Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to be with you today and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.
As the chair said, I am the Director of Intellectual Property, Information and Technology Trade Policy Division within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I am also the principal negotiator regarding intellectual property issues and trade agreements.
I am also appearing here today as chair of the interdepartmental working group on intellectual property issues. The working group is comprised of 10 departments and agencies, all of which have an interest or responsibility for intellectual property rights. This helps to explain the number of officials you have before you today.
I intend to provide you with an overview of the issue, outline international efforts to combat counterfeiting and piracy and explain the purpose of the working group. My colleagues, Ms. Bincoletto from Industry Canada and Ms. Bouvet from Heritage Canada, will describe Canada's current intellectual property legal framework. Then, Mr. Hansen from the RCMP, Mr. Sloan from the Canada Border Services Agency and Ms. Dowthwaite from Health Canada will describe their authorities and efforts with regard to the enforcement of intellectual property rights in Canada.
First and foremost, counterfeiting and piracy is a growing global problem. The Government of Canada takes the issue seriously and is working toward addressing the problem. Although the issue has been presented by opponents of stronger IP enforcement as a “victimless crime” and one that is only a problem for rich countries, this truly is not the case. The problem poses negative consequences for economies, industries, governments, societies, and consumers. My colleagues will address these issues in further detail during their presentation today.
Counterfeiting and piracy has gained the attention of the international community, as witnessed by the prominence of the issue on the agendas of the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership, SPP; the G-8; the OECD; APEC; the WCO, World Customs Organization; the WTO, World Trade Organization; and the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization.
For instance, the SPP enables closer cooperation between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico on IPR protection and awareness initiatives; the G-8 is providing leadership and guidance by making IP innovation and protection a priority; the OECD is undertaking a process to measure the economic impact of counterfeiting and piracy; APEC has a system to encourage experts from member countries to discuss and share best practices on a range of IP issues, including counterfeiting and piracy; the World Customs Organization is discussing instruments for border authorities to improve their efforts to address counterfeiting and piracy violations, including model legislation; the WTO provides a forum for members to discuss a wide range of issues related to IP, including enforcement; and finally, WIPO is the forum for all countries to address key issues related to the international legal framework, including being the main focus for technical assistance to developing countries.
Let me return to the efforts of the OECD. This point deserves further emphasis. There is a challenge in measuring the impact of counterfeiting and piracy as a great deal of it goes undetected. Enforcement data only summarizes those instances where goods and efforts are intercepted. That is why you will see a range of estimates from different parties attempting to quantify the total impact, and this may cause confusion.
This is only the multilateral side of our international work. Bilateral interests and activities are equally focused on IP issues. The U.S. has allocated significant resources to this issue for the bilateral diplomacy efforts with specific countries, Canada included.
Canada appeared in the U.S. Trade representative's 2006 Special 301 Report, which is driven by U.S. industry and is typically used by the United States representative to apply pressure on trading partners. Canada has been on the lowest level of lists for the last 11 years, along with the European Union, Italy and Mexico.
Both domestic and international factors have led the Government of Canada to undertake a review of our domestic IP enforcement regime. That's where the interdepartmental working group comes in. Ten key agencies and departments are examining the issues to identify and analyze potential solutions. The group is currently studying options to improve our regime, with the intent to prepare recommendations for consideration. Significant progress has been made, but the work is not yet complete.
In order to be effective as government officials, we work closely together and call on stakeholders such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, among others, for input and advice through surveys, round tables, and seminars. This partnership is essential to better understand our respective interests and concerns.
Canada believes that cooperation between countries, including industry, not just governments, is essential as the problem is global.
On that note, I will hand it over to my colleagues from Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage.