WT/REG362/2  
30 March 2016  
(16-1799)  Page: 1/10  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English/Spanish  
 
  FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
(GOODS AND SERVICES) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
 The following communication, dated 24 March 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Canada and the Republic of Korea.  
_______________ 
   This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses 
submitted. 
 Question from the delegation of Colombia 
Chapter 16 - Intellectual Property Rights 
1.1.  Paragraph 5.32: With regard to the foru m for consultations in Article 16.19, 
we would like to know more about the rang e of issues that would be addressed by 
the Parties in the framework of these consultations. 
As stipulated in Article 16.19 of the CKFTA, a Party may request consultations with the other 
Party regarding any actual or proposed measure or any other matter which a Party considers might negatively affect its intellectual property interests. Issues that could be discussed under the 
consultation framework could include, for exampl e, a Party's intellectual property laws and 
policies, civil judicial procedures available to rights-holders for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and issues concerning the implem entation of the provisions under the Intellectual 
Property Chapter. 
 Questions from the delegation of the European Union 
Provisions on Trade in Goods 
General provisions 
1.2.  Paragraph 3.7: The Agreement does have an explicit provision on the exemption 
of customs duties on re-entered goods after having been repaired or altered, regardless 
of the origin. However, it provides for the carve-out of some tariff lines in the Annex 2-E, 
which falls under the Canada Shipping Ac t. Therefore, some vessels including the 
dredger may be subject to the imposition of customs duties on the value of repair or 
alteration. 
a. Could the Parties elaborate on the comme rcial implications for such goods in 
the implementation of this Agreement? 
b. In particular, could the Parties clar ify whether this measure is merely 
associated with some strategic industrial  concerns on the part of Canada? 
 The provision to permit the duty-free re-entry of a vessel of any origin repaired or altered in 
the territory of the FTA partner is sensitive for Canada's shipbuilding sector, since repairs and 
alterations are a key part of their business. WT/REG362/2 
- 2 - 
   Accordingly, it was necessary to provide a peri od of adjustment to Canadian shipbuilders in 
respect of repair and alteration that is equivalent to the specific tariff phase-out for different ships originating from the FTA partner. Canada has included similar provisions in all of its FTAs with major shipbuilding economies. 
 
Technical barriers to trade 
1.3.  Paragraph 3.28: Under the Agreement, bo th parties are committed to: recognizing 
the importance of standards-related measures  in the area of medical devices, sharing 
information on, and promoting the use of, internationally accepted approaches; and 
reducing possibly redundant testing and cert ification requirements for pharmaceutical 
products and medical devices by promotin g the use of internationally accepted 
standards, including those related to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and 
Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). 
a. Will the Parties explore and/or take an y new paths to properly tackle the 
problems with the duplicative testing and GMP practices in the health-care 
sectors in the coming years? 
 At this early stage, various options are being considered to identify possible areas of 
cooperation with respect to good manufacturing practices (GMP) in the areas of pharmaceuticals 
and medical devices. Key to this will be the ex change of information and opinions regarding GMP 
systems.  
b. Is there a new channel to be set up at  technical level for the discussion on 
these issues and are there any specific  measures to be taken into account 
to move things forward? 
 Efforts to promote further technical cooperation in this area may be considered by the 
Committee on Standards-Related Measures.  
1.4.  As part of measures to reduce duplicativ e testing and certification requirements for 
electronic and electrical products, both pa rties are committed to accepting each other's 
IECEE-CB test certificate as th e basis for national certificatio n to relevant electric safety 
requirements. 
a. How will this commitment translate in to the actual law or practice? 
 In Canada's case, members of the IECEE-CB  scheme are National Certification Bodies 
(NCBs). Canada has three NCBs that are me mbers of the IECEE-CB scheme: CSA Group, 
Underwriters Laboratories CA and QPS Evaluation Services. The Standards Council of Canada 
(SCC) accredits these three bodies. For Korea, the relevant Korean law in relation to this commitment is Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act. 
 
b. Will the Korean side intend to amend any relevant domestic laws for its 
implementation, in a manner to apply the revised rules and requirements to all 
the electronic and electrical products? 
 This commitment does not require Korea to revise its domestic law, Electrical Appliances 
Safety Control Act, since the authority to execute this commitment is already stipulated in the current Act. 
 
c. Will it be done on an MFN basis or only on reciprocal basis between Canada and 
Korea? 
 Specific to the CKFTA provisions, at this early stage, from Canada's perspective it is not 
clear how this commitment will translate into actual law or practice, or whether it will be applied on an MFN basis or only on a reciprocal basis between Canada and Korea. With respect to Korea, Korea accepts CB test certificates issued by NCBs, in countries which are the members of IECEE 
CB Scheme Multilateral Agreement. This practice is applied in general as of now, however, it is not WT/REG362/2 
- 3 - 
  certain whether or not Korea would continue to apply this current practice on MFN basis in the 
future.  1.5.  As regards TBT transparency, each Party shall promptly provide, on request, 
the other Party with the regulatory impact analysis statement for the technical 
regulation that the Party has adopted or is proposing to adopt, provided that it is 
publicly available. 
a. What elements are to be contained in the statement concerned? 
 With respect to Canada, the regulatory impact analysis statement includes an objectives 
section; a description/background of the proposed regulation; other regulatory and non-regulatory 
options considered; a cost and benefit analysis; a description of the consultation process 
carried-out; other regulatory cooperation considerations (i.e. how the proposed regulation 
minimizes regulatory differences with key trading partners); the implementation plan; regulatory contacts, and; the rationale for choosing the proposed regulatory option over other alternatives.  
 
 With respect to Korea, the regulatory impact analysis statement includes the following elements: (i) factual basis of the necessity of esta blishing a new regulation or amending existing 
regulations, (ii) feasibility of accomplishing the objective of the regulations, (iii) existence of any 
alternative means that could be less restrictive (iv) existence of any overlapping regulations, (v) cost and benefit analysis, (vi) effluences on SM Es, and (vii) possibility of its negative impact on 
market competition. 
 
b. In Korea's case, does it refer to the regu latory impact analysis report normally 
required to be attached to the legislative proposal and for the review of the 
Regulatory Reform Committee? 
 In Korea, the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations mandates central administrative 
agencies to submit the following materials to the Regulatory Reform Committee when they 
propose to establish new regulations, through legislation: 
 
i. impact analysis of the regulation; ii. result of the self-analysis; and 
iii. summary of the opinions expressed by admi nistrative agencies and the stakeholders  
 1.6.  Each Party shall ensure that transparen cy procedures regarding the development 
of technical regulations and conformity asse ssment procedures allow interested parties 
to participate at an early a ppropriate stage, wh en amendments can still be introduced 
and comments taken into account, except if  urgent problems of safety, health, 
environmental protection, or national security arise or threaten to arise. 
 Do the Parties envisage any WTO-plus arrangement to further enhance 
transparency in either of the parties, in addition to the WTO TBT commitments? 
 There are WTO-plus elements included in the Transparency Article of the Canada-Korea Free 
Trade Agreement. 
  For example, paragraph 3 of the Transparency Ar ticle builds upon Articles 2.9 and 5.6 of the 
WTO TBT Agreement by enabling "persons" (i.e. not just the Parties), to participate in the 
development of technical regulations and confor mity assessment procedures on terms no less 
favourable than those accorded to its own persons. The objective of this paragraph is to ensure 
that both domestic and foreign stakeholders can effectively participate in each Party's consultation 
process during the development of regulatory measures.   With respect to Korea, Korea-Canada FTA includes elements that enhance the level of 
transparency. Especially, Korea-Canada FTA allows not only the Parties but also "persons" to 
participate in the development of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures. Through such enhancement of transparency, Korea desires to promote its trade with Canada. 
 WT/REG362/2 
- 4 - 
   Notwithstanding each Party's obligation to noti fy the WTO, Paragraph 1 of the Transparency 
Article builds upon Articles 2.9.3 and 5.6.3 of the WTO TBT Agreement by requiring each Party to 
proactively provide the text of its proposed measures along with its notification to the other Party, as opposed to the "upon request" obligation found in the WTO TBT Agreement. 
 
 As regards to the timing, however, there is no difference between Article 2.9.2 of the WTO TBT Agreement and Article 6.6.3 of the Korea-Canada FTA. 
 
 Greater transparency will help both Canada and Korea develop a better mutual understanding of the other Party's respective trad e policies and practices and will facilitate trade 
by providing greater predictability and certainty for exporters. 
 
1.7.  Paragraph 3.44 (Automobile standards-relate d measures): The automobile industry 
was portrayed in the Korean local press as the biggest winner, given that the auto is 
Korea's top export item to Canada and the 6.1% tariff phase-out over 2 years would 
have a detrimental effect on enhancing price competitiveness in the market. 
The Korean Government expected that the FT A would increase its market share (12%), 
behind the US (44.5%) and Japan (33.6%) based on the figures in 2013. 
 Against this background, noteworthy is the provision that "both parties shall 
cooperate to promote bilateral trade and in vestment in the automotive sector, which 
allows the Parties to realize the benefits of global production and supply chains". 
a. What implications does it have in sp ecific terms for the automobiles sector? 
 This provision is intended to benefit the automotive industry, including parts manufacturers. 
It reflects a commitment from both parties to cooperate with the view to strengthen the 
automotive trade and investment relationship between the two countries. Canada has engaged in 
these types of activities with other FTA partners.  
b. Is it of any relevance to a regional tr ade bloc, e.g. the T PP which Canada joins 
as a founding member whereas Korea has yet to obtain the membership, in view of the cumulative rules of origin? 
The TPP rules of origin have no impact on the CKFTA rules of origin. If Korea were to join the 
TPP, the two agreements would continue to coexist as is the case with the Canada-Peru FTA. 
 Intellectual property rights 
1.8.  Paragraph 5.29: In the Agreement, the Ge ographical Indications (GIs) apply to 
a very limited number of GIs, i.e. two Cana dian GIs (Canada whiskey and rye whiskey) 
and four Korean GIs (Korean red ginseng, Korean white ginseng, Korean fresh ginseng, 
and their Korean names in English, and icheon rice). 
a. There seems to be no review clause on the possible expansion of the scope 
of protected GIs in the FTA. Could the Parties confirm this? 
 The observation by the EU is correct. There is no review clause on the possible expansion of 
the number of geographical indications th at are protected pursuant to the FTA. 
 
b. Could the Parties clarify whether or not "a geographical indication" and 
"the protected indication" respectively  in Article 16.10.3 and Article 16.10.5 
are referred to as the aforementioned six geographical indications which shall 
be protected in the IPR Chapter of the FTA? 
 The terms "geographical indication" and "t he protected indication" respectively in 
Article 16.10.3 and Article 16.10.5 refer to the geographical indications listed in Article 16.10.1 and Article 16.10.2.  WT/REG362/2 
- 5 - 
  c. How will the assessment be made ov er whether the adverse use of the 
protected indication has become genera lly known in the Party, pursuant to 
Article 16.10.5? 
 Pursuant to section 21 of the Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act , the courts 
(federal or provincial) of Canada would make the assessment of whether the adverse use of the 
protected indication has become generally known in Canada.   
 In the case of Korea, the assessment of whet her the adverse use of the protected indication 
has become generally known in Korea will be determined the same way as a judgement as to whether a sign is a well-known trademark. In other words, a decision will be made after considering the protected indications' method of us e, period, location of product, market share and 
benefit of product, and brand recognition by consumers. 
 
d. Will this commitment require any transposi tion into domestic legislation in 
particular in Korea? 
 Canada has implemented this obligation through section 21 of the Canada-Korea Economic 
Growth and Prosperity Act . 
 
 In the case of Korea, as the relevant regula tion in the Korea-Canada FTA is already adopted 
in the Trademark Act of Korea, amendments to Korea's domestic legislation are not necessary.  
e. Would any elements and/or occurrences which may conflict with Korea's 
commitments on GI protection under the country's FTA with other trading partner (i.e. the EU) be foreseen? 
 In this situation, there seems to be no fore seeable conflicts with Korea's commitments on GI 
protection under the FTA with other trading partners.  
f. Could the Parties clarify how a GI right ho lder or its represen tative can assure 
that the registration or use of trademark that is identical or similar to a protected GI is refused or cancelled? Can this remit be ordered as a result 
of an administrative procedure pursua nt to Article 16.14.7, for example by 
a demand of the other Party for the canc ellation of a trademark that has been 
registered in breach of Article 16.10.1 or 2? 
 This question is general in nature but includes a reference to Article 16.14, which pertains to 
border measures. Canada notes that Article 16.14.1 limits the scope of the border measures 
covered by the Canada-Korea FTA and that the provisions on border measures do not apply to geographical indications. Article 16.10.1 obligates Canada to provide the legal means for an 
interested person to prevent the use of four GIs (i.e. Korean Red Ginseng, Korean White Ginseng, 
Korean Fresh Ginseng and Icheon Rice) in association with products not originating in Korea. Article 16.10.2 obligates Korea to provide the legal means for interested persons to prevent other from using "Canadian whisky" and "Canadian Rye Whisky" in association to products not 
originating in Canada. Canada notes that these obligations pertain to the use of geographical 
indications and do not concern "registration". Canada has implemented its obligations pursuant to Article 16.10 through the enactment of sections 16 through 22 of the Canada-Korea Economic 
Growth and Prosperity Act .  
  In the case of Korea, GIs that are protected under the FTA are uploaded onto the trademark 
examination system of Korea, so the registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to a 
protected GI will be refused. As a result of this system, a GI right holder, or its representative can be assured that their rights are protected to the fullest. The procedures described in Article 16.14.7 are only applied to this Article, so the remit cannot be ordered as a result of any 
administrative procedure pursuant to Article 16.14.7. 
 WT/REG362/2 
- 6 - 
  Questions from the delegation of Mexico 
Technical Barriers to Trade 
1.9.  Paragraph 3.44: Has it been determin ed whether the safety-, technology- 
and compliance testing-related standards which will be valid for the purpose of allowing 
entry of automotive products are to be based on international standards, or will 
recognition of validity be accorded, for the purposes of compliance with the Article 6.7 
commitments, to all the relevant standards of the Parties whose conformity has been 
assessed in respect of the products to be ma rketed in the territories of the Parties? 
 With respect to safety standards, Korea shall accept as complying with the corresponding 
Korea Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (KMVSS), au tomotive goods originating in Canada that 
comply with: 
 
a. the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and other standards 
or regulations listed in Annex 6-A of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement; or 
b. the UN regulations and other standards or regulations listed in Appendix 2-C-3 Table 1 
of the Korea-European Union Free Trade Agreement. 
 In the case of Canada, it shall accept as complying with the corresponding Canadian Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS), automotive goods originating in Korea that comply with: 
 
a. the FMVSS and other standards or regulations listed in Annex 6-B (Table 1) of the 
Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement, as incorporated into the corresponding CMVSS, 
including any adaptations pr ovided for in CMVSS; or 
b. the UN regulations listed in Annex 6-B (Table 2) of the Canada-Korea Free Trade 
Agreement, as incorporated into the corresponding CMVSS, including any adaptations 
provided for in CMVSS.  
 In terms of compliance testing, Korea and Canada have agreed to use relevant 
Global Technical Regulations, or other guides or recommendations issued by international 
standardizing bodies, or relevant parts of them, if they exist, as a basis for compliance testing 
procedures on automotive goods, except if such guides or recommendations are inappropriate for the Party concerned for reasons covered by Ar ticle 5.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement and duly 
explained upon request of the other Party. If a Party proposes to apply a compliance testing 
procedure that is not based on relevant guides or recommendations, it shall publish in advance the 
procedure it proposes to adopt, and provide interested persons a reasonable opportunity to comment. 
 
Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
 
1.10.  Paragraph 3.64: The Committee on Trade Re medies established under Article 7.8 
also oversees the implementation of the Agreement's provisions on antidumping, subsidies and countervailing measures. 
 Regarding paragraph 3.64, could the Pa rties specify the way in which the 
Committee will oversee implementation of th e Agreement in respect of these matters? 
What actions could the Committee take as a result of such oversight? 
 
 The Committee on Trade Remedies is primaril y meant to provide officials from Korea and 
Canada that administer each country's trade remedy systems with a forum to discuss each other's trade remedy laws, policies and practices. Should a Party have a question regarding the 
implementation of the chapter's obligations by  the other Party, the committee would provide 
an opportunity to raise the issue and discuss compliance with the relevant obligations.   WT/REG362/2 
- 7 - 
  Regulatory Cooperation 
1.11.  Paragraph 3.43: Have the regional and in ternational standardizing bodies, under 
which the Parties, through membership in th ese bodies, will strengthen their regulatory 
cooperation efforts, been established? If not,  on what basis will it be determined which 
regional or international bodies are to fulf il this commitment to regulatory cooperation 
between the Parties? 
 In September 2015, the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) and the Korean Agency for 
Technology and Standards (KATS) signed a Memora ndum of Understanding (MOU) that reinforces 
the important trade relationship between Canada and South Korea. The MOU is an important building block to help reduce technical barriers to trade following the January 2015 signing of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Through this  MOU, the SCC and KATS have reinforced the 
value of adopting international standards to assure that national standards do not present 
technical barriers to trade. Both organizations have agreed to continue to exchange information and facilitate collaboration between Canadian an d Korean standardization experts. This could 
include efforts to strengthen regulatory cooperation with a view to promoting the harmonization 
and use of international standards through membership activities in international or regional standardization bodies, such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Pacific Area Standards 
Congress (PASC).  Provisions on trade in services and investment 
Movement of natural persons 
1.12.  In paragraph 4.17, Canada establishes the categories of business visitors to whom 
the chapter would apply. Mexico would like to know why these do not include 
technicians. 
 As a result of negotiations, Parties agreed to only cover the following categories of Business 
Persons: Business Visitors; Traders and Investors;  Intra-Company Transferees; and Professionals. 
 
MFN and horizontal commitments 
1.13.  Paragraph 4.41 specifies Korea's commitmen ts under the GATS. Mexico would like 
to know why Korea undertook fewer sect oral commitments than Canada, namely 
in 98 sectors compared to 105 in the case of Canada. 
 Korea's commitments sectors under the GATS are the result of the UR negotiation and, 
through the Agreement, Korea's coverage of liberalization expanded to broader area of 
sectors than the GATS' through the negative list  approach. Furthermore, Korea's sector-specific 
commitments under the Agreement achieved mo re liberalized level than the commitments 
of the GATS. 
 
Recognition and temporary licensing 
1.14.  Paragraph 4.61 provides for the Partie s to meet within 12 months of the 
date of entry into force of the Agreement in order to develop a mutual recognition 
agreement. Mexico would like to know whether this commitment has already been 
fulfilled and, if so, what were the main outcomes. 
 Work is ongoing in this area. Canada and Korea have been engaging bilaterally in order to 
implement the CKFTA commitments relating to mutual recognition. Most recently, the two Parties 
have agreed to explore various means of promoting mutual recognition agreements and sharing relevant information, including through the establishment of a working party. 
 
Environment 
1.15.  Paragraph 5.46: Who are the persons making  up the Panel? Which Party is tasked 
with designating the panellists? WT/REG362/2 
- 8 - 
   The full procedures applying to the selection of panellists are set out in Annex 17-A of the 
Agreement.   In summary, a Panel of Experts shall be compos ed of three panel members. Each Party shall 
select one panellist. For the purposes of selectin g the chair, the requesting Party shall select the 
chair from a list of three qualified candidates who are not nationals of either Party, provided by the 
Party receiving the request.  
 
 The experts proposed as panellists must be individuals with specialised knowledge or expertise in environmental law, or issues addresse d in the Environment Chapter and, to the extent 
possible, the resolution of disputes arising under international agreements. The panellists must be 
independent, serve in their individual capacities an d not take instructions from any organisation or 
government with regard to issues related to the matter at stake, or be affiliated with the government of either Party. 
 
 Additional procedures apply should either Party fail to select its panellist or, with respect to the selection of the chair, if the list of names is not provided, or none of the candidates is 
accepted. 
 1.16.  Paragraph 5.47: As regards the written decl aration that Canada agreed to provide 
to Korea, which Canadian provinces will be subject to what has been agreed on the 
subject? 
 A written declaration has not yet been provided to Korea. 
 
Labour 
1.17.  Paragraph 5.52: According to this para graph concerning cooperative labour 
activities, has any cooperative activity begun i n  t h i s  a r e a  a n d ,  i f  s o ,  w h a t  d o e s  t h e  
activity involve? 
 Since the entry into force of the Agreement,  no cooperative activity between Canada and 
Korea in the area of labour has yet taken place as provided for in Chapter 18. Examples of potential cooperative labour activities are listed in Annex 18-A. 
 
1.18.  Paragraph 5.54: Who are the persons making  up the Panel? Which Party is tasked 
with designating the panellists? 
 The Review Panel is composed of three panellists. Panellists are chosen on the basis of 
expertise in labour matters or other appropriate disciplines, objectivity, reliability, and sound judgment. They should also be independent of, and no t be affiliated with or take instructions from, 
either Party. Panelist shall comply with the Code of Conduct as established in Annex 21-B 
(Code of Conduct for Members of Panels) to the Agreement. Furthermore, individuals shall not 
serve as panellists with respect to a review in which they have, or a person or organisation with which they are affiliated has, an interest. The chai rperson shall not be a national of either Party. 
Panellists are selected in accordance with the procedures set out in Annex 18-D to the Agreement. 
 1.19.  Paragraph 5.55: As regards the written decl aration that Canada agreed to provide 
to Korea, which Canadian provinces will be subject to what has been agreed on the 
subject? 
 To date no Canadian province has yet agreed  to be bound by the obligations flowing from 
Chapter 18. As a result, no written declaration has yet been provided to Korea since the entry into 
force of the Agreement.  WT/REG362/2 
- 9 - 
  Questions from the delegation of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu 
Provisions on Trade in Services and investment 
Canada 
1.20.  Paragraph 4.36: as compared to its GA TS Schedule, Canada also removes some 
market access limitations under mode 3 fo r both banking services and insurance 
services. 
 Could Canada elaborate on the removed market access limitations under mode 3 
for Korean banking services and insurance services as compared to Canada's GATS schedule? 
 The removal of these market access limitati ons is the result of changes to the federal 
regulatory framework since the conclusion of the GATS negotiations. 
 Korea 
1.21.  Paragraph 4.54: Building upon its GATS commitments, the coverage of Korea's 
commitments under the Agreement is enlarged to also include the acquisition by Canadian investors of Korean financial serv ices institutions, however, with certain 
limitations. 
 Could Korea clarify whether the acquisit ion by Canadian investors of Korean 
financial services institutions includes in surance institutions? If so, what are the 
conditions and limitations for the acquisition of insurance institutions. 
 Yes, acquisition by Canadian investors of Korean insurance institutions is permitted. 
However, requirements under GATS commitments such as joint venture do not apply to Korea-Canada FTA and thus establishing 100% Canadian insurance institution is possible. 
 
Questions from the delegation of Thailand 
Regulatory provisions 
Recognition and temporary licensing 
1.22.  Paragraph 4.61: For some professional serv ices, the Parties agree to ensure that 
their relevant bodies meet within 12 months of the date of the entry into force of the 
Agreement to develop a mutual recognit ion agreement (MRA) or arrangement for 
engineering, architectural,  and veterinary services. 
 Apart from mutual recognition agreemen t (MRA) or arrangement on engineering, 
architectural, and veterinary services, what other professional serv ices will Canada and 
Korea develop under the MRA in the future? 
 Pursuant to the commitments in the CKFTA, Canada and Korea have prioritized the 
three professional sectors identified under Annex 9-B. However, the broader commitments under 
Article 9.8 relating to promoting recognition and Article 9.9 on temporary licensing apply to all 
services sectors covered by Chapter 9. As such, if there is an interest from our respective 
regulatory bodies, the Parties can exchange inform ation and encourage the negotiation of MRAs in 
other services sectors. 
 
1.23.  Paragraph 4.61: In relation to temporary licensing, if the Parties agree, each one 
shall encourage the relevant bodies in their territories to develop procedures for the 
temporary licensing of professi onal service suppliers of th e other Party (Article 9.9). 
 Is issuing of the temporary license lim ited to professional service sectors 
liberalized under Trade in Services' Market A ccess or professional service sectors agreed 
under MRA? WT/REG362/2 
- 10 - 
   The commitment under paragraph 1 under Article 9.9 applies to all services sectors covered 
under the scope of Chapter 9, which includes regulated professions. In other words, the commitment to encourage regulatory bodies to develop temporary licensing procedures is not 
limited to the three professional services sectors under Annex 9-B. 
 
Other 
Competition policy, monopolies and state enterprises 
Competition policy 
1.24.  Under the Agreement, the Parties shall consult from time to time on the 
effectiveness of measures undertaken by ea ch Party. Could you please elaborate on 
"from time to time," for example, will thes e consultations be conducted regularly or 
one Party must make a request to the othe r for such consultation? Could you please 
provide more details on the mechanis m of these type of consultations? 
 Korea and Canada have not agreed to hold consultations on a regular basis regarding this 
text. Generally, the consultations are held when requested by a Party. Since the Canada-Korea 
FTA entered into effect, there has been no cons ultation held regarding the Competition Chapter 
under this Agreement. In the future, it is possible that issues on Competition Chapter, as any 
other chapters, may be discussed at a Joint Committee. 
 1.25.  It is provided that "exclusions from these measures shall be transparent and 
periodically assessed to determine whether th ey are necessarily to achieve each Party's 
overriding policy objectives." Thailand woul d like to understand how the Parties assess 
such "necessity" of the exclusions. Will su ch assessment be conducted regularly, 
i.e. annually or biannually? What would be th e result if the Parties cannot agree on the 
"necessity" of particular exclusions  implemented by the other Party? 
 Under the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement (C KFTA), the Parties agreed that each Party 
would periodically assess its own exclusions to determine whether they are necessary to achieve 
its overriding policy objectives. However, Korea and Canada have not agreed in detail regarding 
the frequency of « necessity » assessment. In ca se there is any disagreement about the necessity 
of the exclusion, we expect that the different views will be narrowed in the process of consultations. 
__________