Much like in ACTA negotiations, the EU is rejecting the request for inclusion of an anti-camcording provision in CETA. Canada enacted anti-camcording measures under pressure from the U.S. several years ago. The U.S. sought similar provisions in ACTA, but the EU ensured that the provision was optional, not mandatory.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the EU criminal IP proposal is the internal divide over whether it should extend beyond ACTA to create an ACTA+. According to documents I’ve seen, Italy has called for the broadest possible scope for CETA, including geographical indications (yes, criminal provisions for geographical indications). Despite the fact that this extends well beyond ACTA, the Italian position is supported by Portugal, Greece, France, Romania, and the Czech Republic. In fact, the Czech Republic would also like to extend the criminal provisions to designs. The UK, Austria, and Finland oppose extending the provision beyond ACTA. The decision was ultimately made to start by proposing the ACTA language and consider progress on the remaining IP related issues in CETA before escalating European demands.