinal ingredients for the purpose of export from 
Canada. Provided an act falls within the s cope of the exception, there are no additional criteria that 
must be met. The EU is currently considering a similar exception.  
 
The Canadian certificate of supplementary protection and the EU supplementary protection 
certificate are not patent rights but rather a stand -alone sui generis protection that takes effect at 
the end of the lawful term of the patent and serves a separate p urpose than patent protection.  
 
Questions from the delegation of Switzerland  
 
Provisions on trade in goods  
Tariff rate quotas  
Paragraph 3.25. "…Canada's WTO TRQ commitments for cheese… " 
 
1.52.   Switzerland is concerned that the allocation of 800 tonnes of the WT O cheese 
tariff rate quota to the EU as agreed in the CETA reduces the quantity of market access 
available to non -EU WTO Members.  
a. How does Canada justify the consistency of this commitment with its GATT 
obligations?  
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 The transfer of 800,000 kilograms of Canada 's 20,411,866 kilograms WTO TRQ for cheese to 
the European Union was done to maintain the relative shares of supply due to EU expansions in 
accordance with Article XIII:2.  
b. Had Canada consulted the reallocation  with non -EU WTO  Members before 
concluding the CETA?  
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 The transfer of 800,000 kilograms of Canada 's 20,411,866 kilograms WTO TRQ for cheese to 
the European Union was not a reallocation of the quota. It was a transfe r of quota done to 
maintain the relative shares of supply due to new EU Member State accessions (13 new Member 
States since 2004). In accordance with Article XIII:2, Transfers of quota to maintain the relative 
shares for quota holders does not require cons ultations.  
Question s from the delegation of Trinidad and Tobago  
 
1.53.   Paragraph 1 - "This report, prepared for the consideration of the Comprehensive 
Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, has been 
drawn  up by the WTO  Secretariat  on its own responsibility  and in full consultation  with 
the Parties."  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 18 - 
 
   What are the implications for the Agreement after March 2019 when the 
United  Kingdom officially exits the European Union? i.e. Has there been discussions 
on a new trade agreement betwee n Canada and the UK?  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 Upon withdrawal, the UK will no longer be covered by the EU's trade agreements such as 
CETA. However, the UK will be in a position to negotiate, conclude and apply its own trade 
agreements with third countries. The EU will maintain the rights and obligations in relation to the 
agreement. Should there be a transition period as part of a withdrawa l agreement to be agreed 
between the EU and the UK, the Union acquis including EU trade agreements like CETA will apply 
to and in the UK. The UK will be bound by the obligations stemming from these trade agreements 
and in particular the UK will have to pro vide access to its market according to the conditions set 
out therein for the duration of the transition period. At this stage of the negotiations on the UK's 
withdrawal from the EU, the EU and UK negotiators have agreed that the transition period should 
last until 31 December 2020 .  
 
Liberalization  Schedule  
 
1.54.   Paragraph 3.18 - "Table 3.1 shows tariff elimination commitments by Canada 
under the Agreement. In 2017, 5,232 lines were duty free on an MFN basis, representing 
71.6% of Canada's  total  tariff,  corres ponding  to 75.8%  of its imports  from  the EU during  
2014 -2016. Immediately following the entry into force of the Agreement, an additional 
1,909 lines (26.1% of Canada's tariff) also became duty-free for imports from the EU. 
This resulted in 97.7% of Canada's tariff becoming duty free, corresponding to 90% of 
Canada's total imports from the EU during the period 2014 -2016. Further tariff lines will 
become duty free in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2024, which corresponds to Canada's full 
implementation of  its tariff elimination  programme.  106 tariff  lines  will remain  dutiable  
once  the Agreement is implemented, representing 1.5% of Canada's tariff and 
corresponding to negligible imports from the EU during 2014 -2016."  
 How  has Trade  in Goods  between  Canada  and the EU been  affected  since the  date 
of entry  into force?  i.e. Has it increased  or decreased?  Is the trade  balance positive or  
negative?  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 With only five full months under agreement it is far too early to draw any conclusive 
assessment of the results of the Agreement in terms of trade and investment flows.  
 
Dispute  Settlement  
 
1.55.   Paragraph 5.19 : "The Agreement provides that recourse to the dispute settlement 
provisions  of Chapter  29 is without  prejudice  to recourse  to dispute  settlement  at the WTO 
or under  another  agreement  to which  the Parties  are party. However,  when  a dispute has 
been initiated, either under the WTO Agreement, or under any other agreement to which 
the Parties are party,·or under the Agreement, the Party shall not bring a claim seeking 
redress for the breach of the substantially equivalent obligation under the other 
agreement, unless the forum selected fails for procedural or jurisdictional reasons to 
make findings (Article 29.3). Moreover, nothing in the Agreement shall preclude a Party 
from implementing the suspension of obligations authorized by the WTO Dispute  
Settlement Body, and a Party may not invoke the WTO Agreement to preclude the other 
Party from suspending obligations pursuant to this  Chapter."  
 Have  there  been  any disputes  to date regarding  failure  to implement  any agreed 
provisions within the  Agreement?  
 
Response from the Parties  
 
 The Parties confirm that there have been no disputes under CETA Chapter 29 to date.  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Question s from the delegation of the United States  
 
Provisions on trade in goods  
Regulatory provisions on trade in goods  
Standards  
Technical Barriers to Trade  
1.56.   Paragraph 3.57: We understand that the EU -Canada Comprehensive Economic and 
Trade Agreement (CETA ) has incorporated Articles 2 -9, Annex 1 and Annex 3 of the TBT 
Agreement and that Articles 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the TBT Agreement are subject to 
dispute settlement in the CETA.  
a. Please explain why you chose to subject these WTO TBT Articles to the dispute  
settlement procedures in the CETA.  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The WTO TBT Agreement articles (Articles 2 -9) that have been incorporated in CETA are 
those provisions that contain substantive obligations to be fulfilled by the Parties (WTO members) 
and An nexes 1 and 3 that contain qualifiers and are needed to allow for meaningful 
implementation of the WTO TBT Agreement. The dispute settlem ent provisions of CETA 
(Chapter  29) apply to any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of its provisions  
(unless otherwise provided in the Agreement); hence, they apply to Chapter 4 on technical 
barriers to trade, including the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement that have been incorporated 
into CETA under Art 4.2(1).  
 
b. Furthermore, if a Party chooses to purs ue dispute settlement under the CETA 
but is unhappy with the results, are they still able to pursue the concern under 
WTO dispute settlement?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 In accordance with CETA Article 29.3, a Party may not seek redress for the breach of a n 
obligation that is equivalent in substance in both fora.  
 
1.57.   Paragraph 3.59: Articles 4.4 and 4.6 outline the steps that the Parties will take to 
increase cooperation on technical regulations and transparency.  Much appears to be 
focused on the exchange of information between the Parties and between the 
standardization bodies in their respective territories.  
a. There appear to be no provisions in this chapter focused on standards. Why are 
there no provisions that facilitate the acceptance of standards develope d by 
standards developing organizations (SDOs) domiciled outside of Europe as a 
basis for establishing compliance with the essential requirements of EU 
technical regulations?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 CETA is a preferential bilateral agreement between E U and Canada. It was never the 
intention of the agreement to change either Party's domestic regulations as regards the application 
of national/domestic standards. Each party retains its own rules and accepts standards in line with 
those rules. Furthermore,  according to EU regulatory framework for industrial products, EU 
Harmonised Standards provide for the presumption on conformity, while manufacturers are free to 
use other standard to ensure conformity of their products with the technical regulations.  
 
b. The CETA makes no reference to international standards or the WTO TBT 
Committee Decision on Principles for the Development of International 
Standards, Guides and Recommendations with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and 
Annex 3  of the TBT Agreement. How will existin g international standards or 
international standards currently being developed by bodies outside the 
territories of the two Parties be considered as a means for demonstrating 
compliance with their respective technical regulations?  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Response from the Partie s 
 
 Both Parties  have a well -established practice of making best use of existing international 
standards in support of their technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures. EU 
standards are largely based on international standards, such as ISO and IEC.  
 
c. Has e ither Party requested, or does either party currently foresee requesting, 
that the other Party recognize one or more of its existing technical regulations 
as equivalent? If so, which technical regulations? If so, how would such an 
equivalence determination  be undertaken, and which authorities would be 
responsible for the approval or rejection of a written request made by the other 
Party?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The agreement foresees the possibility of recognition of equivalence of a technical 
regulation, however there is not yet a practical example.  
 
1.58.   Paragraph 3.64: We appreciate the information on the Protocol on the Mutual 
Acceptance of the Results of Conform ity Assessment. The following questions relate to 
the implementation of this Protocol:  
a. If under CETA Article 4.4, one Party recognizes the other Party's regulation as 
equivalent, does the Party still have to go through the recognition steps laid out 
in the conformity assessment protocol in order to have test results accepted?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 As already mentioned, we have no cases pending. In any case, in areas where either of the 
Parties requires assessment by a third -party conformity assessmen t body, the recognition of 
conformity assessment bodies as laid out in the protocol, would have to be followed.   
 
b. Are legislative changes required in order for either Party to implement this 
protocol?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 No legislative changes are  required in the EU or in Canada.  
 
c. If both Parties are capable of implementing such a complicated bilateral 
scheme, what is the rationale for not extending a similar approach of national 
treatment for conformity assessment and accreditation bodies on an M FN basis, 
or otherwise fostering greater reliance on existing international schemes 
referenced in Articles 12 and 15? Are there technical or legislative impediments 
that would prevent a national accreditation body established in the territory of 
an EU Memb er State from accrediting a third -party conformity assessment body 
established outside of the EU, whether in Canada or in the territory of another 
EU trading partner?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 CETA is a preferential bilateral agreement between EU and Can ada. CETA Protocol provides 
the possibility for CABs established in Canada to provide certificates for products' compliance with 
EU rules.  
 The CAB established in Canada will be able to do so only after:  
1. it has been accredited by an EU Member State nation al accreditation body (in the first 
phase) or by the competent accreditation body of Canada (in the second phase); and  
2. it has been designated by the responsible Canadian authority to the EU.  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 21 - 
 
   Similarly, a CAB established in the EU will only be able to certify to Canadian standards 
after:  
1. it has been accredited by the relevant Canadian national accreditation body (in the first 
phase) or by the competent accreditation body of the EU (in the second phase); and  
2. it has been designed by the responsible EU aut hority to Canada.  
 Precisely because of the complexity of the system set up by the CETA Protocol which is 
principally based on the fact that there are substantial similarities in the regulatory requirements 
and approach to regulation between the Parties in  sectors covered by the CETA Protocol, it is not 
possible to extend this approach on an MFN basis.  
 The EU accreditation system is based on the principle of non -competition between national 
accreditation bodies. For the purpose of implementation of EU harm onisation legislation, a national 
accreditation body of an EU Member State can accredit only conformity assessment bodies 
established in its territory. The only exceptions to this rule are the cases (1) where the Member 
State in which a conformity assessme nt body is established has decided not to establish a national 
accreditation body and has not had recourse to the national accreditation body of another Member 
State; (b) where the national accreditation bodies do not perform accreditation in respect of th e 
conformity assessment activities for which accreditation is sought; (c) where the national 
accreditation bodies have not successfully undergone peer evaluation under in respect of the 
conformity assessment activities for which accreditation is sought.  
d. Which authorities in each Party are responsible for the recognition of 
conformity assessment bodies as competent to test to technical regulatory 
requirements of the other Party? Are conformity assessment bodies able to 
apply directly for such recognition or  must they be put forward by a 
government authority?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 For the EU, the designating authority in an EU Member State is the responsible 
governmental body. It sends the designation to the Canadian authority and to the Commission 
who puts the information into Nando (New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations) 
Information System.  
 
 For Canada, the  designating authorities in Canada are the responsible governmental bodies 
and bodies to which the government of Canada assigned the responsibility of designating 
authority. Presently there are two designating authorities in Canada: ISED and Standards Council 
of Canada. The designation processes of ISED are well established. The designation processes of 
SCC are currently under developme nt. 
 
e. Which authorities in each Party are responsible for requesting that the other 
Party recognize the competence of an accreditation body in its territory?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The authority responsible for requesting the other Party to recognize the competence of an 
accreditation body in its territory will depend on the internal organisation in each Party. For the 
EU, the responsible authority would be the European Commission. For Canada, it would be the 
Global Affairs Canada. With regard to the p rocess for recognition of national accreditation bodies of 
the Parties  as competent to accredit in accordance with the other party rules the procedure is 
described in Article 12 of the CETA Protocol.   
 
f. Why is government oversight of conformity assessment bodies in the exporting 
country necessary for those bodies to test to the importing country's 
requirements?  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Response from the Parties  
 
 The Parties consider that in order to guarantee the necessary level of confidence in 
conformity certificates and an equi valent level of competence of conformity assessment bodies as 
well as quality in the performance of conformity assessment by the CABs, governmental 
assessment, notification and monitoring of CABs located in their territory is needed.  
 
g. Article 1: The Protocol's definition of "conformity assessment" is different than 
that in the WTO TBT Agreement. Please explain why a different definition was 
needed.  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The CETA Protocol has a different scope from the TBT agreeme nt; it deals with mutual 
acceptance of results of conformity assessment and does not include standards.  
 
h. Article 3.1 & 3.2: Please explain why the criteria under 3.2.a for the EU to 
recognize third -party conformity assessment bodies established in Canada 
includes provisions not found in the criteria included under 3.1.a for Canada to 
recognize the same bodies established in the EU.  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The articles reflect the difference in systems in the EU and Canada.   
 
1.59.   Article 3.3 states that "e ach Party shall maintain and publish a list of conformity 
assessment bodies which includes the scope for which each body is recognized."   
a. Where are these list s of recognized bodies published? If online, please provide 
the URL.  
Response from the Parties  
  
 For the EU, in the NANDO (New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations) 
Information System http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools -databases/nando/  
 
 Canada will also publish this information. The location of such a list is still under 
consideration but will be determined in advance of any EU CABs being recognised to test to 
Canadian standards under the terms of CETA.  
 
b. Please explain how the process of recognition of conformity assessment bodies 
works in practice. Does each country list the bodies that meet the criteria? Are 
accreditation bodies located in the territory of either Party currently 
undertaking the technical work of accrediting conformity as sessment bodies 
domiciled in the territory of the other Party to test to their technical regulatory 
requirements?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 There are currently no accreditation bodies located in the territory of either Party 
undertaking the technical wor k of accrediting conformity assessment bodies domiciled in the 
territory of the other Party to test their technical regulatory requirements.  
 
c. How many Canadian and EU bodies respectively have been recognized, and how 
long has the process has taken with re spect to each one?   
Response from the Parties  
 
 For the time being, the CABs that were already designated under the EU -Canada MRA 
(which was replaced by the CETA Protocol) were taken over and are already listed in NANDO  and 
on the website of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.   
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.60.   Article 5: Can affiliates or sub -contractors of conformity assessment bodies in 
Canada, designated to test to EU regulatory requirements pursuant to Article 5, and 
domiciled outs ide of Canada and the EU, also test to those requirements?  
Response from the Parties  
  
In both Parties, it is possible to include affiliates or sub -contractors, however they need to 
meet the requirements set for the designated conformity assessment body a nd the designated 
conformity assessment body shall keep the overall responsibility for the certificates issued.   
 
1.61.   Article 5.2 states that Canada may only designate CABs meeting requirements set 
out in Article R17 of Annex I to Decision 768/2008/EC and esta blished under Canadian 
law. What is the rationale behind preventing an accreditation body in Canada, 
recognized as competent to accredit conformity assessment bodies to test to EU 
regulatory requirements, from accrediting a conformity assessment body domic iled 
outside of Canada and the EU to test to those requirements?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Art R17 lists the requirements relating to notified bodies in the EU. CETA makes reference to 
this existing EU legislation. The legal supervision and responsibili ty by the governments are 
necessary and the notified bodies must therefore be located on the territory of the Party (in this 
case Canada).   
 
1.62.   Article 12 provides the provisions for recognition of accreditation bodies.  
a. How many, and which, accreditation bodies established in Canada and the EU 
have sought recognition as competent to accredit conformity assessment 
bodies established in Canada as, themselves, competent to assess conformity 
with the relevant technical regulations of the EU? How many, and whic h ones, 
have been recognized?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 This part of the agreement is still being implemented; so far no recognition of accreditation 
bodies has taken place.   
 
b. Do all Member State National Accreditation Bodies in the EU already meet the 
requirements enumerated in Article 12.2? Do all Canadian accreditation bodies?  
Response from the Parties  
  
 This part of the agreement is still being implemented; so far no recognition of accreditation 
bodies has taken place.   
 
c. Will an accreditation certifi cate issued by a single EU Member State National 
Accreditation Body suffice throughout the territory of the EU? Do conformity 
assessment bodies in Canada have the freedom to work with the National 
Accreditation Body of their choosing?  
Response from the Eu ropean Union  
 
 Yes, the accreditation certificate issued by an EU Member State's National Accreditation 
Body is recognized throughout the EU.  
 
 For purpose of implementation of CETA  Protocol i.e. accrediting conformity assessment 
bodies located in the territory of Canada to enable that they issue conformity assessment 
certificates for products to be placed on the EU market, Canadian conformity assessment may seek 
accreditation by an EU Member State national accreditation body (in the first phase) or by the 
Canadian accreditation body recognized by the EU for a specific scope (in the second phase).  
 WT/REG389/2  
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.63.   Article 12.2 lists the information the nominating Party should provide the other 
Party to recognize an accreditation body. The list includes, among other items, 
"evidence that its authority is derived from the government" and "whether it acts on a 
non-commercial and non -competitive basis." Please explain why it is important for the 
accredita tion bodies to derive their authority from the government, and be non -
commercial and non -competitive.  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Accreditation is the last level of public control in the European and Canadian conformity 
assessment system and it is designed  to ensure that conformity assessment bodies (e.g. 
laboratories, inspection or certification bodies) have the technical capacity to perform their duties.  
 
Provisions on trade in services and investment  
Liberalization commitments  
Canada  
Sector specific com mitments  
Health related and social services  
 
1.64.   In Annex 1 Non -Conforming Measures for Social Services (Reservation I -C-8), 
Canada has an entry for "Social Services" that appears to carve back private education 
services, in stating "This reservation…does not apply to the provision of private 
education services." The implication of this entry is that, in the absence of a carve -back, 
private education services would be considered to be "Social Services" by the Parties . If 
this is the case, then this raises questions about what else might be covered by a social 
services reservation.  
a. Are private health services social services? I s private health insurance a social 
service? What about private skills or vocational training services?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The ordinary meaning of a "social service " could include services that are provided for the 
benefit of society.  Whether or not a specific private health service, private health insurance 
service, or private skills or vocation training service falls within the ordinary meaning of a "social 
service " would have to be assessed on a case -by-case basis.  
 
b. Could Canada and the EU con firm their understanding of how broadly this 
reservation should be interpreted?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 The breadth of the reservation is understood in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its 
terms.  
 
Regulatory provisions  
Recognition and temporary licensing  
 
1.65.   Paragraph 4.66: We see there are provisions on Recognition in Article  11.4 aimed 
at encouraging the negotiation of mutual recognition agreements for services.  
a. Are there any professions or other sectors that the Parties  consider to be ripe 
for negotiation?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 Professional services such as accounting, architecture and engineering are considered the 
most promising.  
 
b. Are there any negotiations already in the pipeline and, if so, what is the status 
of those negotiations?  WT/REG389/2  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Response from the Parties  
 
 The Canadian and European bodies representing architects have arrived at an agreed draft 
text. Canadian and the EU officia ls intend to discuss, through the committee mechanism, next 
steps to confirm consistency with CETA and incorporate the agreement into CETA.  
 
c. Will Member States or Canadian Provinces have to give formal approval of any 
final recognition agreement in order for that agreement to take effect either as 
a whole, or within the territory of a particular Member State or Province?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 As this is the first MRA to be incorporated into a Canadian FTA, Canada is finalizing with its 
provinces and  territories what, if any, actions they will need to take to implement the MRA, which 
was negotiated by a self -regulating profession.  In the EU, we are currently finalising the internal 
procedures and decisions will be required to implement a given MRA.  
 
d. Will authorization granted under such an agreement entitle a professional to 
provide services in any Member State or Province?  
Response from the Parties  
 
 In general, this is subject to the terms of the MRA.  However, for an MRA to be adopted 
pursuant to Ch apter 11 of CETA, the agreement must apply throughout the territories of the EU 
and Canada (see Article 11.2, paragraph 4).  In the EU, the terms of the recognition is set out in 
the MRA and would be uniform throughout the EU. Where appropriate, there will continue to be a 
need to re -apply in each EU Member State .  
 
Other  
Investment  
 
1.66.   Paragraph s 4.72-4.74: On ISDS, could you please outline the timeline for full 
implementation?  
Response from the Parties  
  
 The Parties are committed to work expeditiously on the implementation of the CETA 
provisions on the resolution of investment disputes between investors and states, pursuant to 
Section F of Chapter 8 of the Agreement (the so -called "Investment Court System"  (ICS)).  
 
 In line with Council Decision (EU) 2017/38 of 28 Octob er 2016 (OJ L 11, 14.1.2017, 
p. 1080), the ICS is one of the areas that are not provisionally applied and that will only become 
operational after the completion of the national approval proce dures in the Member States of the 
European Union.  
 
 The European Union and Canada are in the process of working on the implementation of the 
ICS. The aim of the Parties is to conclude the implementation of the ICS by the entry into force 
of CETA.  
 
General  provisions of the agreement  
Intellectual property rights  
 
1.67.   Paragraph 5.42:  
a. Could the Parties please explain what elements/translations of GIs are 
available for common use?  
Response from the Parties  
 
Canada 's expanded GI regime includes features to exempt prior use and prior rights, as well 
as exceptions for certain common terms. These exceptions will apply equally to domestic and 
foreign users active in the Canadian market.  With respect to common terms, Canada has taken WT/REG389/2  
 
- 26 - 
 
  into account interests to preserve t he right to use commonly -used food names, including t he 
ability to use common terms that form part of multi -word GIs .  
 
b. Could Canada please explain its process for implementation of the geographical 
indications system in Canada, including considerations given to transparency, 
public comment, and opposition procedures.  
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 Canada developed its expanded GI regime with transparency at the forefront and includes a 
public comment period pursuant to grounds of objection, and  a process for cancellation.  
 
 For example, when an indication meets the criteria to be entered on the List of Geographical 
Indications, a statement will be published on the website of the Canadian Intellectual Property 
Office in the Trade -marks Journal proposing that the indication be entered on the List of 
Geographical Indications.  
 
 Upon publication of the statement, the GI will then be subject to an objection period lasting 
two months, where an interested party may file a statement of objection with the Registrar of 
Trade -marks conc erning the proposed GI in order to commence Objection Proceedings.  Once 
entered on the List, proceedings may also be brought before the Federal Court of Canada to 
remove a GI from the protected list.  
 
1.68.   Paragraphs 5.44 -5.45: Canada 's innovative pharma indus try raised concerns on 
provisions related to Canada 's CETA implementation regulations around patent term 
restoration, specifically its "timely submission" requirement. The provision states that 
only those Canadian drug submissions filed within one year of any first international 
drug submission will be eligible for Canada 's pharma patent term restoration. Were 
these concerns addressed?  
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
Yes. In response to industry concerns, the timely submissio n requirement was exten ded to 
two years for the first year of the regime, in order to allow innovators to plan accordingly.  
 
 Does the Government of Canada feel such a provision could lead to lost sales for 
innovative producers?   
 
Response from the delegation of Canada  
 
 No. On the contrary, the timely submission requirement will result in increased sales by 
encouraging innovators to maximize their period of patent exclusivity by bringing new and 
innovative drugs to the Canadian market earlier in the patent term.  
 
__________