US embassy cable - 05OTTAWA1305

UNCLAS OTTAWA 001305 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/IPE 
 
CALGARY PASS TO WINIPEG 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON, ETRD, KIPR, CA, Trade 
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