WT/REG389/M/1  
 
27 June 2018  
(18-4082) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Eighty -ninth Session    
 
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOM IC AND TRADE AGREEME NT BETWEEN CANADA AN D 
THE EUROPEAN  UNION  
(GOODS AND SERVICES)  
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 19-20 JUNE 2018 
Chairman: Ambassador Julian BRAITHWAITE (United Kingdom)  
1.1.  The 8 9th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/1 4/Rev.1 dated 7  June 2018.  
1.2.  Under Agenda Item E.I of the Session, the CRTA considered the Comprehensive Economic 
and Trade Agr eement between Canada and the European Union, goods and services, (hereinafter  
"the Agreement"  or "CETA" ). 
1.3.  The Chairman  said that CETA ha d been provisionally applied since 21 September 2017.  It had 
been notifie d to the WTO by the Parties on 19  September 2017 under Article  XXIV:7(a) of the 
GATT  1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article  XXIV of GATT 1994 as an 
Agreement establishing a free trade area (document  WT/REG3 89/N/1)  and under 
GATS  Article  V:7(a) as an Agreement providing for the lib eralization of trade in services within the 
meaning of Article V of the GATS (document S/C/N/ 896). The text of the Agreement was available, 
together with its Annexes, on the Parties' official websites.  The Factual Presentation on the goods 
and services aspects (document  WT/REG 389/1 dated 10 April 2018) and questions and replies on 
this Agreement (document WT/REG389 /2 dated 6 June  2018) had  been distributed.  He also 
indicated that additional questions had been received from New Zealand just before the session of 
the Committee. These questions along with the answers  from the Parties  would  be issued in a 
follow up  questions and replies document to be circulated af ter the meeting.  
1.4.  The representatives of Canada  and of the European Union  used a PowerPoint  presentation to 
make a joint  presentation.  
1.5.  The representative of Canada  thanked the WTO Secretariat for preparing the detailed factual 
presentation on the Comprehens ive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the 
European Union (CETA). She also appreciated the contribution of the European Commission to this 
process and thanked the 11 Members who had submit ted questions on the Agreement. She noted  
that the over arching goal of Canada’s trade agenda was to increase its trade and attract job -
creating investment to Canada in a sustainable and r esponsible manner. This included  focusing on 
expanding trade with large and fast -growing new markets as well as deepening Canada's  trade 
links with traditional partners.   
1.6.  Canada’s great friendship with the European Union drew on many cultural and people -to-
people ties that date d back centuries and had serve d to underline their common history and many 
partnerships. Canada and t he European Union had  always been close partners, and not only 
because millions of Canadians trace d their family roots to Europe. They were united because their 
societies, economies, and systems of governance were based on the same set of values – a value 
system that was founded on equality, freedom, and respect for all individuals in society. Canada 
viewed  increased engagement through trade and commercial -economic ties as one of the best 
ways to promote sustainable economic growth in the EU and Canada. For  Canada, the EU was also 
a very important economic partner, and its  second largest trading partner after the  United States. 
CETA had strengthened  the commercial relationship between the Parties . It had also benefited  WT/REG389/M/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Canadian businesses and workers in regi ons across the country and in many sectors of the 
Canadian economy.  
1.7.  CETA represented  a progr essive, 21st century agreement  and in Canada, one referred  to it as 
a gold standard agreement. It had raised  the bar for future trade agreements an d represented  a 
major milestone in the advancement of a progressive trade agenda by setting new standards in 
trade in goods and services, non -tariff barriers, investment, government procurement, as well as 
other areas like labour and environment. This was consistent wi th Canada’s current approac h to 
negotiating FTAs that sought  to ensure that all segments of society could  take advantage of and 
otherwise benefit from the opportunities that flowed from trade and investment. ‎ 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Canada  for its opening remarks. He 
welcomed  the CRTA’s consideration of the CETA between Canada and the European Union . He also 
thanked Canada for the excellen t cooperation in this exercise and the Members for their interest in 
the consideration of this Agreement. The Parties  had received many questions to which they had  
responded in writing. He indicated that, f or the benefit of all, the Parties  would  highlight some of 
the issues tha t had been  raised by these Members. Before  entering into the substance o f the 
Agreement 's commitments and discipline,  which the Parties  would  present together,  to make it 
more interactive and allow for more questions and comments from Members -, he made a few 
introductory remarks recalling the broader economic and political con text within which to situate 
the Agreement . He underlined that progressive trade policy meant  championing trade that was fair 
and rules -based. The multilateral framework of the WTO had for a long time safeguarded global 
trade, a power source that ha d helped lift millions out of p overty. Now , more than ever , it was  
essential to defend the integrity of a rule s-based trading system. The value of trade in goods  
between the EU and Canada was 9.1 billion euros in 2017 and trade in services amounted to 30.1 
billion euros in 2015. The fact that the EU and Canada had  agreed this new trade deal, their most 
ambitious and progres sive in operation to date, sent  a powerful signal to the world of the Parties'  
willingness to open markets and modernise trade rules. Bey ond CETA, the EU and Canada would  
be at the forefront of efforts to strengthen and update the WTO rules and its dispute resolution  
mechanism.  
1.9.  The EU and Canada share d similar values: democracy, protection of environmental and 
labour rules, the rule of law  and the right of governments to provide public services such as 
healthcare. Their relations had  long been defined by openness to trade and this was still their way 
of engaging with the wider world, to mutual benefit , engaging for peace, prosperity and pro gress. 
This was the vision that the EU had put forward in its "trade for all" strategy: responsible trade 
policy that was effective, tr ansparent and based on values. He recalled that the Agreement  had 
been signed on 30 October 2016 and had been  applied sin ce 21 September 2017, except for those 
parts relating to investment protection and the Investment Court System, which would  only apply 
once all EU Member States had ratified CETA. At the time of the meeting, 11 Member States had 
ratified CETA. As a new gen eration FTA, CETA went  beyond trade in goods and covered  also 
services, intellectual property, investment, government procurement, access to energy and raw 
materials, customs and trade facilitation, competition (including subsidies and state -owned 
enterpri ses) and regulatory cooper ation. CETA furthermore contained  commitments on customs 
duty reduction, access to services markets, technical regulations and sanitary and phytosanitary 
matte rs. In addition, it emphasised  areas which were important in terms of v alues such as 
sustainable development and preserving the government's right to regulate in the public interest. 
CETA had also replaced the old form of investor -state dispute settlement (ISDS) with a new, 
improved Investment Court System (ICS).  
1.10.   With respect  to market Acc ess, the CETA abolished duties for 98% of tariff lines on import 
originating in the EU and Canada as from entry into force  of the Agreement . For some remaining 
products, transition  periods of 3, 5 or 7 years had  been agreed upon which mea nt that ultimately 
99% of all Canadian and EU tariff s would  be remov ed. Most agricultural goods had  been 
liberalised. For certain sensi tive products, market access had  been improved through annual duty -
free tariff rate quotas, such as for cheese, pork  and be ef. Others had  been excluded (eggs and 
poultry). He indicated that t his was without any prejudice to the rules and regulations that the 
products in question need ed to satisfy on the respective import market, such as technical, sanitary 
or phytosanitary rul es for the security and protection of consumers or the environment, including 
food safety and labelling requirements.  WT/REG389/M/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.11.   Just to cite some examples of how CETA could facilitate trade, he mentioned that, un der the 
CETA protocol on conformity assessment, Canada  and t he EU had  agreed to accept conformity 
assessment certificates issued by conformity assessment bodies located in the other Party's 
territory. This was subject to a mechanism that ensured  that these bodies were technically 
comp etent to carry out these tasks. CETA's Customs and Trade Facilita tion Chapter, for its part, 
set out common principles and provided  for enhanced cooperation and information exchange 
between their customs authorities, in order to simplify wherever possible the procedures relating 
to import, e xport and transit requirements. In terms of tra de in services, CETA constituted  the 
most comprehensive agreement the EU ha d ever concluded. Both the EU and Canadian 
government s (including at provincial level) had  set out all their existing limit ations or restrictions 
to the supply of services with an unprecedented level of transpare ncy. A ratchet clause guaranteed  
that both Parties could  benefit from future improvements, adding to the most favoured nation 
treatment also included in CET A. CETA had  also opened up new sectors, such as dredging services 
and maritime transport, with the liberalisation of feedering on the important route between 
Montreal and Halifax.  
1.12.   He highlighted a final point  - since some Members had  asked questions about t his 
specif ically- that, with CETA, Canada had  agreed to protect 143 geographical indications (GIs) 
which corresponded to  distinctive food and drink products from specific towns or regions in the EU. 
These include d products such as Roquefort cheese, balsamic vinegar from Modena and Dutch 
Gouda cheese. EU right holders would  be able to use an administrative process to uphold GI rights 
in Canada. For some EU GI names, which would conflict  with names already in use in Canada, 
CETA included  tailor-made solutions.  
1.13.   With res pect to labour mobility, the representative of Canada  indicated that the outcomes 
achieved in CETA  had facilitate d labour mobility in two important ways. First, provisions on 
temporary entry enhance d the ability of Canadian and EU business persons to move across 
borders, for example in some cases by removing the need for a labour market impact assessment 
for a negotiated list of profession al and managerial occupations. Second, the aforementioned 
provisions on mutual recognition agreements facilitate d the recognition of professional 
qualifications in both Parties, which was important for Canadian professionals working in regulated 
occupations seeking to pursue opportunities in the EU.  
1.14.   With respect to i nvestment - she stated that CETA’s Investment Chapter had been  designed 
to give investors greater certainty, stability, transparency, and protection for their investments, 
and to secure access for Canadian and European investors to each other’s  respective markets. It 
protected  investments through legally -binding provisions, and ensure d that investors were treated 
in a non -discriminatory manner, while preserving each country’s ability to regulate in the public 
interest, including throug h exceptions and reser vations. Through CETA, investors would  have 
access to a permanent, transparent, efficient and impartial mechanism for the resolution of 
investment disputes.  CETA’s Investment Chapter included  many innovations. Among other s, it 
included  a substantive articl e reaffirming the governments’ right to regulate to achieve legitimate 
policy objectives, such as the protection of health, safety, the environment and cultura l diversity. 
It also established  permanent tribunals (first instance and appellate) whose members  were 
appointed by the Parties  for fixed terms and who had  to abide by rigorous ethical requi rements. In 
addition, it enjoined  the Parties to pursue, with other countries, the establishment of a multilateral 
mechanism for the res olution of investment dispu tes. Certain element s of the Investment Chapter 
had not been provisionally applied, such as the Investment protection section, coverage of 
portfolio investment, and the mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes. These would  
enter into force once CETA had been  ratified by all EU member States following their respective 
domestic processes.  
1.15.    CETA represented  Canada’s most ambitious commitments on Government procurement. 
For the first time, Canada’s market access commitments include d procurements cond ucted by 
municipalities, school boards, publicly -funded academic, health and social service entities and 
most federal and provincial Crown corporations. Under CETA, Canadian and European suppliers 
would  have non -discriminatory access to each other’s Govern ment procurement markets. Canada  
had also agreed to establish, within five years of the entry into force of the Agreement, an 
electronic single point of access for all procurement notices covered under the Agreement. 
Canada’s single point of access would  allow suppliers to view procurement tender notices for all 
covered entities on a single site.  WT/REG389/M/1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.16.   With respect to Trade and Sustainable Development the representative of the 
European  Union  underlined that the Agreement had included  far-reaching provisions on labour and 
environment with particular focus on the effective implementation of international conventions on 
labour rights and multil ateral environment agreements. CETA protected  the right of each Party to 
regulate in the areas of labour and environment as each deem ed necessary or appropriate, while 
providing for high levels of protect ion. It guaranteed  that labour and environmental rules were not 
misused in a trade context, either as a form of disguised protectionism or by relax ing domestic 
labour and environmental laws to encourage trade and investment unfairly. A strong role  had been  
given to civil society organisations which were to be systematically involved in the work of 
monitoring the implementation of these commitments. I n addition, a structured dialogue with Civil 
Society had been  foreseen to take place annually. The Chapte r also included  a binding mechanism  
for the resolution of differences. CETA also contained a clause that allowed  the P arties to keep 
under review the e ffectiveness  of the implementation of th e investment C hapter and revisit the 
enforcement mechanisms accordingly in the future . A review had been  initiated at the  end of 2017 
and the Parties intend ed to take actions to reflect their shared strong commitment  to fighting 
climate change and their commitment s under the Paris Agreement.  
1.17.   Chapter 21 of CETA defined  a framework for regulatory cooperation between the EU  and 
Canada. It built on and had replaced  an existing agreement from 2004 between the EU and 
Canada on regulatory cooperation. Under CETA, the Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) would  
function as a voluntary mechanism to facilitate and promote regulatory cooperation among the 
Parties. The role of the RCF was to provide a platform to discuss regulatory policy issues of mutual 
interest and assist regulators to identify potential partners for cooperation activities. The Forum 
could  also encourage the development of particular cooperation activities and review ongoing or 
anticipated regulatory initiatives, always in consultation with t he regulatory bodies concerned. The 
first meeting of the RCF was scheduled to take place later in 2018  in Brussels. Following the 
government to government meeting, stakeholders and civil society would  be debriefed by the EU 
and Canadian co -chairs and would  have the opportunity to exchange views with them. This was 
part of a regular mechanism to consult with civil society and stakeholders on the activities carried 
out under the RCF.  
1.18.   With respect to a reas of further cooperation  the Agreement contained  chapters on a range 
of important issues, including: rules of origin; trade facilitation; monopolies and state -owned 
enterprises; electronic commerce; and dispute settlement.  
1.19.   With regard to the implementation and g overnance o f CETA, t he representative of Canada  
stated that Canada and the EU were jointly managing and implementing CETA through the 
comprehensive structure established un der the Agreement. This included  14 committees and 5 
bilatera l dialogues, each of which played  an important role in administering specific issues, such as 
agriculture, goods, Government procurement, or chapters such as trade and sustainable 
development. The CETA  Joint Committee, which oversaw and facilitated  the implementation and 
interpretation of  the Agreement, would  hold its inaugural meeting on Septemb er 26, 2018, in 
Montreal.  The Canadian Minister of Int ernational Trade , Champagne , was looking  forward to co -
chairing the meeting with EU Commissioner Malmström. At the time of the meeting , 5 speci alised 
committees and dialogues had  met and another two were meeting in the same week . Several 
more would  be meeting in the following weeks and months. She underlined  the transparent 
approach that Canada and the EU were taking to the governance of CETA, wi th provisional 
agendas and meeting summaries of CETA committees being made public on their respective CETA 
governance webpages. This allowed  all stakeholders and interested parties to follow the work of 
the committees.  
1.20.   CETA was already providing benefits to Canadian and EU businesses. One such example was 
the Canadian company Citadelle Cooperative, a producer and distributor of a wide range of organic 
maple, honey and cranberry products based in Plessisville, Quebec. The company had been  
expanding rapid ly, particularly now , in the EU. CETA had  eliminated the 17.6% tariff on 
cranberries and 8% on maple syrup that applied to market entry to the EU before 21 September, 
2017. By not being subject  to these tariffs, Citadelle had  been able to offer better prices to EU 
consumers and increase d its competitiveness in this  market. The company anticipated  greater 
visibility of Canadian products in general and the sale of larger volumes in the EU. This was just 
one of many companies seeing improved access in Canadian an d EU markets.  WT/REG389/M/1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.21.   She summed up by stating that  CETA was a progressive and ambit ious trade agreement 
that covered  trade across al l sectors and strongly enshrined  labour and en vironmental rules. It 
underlined  the role of public services and the right of states to regulate. Guided by progressive 
trade princip les and objectives, CETA had ensured  that all segments of society, including those 
traditionally underrepresented, could  take advantage of the opportunitie s and ben efits created by 
the agreement. Canada was looking  forward to working closely with the EU to fully implement and 
further promote the Agreement so that both Parties could  capitalize on its many benefits.  
1.22.   The representative of the European Union  agreed with the representative of Canada  While  
it was true that, with less than one year of implementation, it was still early to make any 
conclusive assessment of the results of the Agreement in terms of trade and investment flows, it 
was nevertheless a lready possible to notice some concrete positive movements in areas wh ere 
important liberalisation had  already taken place, such as for instance in the maritime shipping 
sector or the agro-food indust ry.  Several testimonies  had been provided by EU  compani es reaping 
benefits from CETA with increased exports to Canada, ranging from Estonian pianos to engines 
produced in Spain. The Parties  now needed to focus their efforts on ensuring that CETA was 
implemented correctly and that their companies and citizens could benefit from the opportunities it 
created. This would  be very closely monitored by their stakeholders. Expectations were high on 
CETA implementation and both sides would  need to work in good fai th and in a transparent 
manner. The EU and Canada look ed forward to a fruitful discussion and would  endeavour to 
answer all Members' questions in addition to the answers already provided in writing . 
1.23.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Parties for their presentations as well as the 
Secretariat for its factual presentation . Like others, Switzerland had taken note of the broad scope 
and the depth of the trade and investment liberalization foreseen in the Agreement. It noted  that, 
once the tariff elimination had been completed in accordance with the Agreeme nt's liberalization 
schedule for goods, only a marginal amount of tariff lines would remain subject to duties on either 
side of the Atlantic. With respect to services, one could not have failed to observe that, on the 
whole, the provisions under the Agreem ent went beyond what had been agreed under the GATS. 
The Agreement did also contribute  towards improving the conditions for foreign direct investments 
for either Party to the Agreement. Switzerland also took note of Canada's commitments as regards 
to the p rotection of geographical indications as well as in the area of Government procurement. 
One area of particular concern to the Swiss authorities was Canada's  TRQ commitment for cheese. 
Switzerland realized that part of Canada's WTO TRQ commitments for cheese was being 
reallocated to the EU. Switzerland had submitted a question on this issue and he thanked Canada 
for having provided a timely answer.  Switzerland was in the proces s of studying the reply  and still 
had concern s about th e measure and reserved the right to continue to raise the issue in other 
WTO fora. 
1.24.   The representative of Australia  welcomed the engaging presentation by the Parties on the 
Comprehensive Economic and Tr ade Agreement. She thanked them for the effort that had clearly 
gone into the preparation for the meeting, including the collaborative present ation. She also 
welcome d the Parties'  respective chief negotiators to Geneva. CETA provisions  clearly supported  
and built  extensively on those  of the multilateral rule s-based system  and Australia applauded the 
Parties  on the achievement. CETA had sent  a powerful message to the world of the willingness of 
large economies to open their markets for mutually beneficial tr ade liberalization. Australia had 
posed a number of questions in advance of the meeting and sincerely thanked Canada and the EU 
for their replies. Australia had one specific follow up question: "CETA includes provisions on rules 
of origin under which Parti es can agree to all ow for accumulation with third -parties under certain 
conditions. Article 3.9 of Section B of the Protocol on rule of origin states this provision shall only 
apply if equivalent provisions are in force between each Party and the third -country and upon 
agreement by the Parties on the applicable conditions". The question was: "What equivalent 
provision s and applicable conditions would need to be in place for the accumulation rule to apply? " 
1.25.   The representative of Japan  thanked the Parties for  their excellent joint presentation as well 
as the Secretariat for the Factual Presentation. He indicated that it had been impressive to see 
them use PowerPoint and make coordinated presentations without duplication . The explanations 
had helped to understand CETA together with the Secretariat's comprehensive Factual 
Presentation. Japan had appreciated the Parties' written answers to its questions submitted before 
the meeting and he confirmed that Japan did not have any follow -up questions at the time. With 
respect to trade in goods, Japan commended the Parties for their high level of liberalization. Japan  
was also interested in, among others, the SPS and TBT Chapters. These Chapters appeared to WT/REG389/M/1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  have unique disciplines which strengthened exi sting WTO disciplines and stipulated WTO -plus 
disciplines. In addition, Japan noted that CETA had sector specific provisions on pharmaceutical 
products and moto r vehicles. In terms of market access in trade in services, Japan commended 
both Parties for the ir market access  improvement s relative  to their GATS Schedules through the 
use of a  negative list approach. Taking these points into account, Japan was interested to know  
how the Parties would implement these Chapters. Regarding other areas, including elec tronic 
commerce and regulatory cooperation, the Agreement had a broad range of disciplines which the 
existing WTO rules did not address. Members knew that a number of RTAs were addressing new 
and advanced disciplines beyond the existing WTO Agreements  to which they  should pay attention. 
In this context, as it had  mentioned in previous meetings, Japan considered that studying and 
discussing major specific areas covered by several RTAs would be helpful to identify what issues or 
discipline s would be addressed  under the WTO framework in the future. In this regard he hoped 
that WTO Members would utilize the RTA consideration framework under the Transparency 
Mechanism more effectively. The discussion on the CETA was  a good example of utilizing  the 
consideration f ramework.  
1.26.   The representative of Mexico  thanked the Secretariat for the work done in preparing the 
Factual Presentation and Canada  and the EU for their replies. The CETA was one of the most 
ambitious free trade agreement  signed in recent times. Th e Agreemen t contained chapters on 
trade facilitation, intellectual property, environment, labour, regulation and cooperation, state 
enterprises, economic competition, electronic commerce, to mention but a few. His capital had 
asked  questions regarding the chapter re lating to trade in services, in particular with respect to 
national treatment for cross -border trade in services, liberalization commitments, domestic 
regulation, mutual recognition of services suppliers, bilateral committee on services and 
investment, tra nsfers, processing of investment relating to financial services , and dominant 
operators in telecommunications. Mexico ha d also asked  questions on the chapter on intellectual 
property, in particular with respect to the protection of geographical indications and sui generis 
protection for pharmaceutical products that required marketing authorization alongside a patent. 
Regarding the environment and sustainable development, Mexico had raised questions on the 
relation between the provisions of the Agr eement and Article XX of GATT 1994 and the possibility 
for submitting or filing environment al claims by non -residents and the application of the 
precautionary principle for the environment, which allowed Parties to examined  cases where there 
was a risk for  the environment but insufficient  scientific evidence. He recalled that Mexico and the 
EU had recently reached an agreement regarding the modernization of their existing  Free Trade 
Agreement, which was more than fifteen years old. T hat recent agreement was similar to CETA 
regarding the depth of the disciplines and the level of ambition. Mexico did not have any follow -up 
questions.  
1.27.   The representative of Brazil  thanked the Parties for the interesting presentations on the 
CETA and for bringing the ir Chief Negotiators  to share their experience with the Committee. He 
also thanked them for and appreciated the detailed replies by both delegations based on the 
Factual Presentation. He asked th at given that both the EU and Canada were GPA members, if 
negotiations o n the Government procurement chapter had been  easier or harder.  
1.28.   The representative of Colombia  also thanked Canada and the EU for their presentations. 
Colombia had two questions. First, Colombia wanted greater detail about the cooperation and 
exchange of inf ormation mechanisms that ha d been agreed upon between the customs authorities. 
Second, Colombia also wanted to better understand Section F of Chapter 8 (Resolution of 
investment disputes between investors and State), particularly 8.29 on the establishment of a 
multilateral investment tribunal and  an appeal mechanism. She asked the Parties to provide 
details on the matter and to share any experience on that topic under the provisional 
implementation  of the Agreement . 
1.29.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Parties and the Secretariat staff for 
prepar ing the Factual Presentation and bring ing this important RTA for review by  the Committee. 
She also commended  the Parties on their interesting and innovative approach to presenting the 
Agreement. It was  a useful example for other Members to consider for future reviews. The United 
States appreciat ed the attention paid by the Parties to  the written questions submitted in advance. 
The large number of questions submitted showed the considerable interest in t he Committee 
regarding the coverage and provisions of th e Agreement. She thanked the Parties for the ir 
comprehensive responses to her delegation's and others' questions. She recalled that the United 
States had strong bilateral ties with both the EU and Can ada and had engaged in numerous WT/REG389/M/1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  detailed exchanges with both Parties regarding the provisions of CETA as well as the potential 
impact on its exports into their markets resulting from the provisions of this Agreement. The 
United States w as encouraged by the level of participation of other WTO Members at the meeting, 
many of whom may not have enjoyed such access through bilateral channels as the United States. 
She was pleased to see the Committee providing that transparency role in the day's  discussion s. 
She thanked the Parties for their work in bringing the Agreement to the Committee for review.  
1.30.   The representative of Guatemala  thanked the Secretariat for preparing the Factual 
Presentation and the Parties for their presentation and for answer ing the questions put by the 
Members. She thought th e information provided was very precious and was being examined in her 
capital. She had one additional question. The presentation had confirmed that  CETA was a very 
detailed Agreement which involved a lot  of commitments by both Parties. Regarding investment 
Guatemala noted  the inclusion of a dispute settlement mechanism for investment. However there 
was no inclusion of specific elements on investment facilitation  and Guatemala  wanted to know 
whether the Pa rties ha d any plans to include investment facilitation provisions and if an agreement 
on investment facilitation could go hand in hand with the CETA.  
1.31.   The representative of the European Union  thanked all the Members for their comments and 
questions. With re gard to the question on the accumulation of origin with respect to third -counties , 
he noted that this was something quite new. As far as he could remember this was the first time 
that the EU had included such a possibility in one of its Free Trade Agreemen ts. CETA had opened  
this possibility for the future, provided that the t hird-country had a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) 
with both Canada and the EU and that such a possibility was also allowed by these  FTAs. The 
Parties had not tried at that point in time to  identify specific conditions under which this type of 
accumulation would apply in order to leave it open for the parties concerned to discuss concretely 
what those conditions would be. He noted that the Agreement referr ed to equivalent rather than 
identic al provisions. This already gave a sense that the discussion would obviously want to leave 
enough flexibility for the three parties concerned to discuss the specific conditions.  
1.32.   With respect to the question on procurement, he confirmed that for both Parti es 
Government procurement had been one of the key  elements of the negotiations. F rom the 
beginning of the negotiations both sides had been  clear that they wanted to achieve a result that 
would be s ignificantly more ambitious than  that included in the WTO Agreement on G overnment 
procurement (GPA). The fact that both Parties were part y to the GPA Agreement had certainly 
facilitated things; but at the same time this was one of the complicated and difficult aspects of the 
negotiations because both Parties had high ambitions in terms of achieving a very substantive 
outcome on Government procurement. That is why both Canada and the EU had taken 
commitments that went significantly beyond what they had concluded in the GPA context.  
1.33.   On cooperation on customs matter s, he confirmed that the Parties already had a customs 
cooperation agreement. The provisions on CETA buil t upon that and aimed to further deepen  
cooperation  between the Parties' customs officials. While  it was too early to see how that 
cooperation c ould be developed further,  there was joint interest by the Parties' customs authorities  
in doing so . 
1.34.   The representative of Canada  agreed with the EU  that Government procurement  had been  
one of the priorities in the negotiations into which a lot of effort had been  put. Being a party to  the 
GPA had helped especially when it came to discuss the procedural elements because the GPA had 
already set an excellent standard. When it came to market access , it had been maybe more 
challenging because the GPA results set a stan dard that could only have been improved  upon. She 
considered that significant improvement s had been made with respect to, for example, the single 
point of access and some additional market access commitments that included procurements by 
municipalities; sc hool boards; publically funded academic, health and social services entities; as 
well as the extension of the crown corporations. She therefore confirmed that there were a 
number of improvements from the GPA in the CETA and a lot of attention had been plac ed on that 
aspect of the negotiations.  
1.35.   With respect to investment and the establishment of an investment tribunal, as mentioned 
before, she confirmed that this part of the Agreement  was not being provisionally applied. It would 
not be applied until all EU  member States had ratified the Agreement. In the meantime, Canada 
and the EU were taking the time to develop some of the details that had not been included in the 
Agreement itself. The Parties had agreed to develop and then adopt a code of conduct for WT/REG389/M/1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  member s of the first instance tribunal as well as for the appellate tribunal, to decide on 
administrative and organisational matters regarding the functioning of the appellate tribunal. The 
Parties would also need to appoint members to both levels of the t ribunal  and wanted to get this in 
place before the full entry into force of CETA. In tha t regard,  there was still some work to do.  
1.36.   With respect to the question from Guatemala on plans to include investment facilitation 
provisions, there was no plan to reo pen CETA any time soon. It had not even completely entered 
into force as it was only being provisionally applied until all the EU member States had finish ed 
their internal processes and had ratified the Agreement. Nevertheless, she indicated that, with 
respect to investment facilitation, Canada and the EU cooperated quite a bit when it came to CETA 
promotion and all related elements of CETA, including investment. The Parties had a number of 
ongoing activities, not only in the Committee s but also active coop eration between the concerned 
authorities. There w ere no plans to revise the Agreement.  
1.37.   The representative of the European Union  added that Canada and the EU had also indicated 
in CETA their interest to promote the establishment of a multilateral investmen t court. They 
believed that this was the most effective way to deal with investment disputes. That is why both 
Parties were working internationally to promote that idea. On investment facilitation he confirmed 
what the representative of Canada had said. Th e EU was not planning to reopen CETA but was 
open to discuss the issue of investment facilitation in the context of the WTO, as had been  
indicated by both Parties in the Ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires.  
1.38.   The representative of Switzerland  raised a few ad ditional questions. First, he had noted that 
the CETA contained a substantial chapter on sustainable development as it related to questions on 
labour and the environment. He suggested that this was one reason what the CETA had been 
called a progressive Agr eement. He also believed that Canadian trade policy had evolved and that 
it could now been said that Canada had a new progressive trade agenda, which also contained 
other elements such as specific chapters on gender, indigenous people and some more ideas o n 
SMEs and their difficult ies in the trade environment. He noted that  the Parties were not envisaging 
revisiting the CETA at that point for obvious reasons. He nevertheless wondered  if there were 
discussions between the Parties on amending the CETA with an y such items (gender, indigenous 
people s, and the like). Second, he noted that the EU and Canada had opted for a cooperative 
approach in the area of labour and the environment . Switzerland had also follow ed a cooperative 
approach in these areas and believe d that this was the right way to approach these topics in the 
context of a Free Trade Agreement. As enforceability was mentioned during the meeting, he was 
wondering to what exten t these provisions were already been reviewed, and if there were plans to 
change the cooperative approach and to foresee sanctions. In other words: would there be a stick 
instead of a carrot. Third and last, he stated that it had been made clear that, with respect to 
Government procurement, the provisions of the Agreement had reach ed down into the sub -federal 
level as well. He wonder ed if other provisions of the Agreement were also applicable at the sub -
federal level, especially in the Provinces of Canada, in particular when it came to measures taken 
in the context of the environment and labour.  
1.39.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Parties for their presentation at the 
meeting. For transparency purposes he informed Members that New Zealand  had submitted a 
follow -up question to Canada. He did not expect an answer at  the meeting but the thr ee questions 
were:  i) "why has Canada chosen to allocate part of a WTO MFN quota to the EU instead of 
establishing a new and separate quota like Canada and the EU have for other products?"; (ii) 
"what is the legal basis for this all ocation of a WTO MFN quota?"; and (iii) "how is this allocation 
consistent with GATT Article I and XIII?".  
1.40.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU had a lot of sympathy with the 
view that a progressive trade policy was not just having ch apters on sustainable development. For 
instance, in the negotiation s between the EU and Chile, there was a discussion about  having, for 
the first time, a chapter on gender. Discussions had also been conducted in the past with the 
United S tates and other co untries to have a chapter on SMEs. These developments had come  too 
late to be included in the CETA but he confirmed that at least on the issues of gender and SMEs 
the EU had been discussing with Canada. The same applied with respect to discussing the issue  of 
climate change and the Parties had looked into the possibility of having joint ly agreed 
recommendations on that matter by the time of the Joint Committee meeting later in 2018.  WT/REG389/M/1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.41.   As regards the issue of enforceability of the labour and environment chapt ers, it was 
important to have chapters that were enforceable and recalled that both chapters on environment 
and labour were binding and were subject to binding arbitration. These chapters did not provide 
for the possibility of trade sanctions because the E U was not convinced that it would be the most 
effective way to promote the goals of the Agreement. This had been  discussed within the EU 
starting in 2017  and at that time, the prevailing view had been  that the cooperative approach 
would not be changed on t he enforcement of the trade and sustainable development chapters. A 
number of steps would nevertheless be taken to ensure that the commitment would be monitored 
and promoted in the most effective manner.   
1.42.   The representative of Canada  underscored the impor tance of the overall progressive trade 
agenda in Canada. She appreciated the question from Switzerland in pointing out the other areas 
which were included in Canada's FTA negotiations. She mentioned gender, indigenous peoples, 
SMEs, as well as e -commerce, which was also considered a very important element by Canada. 
She confirmed that Canada was going forward with the idea of having more ambitious and deeper 
commitments on these areas. Canada was having conversations with the EU on some of these 
issues.  
1.43.   With respect to enforceability, she recalled that when CETA was signed the Parties came up 
with what was called a Joint Interpretative Instrument that contained their commitment to 
reviewing the trade and sustainable chapters, and in particular the labour an d environment 
aspects. The y had agreed to review the effective enforceability of those Chapters. She confirmed 
also that the Parties were holding  bilateral discussions on if and how improvements could be made 
on the provisions already agreed.  
1.44.   With respect  to the applicability of CETA to sub -federal entities in Canada, especially with 
respect to labour and environment, she confirmed that CETA applied to Canada, including its 
Provinces and Territories. With respect to some areas that fall under provincial an d territorial 
jurisdiction in Canada, including government procurement, some of the Provinces and Territories 
had undertaken  additional obligations on market access and those had been  specified in the 
Annexes. She confirmed that, beyond market access commi tments, the Agreement applied to the 
whole of Canada.  
1.45.   With respect to the additional follow -up questions by New Zealand, she indicated that the 
written answers would be sent very shortly.  
1.46.   The Chairman  summed up by showing his appreciation for the engaging and interactive 
presentation of the Agreement by the Parties. He considered that the presentations and the 
discussions had set the bar high and could be considered as a model for this type of discussio n in 
the future. He said that consideration of the Goods and Services Aspects of the Comprehensive 
Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union had allowed the 
Committee to clarify a number of questions and it could now conclude oral discussion of the RTA in 
accordance with paragraph 11 of the Transparency Mechanism. If any delegations wished to ask 
follow -up questions they were invited to forward submissions in writing to the Secretariat by 26 
June 2018 and Parties were asked to submi t replies in writing by no later than 10 July 2018. In 
accordance with paragraph 13 of the Transparency Mechanism all written submissions, as well as 
minutes of the meeting would be circulated promptly, in all WTO official languages, and would be 
made avai lable on the WTO website.  
1.47.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________