You raise a lot there.
I'd note, with respect to your question about the special 301 list, that it is a good point. The reality is that the U.S. itself is not fully compliant with its international copyright obligations, and so were there to be a list, you could easily put the U.S. on it, although I would argue that it has as much credibility as the U.S. reviewing our gun laws and saying that our gun laws are overly strict and we should make it easier for people to have access to guns. Or that our environmental laws aren't good enough. It is just one country's opinion on a set of laws when we are truly internationally compliant.
With respect to the specific issues you pointed out, we ought to be hesitant to create a clear link between something that has a logo attached to it with trademark protection and the issue of quality. It is true that in some instances a party who licenses out a product will want to ensure that the product itself bears a certain level of quality, but by no means in every instance. There are lots of trademark products that are of shoddy quality and the like. This isn't a quality issue.
The concern is where someone fails to meet basic Canadian safety standards and the like. From my perspective, that ought to be fraud, if it isn't already fraud, and there's no question that in those kinds of instances there is a role to play for law enforcement to try to stop that activity from occurring. I think it would be a mistake to suggest that simply because something is trademarked or, indeed, copyrighted—everybody gets copyright on anything they write—that it is effectively an assurance of quality.
Indeed, the Canadian Standards Association is where the mark really comes in, in terms of indicia of quality, and where there is counterfeiting of a CSA logo, that is unquestionably a problem, I would agree, and one against which action ought to be taken.