RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/14
3 January 2001
(01-0006)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 SEPTEMBER 2000
Chairman:  Mr Dick Mak (Hong Kong, China)
1. The following agenda was adopted:
A. Applications for Observer Status
B. Modifications to the Appendices to the Agreement
C. Streamlining the Accessions Process
D. Accessions:(i) Iceland
(ii) Latvia
(iii) Panama
(iv) Estonia
(v) Kyrgyz Republic
(vi) Jordan
(vii) Bulgaria
(viii) Chinese Taipei(ix) Newly Acceded Countries
E. Review of National Implementing LegislationF. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7G. Other Business
H. Annual Report for 2000 to the General Council
I. Date of the Next Meeting
A.
APPLICATIONS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
2. The Committee agreed to grant observer status to the Governments of the Czech Republic ,
Moldova and the Slovak Republic , pursuant to the decision it had taken on this matter (GPA/1,
Annex 1) and in response to the request received from those countries (GPA/W/115, W/120 and
W/116, respectively).GPA/M/14
Page 2
B. MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPENDICES TO THE AGREEMENT
(i) Notifications
3. The Chairman said that, since the March 2000 meeting, Japan and Hong Kong, China had
proposed modifications to their respective Appendices I (GPA/W/115 and W/116).  These
modifications had entered into force on 22 August 2000 (WT/Let/354) and 26 August 2000
(WT/Let/355), respectively.
4. Regarding the modifications proposed by Switzerland to Annex 1 of Appendix I, notified in
documents GPA/W/106 and Corr.1 of 16 March 2000, the representative of Switzerland said that, in
response to a request for clarification received from the delegation of the United States (GPA/W/111),
his delegation had provided a note identifying th e differences between the proposed new Annex 1 and
the existing Annex 1 of Switzerland and giving the reasons for the proposed modifications(GPA/W/114).  The names of various Ministries and units in Annex 1 had been altered because of
certain constitutional changes.  In addition, "Services du Parlement", being no longer a part of the
central government, had been deleted.  He confirmed that the units and entities that were listed under
each of the Ministries in the modified Annex 1 continued to be the entities that were referred to in the
heading of the earlier Annex 1 relating to the coverage at the Federal Government level in
Switzerland.  The representative of the United States said that, on the basis of the explanations that
had been provided by the delegation of Switzerland and the confirmation regarding the coverage of
entities in Annex 1, his delegation had no objection to the proposed modifications.  The Committee
agreed that the modifications by Switzerland would enter into force on 29 September 2000
(WT/Let/356).
5. Reverting to the modification proposed by Japan to its Annex 3 of Appendix I, notified in
document GPA/W/91, the representative of Japan said that, since October 1999, consultations had
been held with the United States, the European Community and Canada on the basis of the questions
put to Japan by these delegations (GPA/W/97, W/99, W/100 and W/100/Add.1, respectively) and
Japan's responses thereto (GPA/W/104 and A dd.1, GPA/W/107 and 108, respectively).  His
delegation regretted that, in spite of these efforts, those Parties had not been able to withdraw their
objections regarding the proposed modifications.  As Japan had explained before, the NTT
Communications Corporation was a private company that had been established in accordance with the
Japanese Commercial Law and was not regulated by any special law.  Therefore, according to Japan,
the Government no longer had control or influence over the company and the operation of the
Corporation was subject to the conditions of effective competition.  His delegation considered that, as
the present case had shown, the lack of adequate guidance in Article XXIV:6(b) concerning thewithdrawal of an entity from Appendix I might lead to different interpretations of privatization or
effective competition.  He recalled that Japan had made a suggestion attempting to clarify the notion
of effective elimination of government control or influence in order to avoid possible disputes over
the situation of entities that were considered to be free of government control or influence
(Job No. 860).
6. The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
C. STREAMLINING THE ACCESSIONS PROCESS
7. The Chairman said that the Checklist of Issues  for Provision of Information by Applicant
Governments Relating to Accession to the Agreement had been revised in light of the comments made
by delegations during and after the March meeting.  It had subsequently been adopted by the
Committee in accordance with the arrangements made at that meeting (GPA/35).  The representatives
of the United States, the European Community  and Hong Kong, China  said that the Checklist wouldGPA/M/14
Page 3
be a useful tool for improving the efficiency  of the accession process.  They encouraged all acceding
countries to provide their responses to the Checklist as soon as possible.
8. As regards the revised note on the Establishment of an Indicative Time-frame for Accession
Negotiations and of Arrangements for Reporting on the Progress of Work (GPA/W/109/Rev.1), the
representative of the European Community said that his delegation could support the thrust of the
procedures suggested in the note.  Commenting on the specific elements of the note, the representative
of the United States said that the indicative time-fame should allow for the past practice of the
submission of initial offers by an acceding country at the same time as its application for accession inorder to avoid the lapse of a period of six mont hs between the two initial steps in the accession
process.  The initiation of the Parties' review of an applicant's offer as early as possible would
contribute to the acceleration of the subsequent steps for the evaluation of the offer.  The
representative of Switzerland, joined by the representatives of Israel
 and the European Community ,
said that a period of two years' wait for the completion of every accession process would send the
wrong message to acceding countries about the efficiency of the procedures and would not be a good
incentive for joining the Agreement.  The repr esentatives of the European Community and the
United States said that any agreed indicative time-frames should be treated as maxima and should
recognize that certain countries might require a shorter time for the completion of their accession
procedures.  Also, in some cases, more than one informal plurilateral consultation might be necessary.
However, Parties should not rely only on plurilateral consultations for exchange of information and
the bilateral process should be pursued in parallel.  The representative of the United States said that
Parties to the Agreement should also be encouraged to accelerate the procedures by responding toinitial offers and holding bilateral consultations with acceding countries as rapidly as possible.  Therepresentative of Panama said that the dynamics involved in bilateral and plurilateral consultations
were different.  Setting some parameters might be useful for the conduct of plurilateral consultations.The representative of the United States said that, while a rigid approach to consultations was not
warranted, an exchange of written questions and answers between the acceding country and Parties, inadvance of the consultations, might contribute to the predictability of the discussions on matters ofhorizontal interest.
9. The representatives of the United States and the European Community
 said that consultations
on procurement regimes and Appendices were independent of each other and therefore each process
should have a separate time-frame.
10. The representative of Switzerland said that, in his view, the designation of a facilitator to each
acceding country might be one way of running the accession process more smoothly.  The
representative of Latvia said that a neutral facili tator might be helpful in the streamlining of the
fragmented bilateral work. The representative of th e European Community said that the role of a
facilitator would not need to be formalized.  Most delegations already played some kind of facilitator
role on an informal basis in finding solutions to any problems encountered by the acceding countries.
The representative of the United States said that a country representative's involvement in negotiations
with the acceding country might be prejudicial to his role as a facilitator.
11. The representative of Bulgaria said that the procedures might envisage the examination of the
applicable legislation before the application for accession and the submission of the initial offer.  The
representative of the United States said that, contrary to the presumption by some countries that had
undertaken commitments to join the Agreement, it was not necessary to adopt new legislation and tocomplete the internal legislative work before they initiated  the accession process.  Sequencing theprocess in that order might lead to the adoption of legislation that might not be entirely consistent with
the requirements of the Agreement.  It might be more desirable to have the accession process in
parallel with the domestic process of the preparation of necessary legislation.GPA/M/14
Page 4
12. The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed  that the Secretariat would revise
the note on the indicative time-frame for accession negotiations in light of the comments made at the
present meeting.
D. ACCESSIONS
(i) Iceland
13. The representatives of the United States, Canada  and Israel  said that the bilateral
consultations that had been held with Iceland on the basis of  the offer in document GPA/W/73/Rev.2
had been concluded.  Joined by the representa tives of the European Community, Switzerland and
Singapore, they welcomed Iceland's accession to the Agreement.
14. The Committee adopted a Decision providing for the accession of Iceland to the Agreement
on the basis of the terms attached to that Decision (GPA/43).  The representative of Iceland expressedthe appreciation of his authorities for the Committee's Decision which had been achieved pursuant to
the bilateral consultations that Iceland had held with the Parties to the Agreement over the past two
years.
(ii) Latvia
15. The representative of Latvia said that her delegation had been engaged in bilateral discussions
with the delegations of the United States, the Eu ropean Community, Switzerland and Israel since the
submission of the initial offer in June 1999 (GPA/ SPEC/5).  Although slow at the start, the accession
negotiations had now entered a decisive phase.  Since moving forward through bilateral consultations
only had proved difficult, it might be desirable to consolidate the existing fragmented bilateral workthrough a plurilateral process.  Moreover, the collective effort of interested delegations was the only
way to proceed with the work on substantive issues, for instance the issue of how to address the
changes in the structure of State institutions in Latvia and in transitional economies in general;
systemic issues stemming from the reciprocity provisions in the Agreement;  and certain technical
issues, for instance the provision of statistical in formation and any legislative changes that might be
required for accession.
16. Joined by the representatives of the European Community, Switzerland
 and Israel , the
representative of the United States said that it would be more efficient for acceding countries not to
have to repeat the same points with every single delegation.  He said that significant progress had
been made in the bilateral consultations with Latvia, but a number of issues remained outstanding.  It
would be useful to arrange informal plurilateral consultations between interested Parties and Latvia to
discuss certain horizontal issues that had been addressed in bilateral consultations.  Some issueswould continue to be raised separately in bilateral consultations.
17. On concluding the discussion on Latvia's accession, the Committee agreed that informal
plurilateral consultations would be held between Latvia and interested Parties in January 2001, back
to back with the informal meeting on Article XXIV:7 negotiations.  These consultations would be
prepared in accordance with the following arrangemen ts:  (i) any Parties wishing to put questions to
Latvia regarding the applicable legislation and procedures as well as Latvia's offer should provide
such questions, in writing, by 30 October;  (ii) Latvia should provide written answers to any such
questions by 21 December;  (iii) unless advised otherwise by Latvia or the Party putting the questions,
any questions and answers should be circulated to all Parties in advance of the plurilateral
consultations.GPA/M/14
Page 5
(iii) Panama
18. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had met a number of times
with the delegation of Panama in their respective capitals.  His delegation was disappointed with the
lack of progress made in these consultations and with the substance of the responses received fromPanama in respect of Panama's position on PCA (the Panama Canal Authority).  He encouraged
Panama to respond to various issues raised by the Parties concerning the coverage of this entity in
Panama's offer.
19. The representative of Panama said that Panama had bilateral meetings with the United States
in March and September 2000.  The coverage of PCA had been the main topic of all the recent
contacts with the delegation of the United States.  While his delegation had made every effort to
respond to their concerns that had been repeatedly expressed, the United States delegation might nothave been satisfied with the responses received to its repeated questions because of the difference of
opinion between the two delegations on this issue.  In recognition of the importance attached to this
issue by the Parties, the Vice-Ministry of Commerce in charge of foreign trade negotiations had
undertaken a series of consultations with PCA at the highest level as well as with other relevant
bodies.  However, at this point in time, Panama held to its position that it would not be possible toinclude PCA in its offer.  By way of explanation of the substance of the problem, he said that PCA
had been established by a constitutional provision in December 1993 to ensure that the transfer of
administration and operation of the Canal would proceed in a smooth, efficient, profitable and secure
manner.  This body had been accorded administrative independence in order to enable it to carry out
the task of maintaining the Canal open to uninterrupted passage by ships of all countries without anydiscrimination and of guaranteeing the operational effi ciency of the Canal in the best interest of the
users.  The Government of Panama and the Panamanian people had felt these measures were
necessary to ensure that there would be no political interference in the work done by the Canal
authorities as provided in the Constitution and international treaties as well as in other relevant
legislation.  Subjecting the Canal Authority to the ru les of the Agreement would be a violation of the
autonomous nature of this body and a limitation to its freedom of taking purchasing decisions.  He
added that the procedures administered by the PCA were the same as those that had been previously
used by the United States.  PCA authorities would most likely hold consultations with interested
Parties on any changes to these procedures.  Once this obstacle of the PCA had been overcome, he
believed that Panama and Parties could focus on other less difficult issues.
20. The representative of the United States said that the coverage of a major procuring entity such
as PCA was important for maintaining the balance of commitments under the Agreement.  In another
context, Panama had undertaken broad commitments on ensuring transparency and non-
discrimination in government procurement.  It w ould therefore appear odd not to include PCA within
the GPA commitments.  The procedures of PCA, for the most part, appeared to be consistent with the
requirements of the Agreement.  If that were the case, presumably no new requirements would be
imposed on PCA.  His delegation wondered how its coverage under the Agreement would be taken to
imply political interference with the PCA.  Rather, it would help to demonstrate the independence and
objectiveness of the procurement process of PCA and to reinforce the message that the Government of
Panama had sought to convey in this respect.  His authorities would continue the consultations with
the Panamanian authorities with a view to finding a way to resolve this matter of high importance to
them.
21. The representative of the European Community sa id that, for the United States as well as for
other Parties, the coverage of PCA was a major obstacle to progress in Panama's accession to the
Agreement.  His delegation considered that, in principle, there should not be any problems of
incompatibility between the Agreement and the rules that applied to procurement for the Panama
Canal.  This entity had been included in Appendix I of the United States before its transfer to Panama.
The constitutional difficulties that had been referred to by the representative of Panama should be
addressed in a way satisfactory to all Parties.GPA/M/14
Page 6
22. In concluding the discussion on the accession of Panama, the Chairman suggested that
informal plurilateral consultations could be held between Panama and interested Parties in late
January 2001.  The representative of Panama said that, while his delegation would like to keep open
the possibility of holding informal consultations, he would have to ask instructions from hisauthorities before giving a definitive answer on this point.
(iv) Estonia
23. The representative of Estonia said that Estonia had applied for accession on
6 September 2000 (GPA/41).  Estonia's initial offer was submitted on the same date (GPA/SPEC/9).
Estonia had held preliminary bilateral consultations with the delegations of the European Community
and the United States.  The representatives of the European Community, Canada , Switzerland  and the
United States welcomed the application for accession by Estonia.  The representative of the
United States said that his delegation would provide written questions to Estonia in the near future.
24. Regarding the next steps on Estonia's accession, the Chairman suggested that informal
plurilateral consultations could be held between Estonia and interested Parties in late January 2001,
provided that Estonia made available its answers to the Checklist in GPA/35 well in advance of the
January consultations.
(v) Kyrgyz Republic
25. The representative of the United States recalled that his delegation had put questions to the
Kyrgyz Republic (GPA/SPEC/7) regarding its draf t offer of 11 May 1999 (GPA/SPEC/4).  Joined by
the representative of the European Community, he said that the initial offer of the Kyrgyz Republicwould require further work and encouraged the delegation of the Kyrgyz Republic to make a revised
offer as soon as possible.
26. Regarding the next steps on the accession of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Committee agreed to
invite the Kyrgyz Republic to provide responses to the Checklist as soon as possible.
(vi) Jordan
27. The representative of Jordan said that Jordan had applied for accession on 12 July 2000
(GPA/38).  As part of an information-gatherin g exercise, his delegation had established informal
contacts with the delegations of several Parties.  With a view to creating public awareness on Jordan's
accession, two workshops had been held in Amman on 2 and 3 June 2000 for public and private sector
participants.  These workshops had been organized in cooperation with the WTO Secretariat and with
the assistance of USAID in Jordan.  Work was currently under way for the collection of informationon the Jordanian procurement regime and government procurement statistics and the responses to the
Checklist were expected to be submitted by the end of October.  The representatives of Canada, the
European Community, Israel , Switzerland  and the United States  welcomed the application for
accession of Jordan.  In response to a question by the representative of the European Community
regarding the time-frame for the submission of its in itial offer, the representative of Jordan said that
the internal consultations for the preparation an entity offer had been initiated but the consultations
with the relevant entities  were still at a preliminary stage.
28. On the matter of technical cooperation, the representative of Jordan said that his country
would be seeking assistance in areas such as the upgrading of human skills for the implementation,
the use of electronic procurement methods and the sharing of practical experiences of other countries.The representative of the United States said that his country had had a bilateral exchange of views
with Jordan on technical assistance and capacity building in the area of government procurement.The Chairman invited Jordan to communicate to Partie s, through the Secretariat, its specific needs for
technical assistance relating to accession to the Agreement and its future implementation.  A suitableGPA/M/14
Page 7
programme would then be formulated by the Secretar iat to address Jordan's needs and to find suitable
sources.
29. Regarding the next steps on Jordan's access ion, the Chairman suggested that informal
plurilateral consultations could be held between Jordan and interested Parties in late January 2001,
provided that Jordan made available its answers to  the Checklist in GPA/35 well in advance of the
January consultations.
(vii) Bulgaria
30. The representative of Bulgaria said Bulgaria had applied for accession on 27 September 2000
pursuant to a decision of the Bulgarian Council of Ministers of 21 September 2000 (GPA/42).
Bulgaria would submit information on its legislation and the responses to the Checklist shortly.  Its
offer would be submitted subsequently.
31. The representative of the United States, joined by the representative of the European
Community, welcomed Bulgaria's application for accession.  His delegation had been disappointed
with the length of time that Bulgaria had taken before it applied for accession pursuant to its WTO
commitments in this respect.  He invited Bulgaria to  make every effort to submit an offer before the
informal plurilateral consultations in late January.
32. Regarding the next steps on Bulgaria's accession, the Committee agreed Bulgaria should
provide its responses to the Checklist in document GPA/35 and submit an initial offer as soon as
possible.
(viii) Chinese Taipei
33. The representative of Chinese Taipei said th at bilateral consultations had been held with
Canada and the European Community.  Joined by the representative of Korea, he said that
consultations with Korea had been concluded.  The representatives of Japan, the European
Community and Canada  said that their delegations were in the process of considering the responses
received from Chinese Taipei.  The representative of the United States said that the delegation of
Chinese Taipei had made efforts to clarify certain issues regarding coverage as well as procedural
commitments relating to the Agreement.  The repres entative of Switzerland said that Switzerland had
received information about the structure of the Government of Chinese Taipei.  His delegation was
considering the whole package offered and hoped to be able to move forward soon on this matter.
The Committee took note of the statements made.
(ix) Newly Acceded Countries
34. The Chairman recalled that the respective Protocols of Accession of four newly acceded
countries, namely Albania (WT/ACC/ALB/51), Georgia (WT/ACC/GEO/31), Mongolia
(WT/ACC/MNG/9) and Slovenia (L/7492) included commitments regarding the Agreement on
Government Procurement.
E. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
35. In accordance with the agreed procedures and the schedule for the review of national
implementing legislation, the Committee initiated the review of the legislation of Singapore
(GPA/39 and Add.1) on the basis of the written ques tions put by the United States (Job No. 6052).
Parties were invited to submit any further questions that they wished to put to Singapore and Israel by
15 November 2000.  The delegation of Singapore would provide written responses to these questionsby 15 January 2001.GPA/M/14
Page 8
36. Regarding the review of national implementing legislation of Israel (GPA/34), the Chairman
said that the questions put by Korea to Israel we re circulated as Job No. 4434 and Israel's answers
thereto as Job No. 5773.  The United States questions to Israel had been circulated as Job No 6051.
Upon a request by the representative of Israel, the Committee agreed to defer the review of the
national implementing legislation of Israel until the next meeting.
37. The Committee reverted to the on-going review of the national legislation of Canada;
Hong Kong, China;  Korea;  Norway;  and the Unit ed States.  Written replies from Hong Kong, China
to questions put by Canada (Job No. 1458) and the United States (Job No. 3825) were circulated,
respectively, as Job No. 4437 and Job No. 6050.  With  respect to Korea, its response to a follow-up
question from Canada was circulated as Job No. 4248.  As for Norway, questions from Canada and
the United States were circulated, respectively, as Job Nos. 4527 and 5689.  Finally, the responses of
the United States to follow-up questions from Canada were circulated as Job No. 6053.  TheChairman suggested that the Committee consider that the review of the legislation of Canada;
Hong Kong, China;  Korea;  and Norway had been completed, it being understood that the Committeemight revert to any matter relating to the legislation of these Parties at any time.  The full record of the
review of the legislation of Canada;  Hong Kong, Ch ina;  Korea;  and Norway would be circulated as
addenda to documents GPA/13, GPA/27, GPA/12/Rev.1 and GPA/10, respectively.  It was so agreed.
38. The Committee also agreed that, at its next meeting, it would take up any outstanding points
with respect to the legislation of Singapore and the United States.  It would also initiate the review of
the national implementing legislation of Israel (GPA/34), Japan (GPA/37) , Liechtenstein and the
Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to Aruba.1  In accordance with the agreed procedure for the
review, Parties would be invited to submit their written questions to these delegations by15 December 2000 and copies would be made available to the Secretariat which would circulate them
to other Parties.2  Israel, Japan and Liechtenstein would provide written responses to these questions
by 15 February 2001.
39. The representative of the European Community  said that the Community had initiated a
review of its internal legislation on government procurement, the objective of which was thesimplification of the existing Directives.  For instance the separate Directives for goods, services and
works would be consolidated in a single Directive.  The Committee would be notified of the outcome
of this work.
F. 
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV :7
40. Reporting on the informal consultations held on 28 September 2000 on Article XXIV:7(b)
negotiations, the Chairman said that Parties had taken up the Article-by-Article review relating to the
basic principles of the Agreement (Articles III, IV, XVI, XVII:1, XIX:1), technical specifications
(Article VI), bid review (Articles XVIII:2 and XX ) and gave further consideration to Articles VII
to XV and XVIII, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4.  While specific comments and suggestions had been made on
many of these Articles, on the basis of the Secretariat note, "Suggested Drafting Changes to the 1994
Agreement" (Job No. 5749), the new proposals that had been submitted by the United States on
Articles VIII and XX and by the European Community on Article VI had been the subject ofparticularly extensive discussions.  In addition, the group had had a further exchange of views on the
basis of the proposals put forward earlier on Articles VII-XV and XVIII, including those presented by
the United States at the June meeting (GPA/W/112 and GPA/W/113), taking into account the written
questions of other Parties and the United States answers relating to these proposals (Job No. 5595 and
Job No. 4954/Add.1).  The group had also considered the other aspects of the Article XXIV:7negotiations – the elimination of discriminatory measures and the expansion of coverage.  It had noted
that, at its next meeting, when it would discuss issues of coverage and scope, it would have a special
                                                     
1Responses to GPA/1/Add.1 not yet submitted by Aruba and Liechtenstein.
2 Questions from Korea to Israel were circulated as Job No. 4434.GPA/M/14
Page 9
focus on these issues.  As agreed at its June 2000 meeting, the group would consider at that time
issues of scope and coverage (Articles I, II a nd Annexes);  exceptions (Articles XXIII and V);
institutional provisions (Articles XIX:2, XIX:5, XXI, XII, XXIV, XVII:2);  and statistical reporting
(Article XIX:5).  Delegations intending to make proposals on these Articles had been urged to make
every effort to submit them by 5 January 2001 so as to facilitate their discussion at the group's nextmeeting.  With regard to statistical reporting, th e Secretariat, as agreed at the March 2000 meeting,
would circulate a paper setting out the main points of divergence.  The group would also revert to the
Articles that it had already considered, giving particular attention to those proposals which had been
presented only shortly before the present meeting as well as earlier proposals in regard to which
delegations had indicated that more study was necessary.  It had been noted that the United States
delegation intended to submit additional information regarding the concept of denial of benefits.  The
next informal meeting on Article XXIV:7 consultations would be held in late January 2001.
G. 
OTHER BUSINESS
41. The representative of the United States said that his delegation continued to have concerns
about Canada's failure to resolve the issue of its sub-central coverage.  Canada had not pursued a
commitment that it had undertaken during the negotiation of the Agreement in 1994 in this respect.
His delegation had raised this matter bilaterally with the delegation of Canada in different venues.Some major States in the United States that offered non-discriminatory access to Canadian suppliers
to their State procurement markets unilaterally were interested in making progress on this issue as
they were concerned that their suppliers were not receiving similar treatment in Canada.  The
representative of the European Community, sharing the concerns expressed by the United States, said
that the Community would reconsider its position re garding this issue.  The conditions that had been
advanced by Canada to justify its position did not apply to the situation in the European Community.
The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation looked forward to efforts by Canada to
adhere to the commitments that it had made in the negotiations.  The representative of Canada said
that her delegation took note of the concerns expressed by Parties but the position that Canada
maintained on this matter since the entry in to force of the Agreement had not changed.
H. ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2000 TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL
42. The Committee agreed to the arrangements for the adoption of its Annual Report for 2000 to
the General Council on the basis of a draft prepared by the Secretariat.  The report was subsequently
adopted and circulated as document GPA/44.
I. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
43. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting in March 2001.
__________