Canada – EU Trade Deal Pushing Toward New Canadian Copyright Enforcement Bill

The latest round of the Canada – EU trade agreement negotiations recently concluded in Brussels and Canadian officials provided an update to civil society groups on Friday. While officials indicated that there has been progress on many fronts, the intellectual property chapter is not one of them. The EU is demanding dramatic changes to Canadian intellectual property law including significant reforms to copyright, patent, and geographical indications (more on the CETA IP provisions and their implications here and here).

  Officials indicated that it was difficult to discuss the copyright chapter without the return of Bill C-32. Once a bill is tabled, they expect talks on the issue to accelerate. In addition to the substantive provisions found in C-32, the EU is also focused on enforcement-related provisions. Officials indicated that the EU demands will likely be similar to those found in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. They acknowledged that new legislation will needed to comply with these treaties, suggesting that a second copyright bill focused on enforcement (including new border measures provisions) will quickly follow the C-32 bill. On the patent front, the large brand name pharmaceutical companies are supporting further change to Canadian law, while the generic pharmaceutical companies oppose reforms. The issue is a big priority for the EU, but no progress was made to resolve the stalemate.  

Tags: / / /


  1. You can still call it “parmesan”
    Say good bye to “parmesan” labels since parmesan, which means “made in Parma”, is a geographical indication and the “parmesan” sold in Canada is everything but made in Parma.

  2. Doug Webb says:

    They want to embroil the world in litigation
    I can see all this being abused by large corporations and the entertainment industry. I understand that counterfeit products are a hazard to consumers but is copyright the right tool? Should a law intended to foster art and culture be expanded to include all products everywhere in the world? As an artist I would hate to have the police show up at my door to arrest me for criminal copyright infringement for something that should be fair use and or free speech. I think this approach will cripple creativity and be abused to crush free speech globally.

  3. Its no surprise that C-32 is just a way of getting their foot in the door.
    They wont ever be happy, they will just keep passing draconian crap that does absolutely NOTHING for the general population.
    Herr Harpler.

  4. I don’t know why Canada is currently working on a free trade deal with the EU when the future of the EU is currently and largely in question.

  5. The future of EU is really quite complicated question.Canada is very well developed economy but I agree that the products sold in there are not from the EU.

    Cheap Holidays

  6. James Plotkin says:

    my idea of some changes…
    I agree with Doug. I’m not convinced copyright legislation is the right place for these measures. I’m also certain that TPM anti-circumvention measures have no place in the copyright act. I find these provisions to be a perversion of what copyright law is supposed to be.

    Not only that, we really have to lighten up on derivative works. I challenge someone to present an example of a book that was not popularized and didn’t sell better after a movie adaptation.

    It’s kind of silly that our fair dealing doesn’t cover these types of uses. The “You tube” exception is a start, however, I don’t see any reason why transformative works should have to be non-commercial to evade infringement. A new work is a new work.

    Without getting too anal, we can easily discern a copy from an adaptation. whats more, we can specify what we mean by an adaptation in the law. Translations are one thing; adapting a play into film or a novel into a play is another. the law can be amended to create an exclusionary exception for translations and other uses of a work not deemed by the legislator to be sufficiently original or transformative to merit it’s own copyright. I view this as the optimal manner in which to promote the advancement of culture and the creation of new works without bluntly removing all value a copyright bestows on its holder.

    In short, I guess I also wouldn’t mind seeing some drastic reform to our copyright law, just not in the same direction as the EU…

  7. Doug Webb says:

    Is it funny or sad?
    Is it funny or sad that border services will be protecting us from illegally obtained art? I guess I just have to be happy that I won’t be assaulted by purloined Heavy Metal smuggled into the country on personal devices. Has anyone told border services about the internet?

  8. yeah right
    Yeah right, there is no way even the Tories would consider another copyright bill purely for enforcement of copyright infringement. That would be a political nightmare for them; and they would lose popularity very quickly once the lawsuits start flying. I think the EU is going to have to take what it can get, or go home; as you guys said they’re not in the position to be demanding anything, considering their economic situation.

  9. kaisjhe
    juat another excuse to smash our freedom , what a shame!