Canada's Response to the 2005 Special 301 Report

UNCLAS OTTAWA 001305

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

DEPT FOR EB/TPP/IPE

CALGARY PASS TO WINIPEG

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON ETRD KIPR CA
SUBJECT: Canada's Response to the 2005 Special 301 Report


1. (SBU) Summary: Economic officers met with Doug George,
director of IPR issues, and other officials at International Trade
Canada (ITCAN) to inform them of the Special 301 decision and
deliver reftel points. While rejecting the Special 301 process as
a whole and disappointed with this year's result, ITCAN officials
expressed willingness to work bilaterally to address IPR issues.
End summary.


2. (SBU) ITCAN officials expressed "disappointment" with USTR's
decision to keep Canada on the Special 301 Watch List and
institute an out of cycle review in 2005. They maintain that they
are meeting all of their international agreements, and they point
to recent progress on patent protection for medicines and the
announcement in March of upcoming amendments to the Copyright Act
as evidence of their commitment. June elections, which appear
increasingly likely, may postpone progress on the copyright
amendment legislation, but Canadian officials hope the process
will continue as quickly as political developments allow.
Canadian officials also defended their enforcement regime, but
observed that the enforcement issue is receiving an increasing
amount of high-level attention in the various stakeholder
agencies.


3. (SBU) While questioning (as always) the validity of the Special
301 process, the Canadians are open to the idea of a working group
on IPR issues. Mr. George reiterated Canada's willingness to
participate in the STOP initiative and argued for an early
bilateral meeting on STOP, which could also provide a forum to
address bilateral concerns. He also indicated willingness to
consider an IPR working group under the aegis of the Security and
Prosperity Partnership. He suggested, however, that the Canadians
will not be enthusiastic about an IPR working group explicitly
linked to the Special 301 process, which they reject. A more
cooperative approach under SPP or STOP would be more likely to
engage other stakeholders in the Canadian government.


4. (SBU) Post comment and recommendation: Much of the Canadian
private sector shares US industry concern about IPR protection and
enforcement in Canada; among others, representatives of the
Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association have mentioned it
to us as a priority issue for their members. We believe that
folding this issue into another bilateral process may be the best
way to produce results and potentially avoid an adversarial
dialogue that would strengthen opponents by making it into another
US-Canada dispute. We recommend, as one option, an active
dialogue about the substance of Canadian copyright legislation as
a WIPO ratification issue in the Business Facilitation working
group of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or as a
bilateral subgroup of that group. We could also address
enforcement issues either as part of a STOP partnership or under
the aegis of the security agenda under SPP.

Dickson