Canada WT/TPR/S/53
Page 35
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
(1) OVERVIEW
1. §Since its last Trade Policy Review in 1996, Canada has continued on the liberalization of its
trade regime on regional and multilateral bases, under the NAFTA, the new free-trade agreements
with Chile and Israel, as well as under Uruguay Round obligations and more recent WTO initiatives.
Canada has also completed an autonomous review of its import regime resulting in a considerablesimplification of the tariff system.  The growing volume of trade covered by preferential agreements,
however, has produced an elaborated system of tariffs and rules of origin that could distort trade
patterns.
2. There have been no major changes in Canada's system of trade controls and restrictions over
the past two years.  The number of anti-dumping measures in force has declined and new initiationshave remained restrained.  Nevertheless, with most of the measures currently in force affecting steel
imports, anti-dumping remains a potentially significan t sectoral trade barrier.  Proposals to review the
procedures for anti-dumping and countervailing actions are currently before Parliament.  A number of
government-owned enterprises in the dairy, wheat and alcoholic beverage sectors continue to have
special or exclusive privileges with respect to extern al trade.  Canada still limits exports of softwood
lumber to the United States through tariff quotas.
3. Significant efforts have been made to reduce federal subsidies to all sectors of the economy.
At the provincial level, however, producers and exporters continue to be supported through grants,
financing and tax exemptions.  Local content, performance or purchase requirements have been
mostly eliminated at federal level, but are still main tained by certain sub-federal authorities.  Policies
regarding federal procurement have not changed.  Canada's position regarding its international
commitments with respect to public procurement has not changed since 1996.  Public purchasesoutside federal entities are not, by and large, subject to international competitive tendering disciplines.
4. Canada has continued its efforts to prevent technical and other regulatory barriers from
hampering international trade, including initiativ es under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers
to Trade and the negotiation of mutual recognition agreements.  In part to take account of the growing
role played by standards in trade, the Standards Council of Canada has been given a revised mandate;all federally mandated food inspection and quarantine services have been consolidated into the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
5. With respect to intellectual property rights, the patent protection law has been revised to,
among other things, comply with commitments under the WTO TRIPS Agreement;  the trade marks
legislation is under review;  and Canada has amended its copyright law in line with theRome Convention.
(2) I
MPORT AND EXPORT CHARGES
(i) Tariffs
(a) MFN tariffs and the tariff simplification initiative
6. Canada introduced on 1 January 1998 a new Customs Tariff, which implemented in one
instrument the simplifications foreshadowed in the last Trade Policy Review in 1996; the tariff
reductions under the trade agreements with Chile and Israel; concessions made under the WTO
Information Technology Agreement;  scheduled tariff reductions under the Uruguay RoundWT/TPR/S/53 Trade Policy Review
Page 36
Agreements;  and the elimination of tariffs on most U.S. goods pursuant to the NAFTA.  Canada has
submitted an Article XXVIII:5 notification to WTO Members regarding the new tariff.
7. The Customs tariff introduced in 1998 lowered the number of tariff lines from some 11,000 to
8,000, expanded the number of duty-free tariff lines, reduced customs duties on a range of
manufacturing inputs (complementing the reductions that came into effect in June 1995) and, overall,
lowered the average incidence both of MFN and preferen tial tariffs.  It also eliminated more than half
of the former concessionary tariff codes and converted approximately 1,000 other relevant codes to
the concessionary rates.  As part of this conversion, some tariff codes under which certain goods
imported for specific purposes could be brought in duty free if "not made in Canada" were converted
to duty-free tariff provisions without the "not made in Canada" condition.  According to the
authorities, the elimination of the "not made in Canada" condition broadens the scope of these tariffprovisions, under which a substantial volume of imports enters Canada.
8. The new tariff replaced the Machinery Remission Program with duty-free provisions in the
tariff schedule for machinery not available in Canada and dutiable provisions for other machinery that
is domestically produced.
1  The new legislation also eliminated over 300 tariff regulations and
converted approximately 70 others to simpler tariff provisions in the tariff schedule at concessionaryrates.  The seven schedules of the old tariff have been consolidated in a single schedule.  In this
process, virtually all of the final Uruguay Round reductions scheduled for 1 January 1999 (i.e. most
industrial products except textiles and clothing) were implemented on 1 January 1998, as were the
final reductions with regard to the General Preferential Tariff applicable to these items;  and virtually
all the rates of less than 2% were eliminated and most decimal rates rounded down to the closest half
percentage point.  These measures are permanent features of the new Customs Tariff, i.e. they are
included in legislative provisions that automati cally round-down rates or eliminate them when they
reach a level below 2%.  Further, the new legislation updated and streamlined the text of the Customs
Tariff.  Among the changes made are a broadened Order in Council authority to unilaterally reduce
duties on all inputs, including production machinery used by manufacturers and service providers, and
the termination of the British Preferential Tariff (BPT – see below).
9. Although the new tariff converts 125 specific rates of duty (expressed as dollars or cents per
unit) into ad valorem  rates, eight types of rate still coexist, with non- ad valorem  lines covering almost
5% of the tariff, down from 6% in 1996.
2  In general, alcoholic beverages, certain agricultural
products and wool fabrics are subject to non- ad valorem  tariffs:  the actual level of protection for
these products thus continues to vary according to the unit-value of shipments.  Besides reducing
predictability, non- ad valorem  duties can also mask higher than average levels of protection for the
few products affected:  the average estimated ad valorem  equivalent of tariff lines covered by
non-ad valorem  duties is 82%.  Non- ad valorem  rates on imports from preferential sources are rarer,
reflecting the high proportion of duty-free rates under these agreements.
10. The 1998 tariff maintains differential MFN tariffs depending on the type of packaging,
although imports of these products generally enter duty free irrespective of packaging when
                                                     
1Examples of duty-free items created in this context include the following HS codes:  8413.50.10,
8413.60.10, 8413.70.10, 8415.87.10, 8418.61.10, 8419.39. 10, 8419.89.10, 8421.21.10, 8421.29.10, 8421.39.10,
8422.30.10, 8422.40.10, 8424.30.10 and 8424.89.10.
2These forms are: ad valorem  rates (95.3% of the lines in the Customs Tariff);  specific rates (1.8%);
ad valorem  plus specific rates (0.6%); ad valorem  rates but not less than a specific rate (1.1%);  specific rates
but not less than an ad valorem  rate (0.8%); ad valorem  rates but not more than a specific rate (0.1%);
ad valorem  rates but neither less than or more than a specific rate (0.2%); specific rates with an ad valorem  floor
plus an ad valorem  rate (0.1%).Canada WT/TPR/S/53
Page 37
originating in preferential countries. 3  Some tariff differences according to end-use have also been
retained.4  Also, seasonal tariffs remain in the new legislation (see below).
11. The introduction of the new Customs Tariff has not brought any significant change to the
operation of tariff quotas, which continue to form one of the main instruments of Canada's agricultural
trade policy.  For each item subject to tariff quotas, two tariff rates have been bound under the WTO:
an "in-quota" rate applies to imports up to a certain import quantity (the "market accesscommitment"), and an out-of-quota rate applies to imports above the market access commitment.  A
description of the administration of tariff quotas is provided in Chapter IV(2).  Among recent changes,
the agreement with Chile has resulted in significant new tariff preferences within the tariff quota
system (see below).
12. Under the 1997 WTO Information Technology Agreement (ITA - Chapter II), Canada
eliminated all duties on semiconductor manufacturing and testing equipment as well as parts thereof;
and committed itself to abolish import duties on all other products concerned by 2000.
5  Products
covered by the concessions are listed in Table AIII .1, together with the applicable customs duties in
1996 and 1998.  The effect of Canada's ITA Schedule of commitments is a reduction from an average
applied tariff of 4.3% on IT products in 1996 to 1.4% in 1998.  The largest cuts in applied tariffs onIT products have been implemented on semiconductor production equipment and telephone
equipment.
13. The "zero-for-zero" Uruguay Round negotiations re sulted in the elimination by the parties
concerned of MFN tariffs on pharmaceutical products, construction equipment, medical equipment,
steel, furniture, agricultural equipment, beer, distilled spirits, toys and paper.  In addition to the over
6,000 pharmaceutical products already duty free as a result of this process, 465 additional products
received duty-free treatment in April 1997.
6  These additional commitments, which have been
incorporated into the 1998 Customs Tariff, were expected to both benefit imports of pharmaceutical
products and provide tariff relief on a number of active ingredients used in their manufacture.
14. Average MFN tariffs in 1996 and 1998 are presented in Chart III.1.7   Most reductions have
been concentrated in the manufacturing and mining sectors, where the average tariff has decreased by
over one quarter. In contrast, tariff protection in the agri-food processing sector has remained above30% on average.  Nearly 45% of HS 8-digit tariff items are duty free, up from 32% in 1996 and 26%
in 1994.  The average tariff on dutiable items is 14%, unchanged since 1996.
15. The relatively low level of applied tariffs having fallen further, the contribution of customs
duties to the Federal Budget declined from 2.9% in  1994/95 to 1.9% in 1996/97.  Similarly, import
duties declined from 1.6% of total imports in 1995 to 1.1% in 1997.
                                                     
3For example, imports of cauliflower are subject to a lower rate (1.99¢/kg., but not less than 4.5%) if
they are imported in bulk or in large packages than if they enter Canada in packages of a weight below 2.27 kg.
(in which case 4.5% is added to the applicable MFN rate).
4An example is beet sugar, which enters Canada duty free when used by the wine-producing industries.
5WTO document  G/MA/TAR/RS/19, 16 April 1997.
6The following Members are committed to eliminate customs duties on pharmaceutical products:
Canada, the Czech Republic, the European Union, Japa n, Norway, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the
United States.
7The tariff analysis in this section is based on ad valorem  tariffs, ad valorem  equivalents of
non-ad valorem  duties when available and, if not, the ad valorem  component of alternate, compound and other
mixed duties.   Unless specified, the analysis includes both in-quota and out-of-quota tariffs in the case of
agricultural products su bject to tariff quotas.Canada WT/TPR/S/53
Page 75
federal Crown corporations (public enterprises) listed in Annex 3 of Canada's GPA Schedule are not
subject to GPA rules.
131. Canada's commitments under the GPA also cover services industries, including engineering,
real estate, accounting, some information processi ng and related telecommunications services and
software.  Some of the exceptions include market research, advertising and management consulting
services;  public relations services;  scientific and technical consulting services;  legal services (except
on foreign law);  and health and education services.  GPA commitments on services contain a
reciprocity provision (Appendix I, General Notes) .  The GATS exempts all government purchases of
services from MFN treatment under its Market Access and National Treatment provisions;  there arethus no access guarantees in this area apart from those provided under the GPA.
132. There has been no major change since 1996 regarding NAFTA government procurement rules
and practices, which are also confined to federal government purchasing.   As noted in the previous
Trade Policy Review of Canada, the NAFTA thresholds, though not fully identical for all NAFTA
signatories, are well below those under the GPA (Table III.12).
Table III.12
Procurement thresholds under the GPA, the NAFTA and the AIT, June 1998
Institution Agreement Goods Services Construction
Federal government  departments and entities GPA 260,000 260,000 9,900,000
NAFTA 34,300a70,700 9,100,000
AIT 25,000 100,000 100,000
Federal government enterprisesb GPA n.a. n.a. n.a.
NAFTA 353,800 353,800 9,900,000
AIT 25,000 100,000 100,000
MASH sector GPA n.a. n.a. n.a.
NAFTA n.a. n.a. n.a.
AIT 100,000 100,000 250,000
Provincial government departments and entities GPA n.a. n.a. n.a.
NAFTA n.a. n.a. n.a.
AIT 25,000 100,000 100,000
Provincial, local and other federal government enterprises GPA n.a n.a. n.a.
NAFTA n.a. n.a. n.a.
AIT n.a. n.a. n.a.
n.a. Not applicable.
a 70,700 between Canada and Mexico.
c Commitments concern nine federal government enterprises in the case of NAFTA, and seven in the case of the AIT.
Source: WTO Secretariat;  and Government of Canada.
133. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) receives, enquires into, and decides bid
challenges concerning covered federal government procurement;  suppliers may therefore challenge
federal procurement that they believe has not been in accordance with the AIT, the NAFTA or the
GPA.  During fiscal year 1997/98, the CITT issued 20 determinations, nearly twice the number in1995/96.  The increase is partly due to the entry into force of the AIT.  Another 34 cases were not
decided on their merits.
59  The cases decided on their merits dealt with issues related to the production
                                                     
59Cases not decided on their merits are either solved between the parties, abondoned, withdrawn or
dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (i.e. not designated, late, below monetary thresholds, etc).WT/TPR/S/53 Trade Policy Review
Page 76
of restrictive specifications, the use of limited tendering (sole sourcing) practices and, most
frequently, the production of unclear evaluation criteria or methodology or the improper application
of the evaluation criteria or methodology set out in solicitation documents, including improper
contract awards.
(c) Public purchases at sub-federal level
134. Canada offered to cover sub-federal government entities (but no Crown corporations) in all ten
provinces, on the basis of commitments received by th e provinces, with a final listing to be provided
within 18 months after the conclusion of the GPA.  Canada's current position, as stated in the context of
this Review is that its obligations under the GPA fo r sub-federal coverage are limited, and that the latter
"having reviewed the offers from other signature count ries, particularly that of the United States, have
concluded that they would not be prepared to commit coverage of th eir entities until such members were
prepared to improve market access in sectors of prior ity interest to Canadian suppliers and to agree to
circumscribe the use of small business set-asides (Buy American provisions) in a manner that would
provide security of access".
135. GPA Members have expressed concern that Canada has not honoured commitments undertaken
under the Agreement.  The Chairman of the Committee on Government Procurement recalled that the
Canadian Schedule offered to cover entities in al l ten provinces, but that commitments from Provincial
Governments had never been received.60  As Canada's position has to date remained unchanged, several
other signatories have responded by excluding Canadian companies from certain market-access
commitments at both the government enterprise and sub-federal level.
136. In the context of the AIT, work has continued to remove the "buy-provincial" and other
procurement practices that discriminate not only against foreign suppliers but also against suppliers
from other provinces. The AIT ensures equal access for "Canadian suppliers" to procurement made
directly by a federal or provincial government.  It does not rule out the possibility for governments,
federal or provincial, to maintain "buy-Canadian" measures such as price preferences or registrationrequirements.  Nevertheless, a foreign-owned company could in principle be eligible to tender for
most purchases covered by the AIT, provided it qualifies as a "Canadian supplier", i.e. a supplier that
has a place of business in Canada.  The latter is defined as "an establishment where a supplier
conducts activities on a permanent basis that is clearly identified by name and accessible during
normal working hours".  Its tendering, however, may be subject to Canadian value-added
requirements or preferences.  For example, Ontario's Purchasing Services Branch gives a 10%
preference on the Canadian content in a supplier's bid.  The Province of Quebec may restrictprocurement to goods and services produced in Canada.
61
137. In February 1998, an agreement was reached in principle to extend the AIT's procurement
disciplines to the MASH sector.  This agreement will come into effect in July 1999.  The thresholds
for the MASH agreement are Can$100,000 for goods and services and Can$250,000 for construction
(Table III.12).  This has therefore opened new opportunities for suppliers across Canada, who remainat the same time partially shielded from international competition.  Procurement disciplines under the
AIT have not been extended to most provincial public companies.
                                                     
60WTO document GPA/M/5, 11 April 1997.
61Government of Quebec, http://www.micst.gouv.gc.ca/commerce/index.html.Canada WT/TPR/S/53
Page 77
(5) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
(i) Patents
138. Since the previous Review, the main change to Canada's Patent Law has been a review of the
amendments introduced by Bill C-91 to the Patent Act in February 1993.62  The amendments
eliminated Canada's non-remedial compulsory licensing regime for pharmaceuticals.  They also
introduced two exceptions to patent infringements, al lowing (i) the use or sale of a patented invention
for the development and submission of information required by law; and (ii) the manufacture of
inventions during "the applicable period provided for by the regulations" for the manufacture and
storage of articles intended for sale after the patent term expires" (Article 55.2).  In the pharmaceutical
sector, these exceptions allow manufacturers of generic medicines to begin the process of seeking
regulatory approval for and the right to develop and stockpile their generic copy of the patentedproduct prior to the expiry of the patent.
63  The rationale for this exception is to allow generic
manufacturers to begin marketing their products as soon as the relevant patents expire (Box III.4).
These exceptions in the Canadian law are currently the subject of consultations requested by the
European Union;  the United States, Australia and Switzerland have made a request to join these
consultations (Chapter II(4)).
139. The 1993 amendments contained a clause requiring a comprehensive review four years after
their entry into force.  The review was carried out by the Standing Committee on Industry in 1997. In
response to the Standing Committee's recommendations, the Government amended the Patented
Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations in March 1998.  The changes are intended primarily to
reduce unnecessary litigation and streamline the process, for example, by specifying the
circumstances under which damages can be awarded;   expressly confirming the authority of the
Minister of Health to audit patent lists;  and permitting the Court to order disclosure of portions of ageneric manufacturer's Notice of Compliance (NOC) submission.  The changes sought to maintain a
balance between the rights of the patent holder (modifying the Court's discretion to extend a stay
order; fuller disclosure of generics-related claims of non-infringement;  and placing the burden of
proof on the generic manufacturer in the case of disputes) and that of consumers to obtain
"reasonably" priced medicines through market entry of generic medicines (reducing the length of thestay order in the case of disputes brought by patent holders; and providing a mechanism for early
dismissal of cases).
64
140. Following a period of three years after the patent is granted, any person may apply to the
Commissioner of patents alleging abuse of exclusiv e rights and request a compulsory licence on such
terms as the Commissioner of patents may think expedient (Articles 65 and 66 of the Act).  Abuse ofexclusive patent rights in this instance is defined (i) if demand for the patented article is not being met
adequately and on "reasonable" terms in Canada;  (ii) if the patentee refuses to grant a licence or
licences on reasonable terms, thereby prejudicing trade or industry in Canada;  (iii) if any trade or
industry in Canada is unfairly prejudiced by the condi tions attached by the patentee;  and (iv) if the
patent for an invention relating to a process involv ing the use of materials not protected by the patent
or for an invention relating to a substance produced by such a process has been unfairly utilized by the
patentee to prejudice the manufacture or sale of any material in Canada.  The Commissioner, if
satisfied that the exclusive right has been abused by the patentee, may grant a licence on terms and
                                                     
62Canada's legislation on patents, layout designs (topographies) of integrated circuits, protection of
undisclosed information and control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licences was reviewed by the
Council for TRIPS at its meeting of 26-30 May 1997 (WTO document IP/Q3/CAN/1, 5 May 1998).
63WTO document, IP/N/1/CAN/1/Add.1, 16 December 1997.
64Canada Gazette, Part I, January 24, 1998, "Regula tions Amending the Patented Medicines (Notice of
Compliance) Regulations".WT/TPR/S/53 Trade Policy Review
Page 78
conditions deemed fit for the particular case.  Only one such compulsory licence has been granted
since 1996;  it concerned a gadget for hockey sticks.
Box III.4:  Intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical sector
Canada is the only country that explic itly issues regulations on drug pri ces through its patent legislation.
Sections 79-111 in the Patent Act de al exclusively with paten ted medicines.  The obj ective of Canada's drug
patent policy has been to achieve a balance between  the development of a pharmaceuticals industry in
Canada and the provision of affordable healthcare to the Canadian population.
Prices are reviewed by the Patented Medicine Pri ces Review Board (PMPRB), an independent, q uasi-judicial
body, created in 1987 to ensure that the price of pate nted medicines woul d not be unnecessarily high.  The
guidelines issued by the PMPRB limit prices of most ne w patented drugs to the range of prices for existing
drugs used in the treatment of the same disease; to the median of the prices charged for the drug in otherindustrialized countries (currently France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the
United States);  and to increases in  the consumer price index (for patented drugs already on the market).
While the scope of intellectual prope rty rights has been increased as a result of recent amendments to the
Patent Act including, most recently, Bill C-91, whic h eliminated non-remedial compulsory licences and
strengthened the power of the PMPRB to restrain excessi ve drug prices.  The Board was also given the power
to order fines and price rollbacks.
Bill C-91 also introduced two exceptions to patent infri ngement for regulatory approv al and stockpiling.  The
exceptions were introduced to  allow generic companies to begin producing and marketing their products
upon expiry of the relevant patent.  At the same time, Bill C-91 intr oduced the Patented Medicines (Notice of
Compliance) Regulations to ensure effective enforcement of patent rights.  Generic companies as well ascompanies with patented products must go through a process of regulatory approval for all new drugs.  ANotice of Compliance (NOC) is issued by Health Canada upon successful completion of this process, enablingthe company to proceed with manufacture and marketing of the drug.  Although generic companies can apply
for, and begin the process of regulat ory approval, the NOC will not be i ssued until the expiry of all patents
relevant to the particular generic drug.  In order to ensure that the genetic NOC is not issued prior to theexpiry of legitimate patent rights, a patent holder must submit a patent list detailing all the relevant patents tothe product and their expiry dates to Health Canada.  This ensures that when a company producing genericdrugs applies for an NOC, it must either wait until the expiry of all relevant patents on the list or successfully
allege that it does not infringe, before it is granted manufacture and marketing approval.
The balance that has thus been achieved seeks to build the pharmaceutical industry in Canada by
encouraging research and development through the st rengthened patent system, while at the same time
seeking to restrain excessive prices for pharmaceutical products.  The policy on generic drugs is geared toensuring that generic drugs can become available as soon as patents expire.
Source: Government of Canada (1997), Review of th e Patent Act Amendment Act, 1992 (Bill C-91)
,
February;  Government of Canada (1998), Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Industry:
Pharmaceutical Policy, and Government of Canada, The Patent Act .
141. The federal and provincial governments may also apply for non-exclusive use of patented
inventions under Section 19 of the Patent Act.  The Commissioner may authorize such use if it hasbeen established that efforts had been made to obtain the patented invention from the patentee on
"reasonable commercial terms" and if the efforts had been made over a reasonable period of time.
65
This is determined on a case by case basis.  The Commissioner may decide on the terms andconditions to make the authorization for Government use.  Compulsory licences can also be issued by
                                                     
65Section 19(1).  This section does not apply in the case of national emergency or extreme urgency or
where the authorization sought is for public non-commercial use.Canada WT/TPR/S/53
Page 79
the Federal Court under Canada's Competition Act to prevent anti-competitive activities relating to
intellectual property rights.
(ii) Copyright
142. Canada's copyright legislation was amended in April 1997 through an Act to Amend the
Copyright Act (S.C. 1997, c.24), in line with its commitments to the Convention for the Protection of
Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (the Rome Convention).Under the changes, all performers and producers from countries that are members of the Rome
Convention are eligible to receive royalty paymen ts when their sound recordings are performed or
broadcast in Canada, subject to the reservations made by "Rome countries", for example under
Article 16(1)(a)(i) of the Convention.  According to the authorities, new legislation is neutral
regarding non-Rome countries;  although it does not automatically attribute eligibility for benefits tonon-Rome countries, it allows the Minister of Industry to determine which non-Rome countries may
receive national treatment, and which countries  may receive benefits on a reciprocal basis.
143. The amendment also includes a private copying regime that imposes levies on blank audio
media such as cassettes sold in Canada (both domestically manufactured and imported).  The benefits
of the private copying levy are to be distributed to eligible authors (composers and lyricists) ofmusical works (including all foreign authors whose copyright in musical works subsists in Canada) as
well as to eligible performers and producers (makers) of sound recordings (see also
Chapter IV(5)(iii)).
144. Until the 1997 amendment, parallel imports of books could be prevented by copyright owners
and licensees but not by book distributors.  This has been amended by the new Copyright Act, which
allows exclusive distributors to prevent the parallel importation of books covered by exclusive
distribution contracts, subject to conditions to be set by regulation.  There are exceptions listed inSection 45 of the Act, which allow the parallel importation of works in general and of books in
particular.  A person may import for their own use not more than two copies of a work or other
subject-matter;  a department of the Government of Canada or a province may import copies of a
work or other subject-matter;  a library, archive museum or educational institution, may import not
more than one copy of a book;  and a person may import any used books except textbooks of ascientific, technical or scholarly nature for use within an educational institution in a course of
instruction.  The authorities indicated that the pr ohibition on the importation of used textbooks would
be suspended by regulation pending further study of the issues.  
(iii) Trade marks
145. Canada's legislation for trade marks is contained in the Trade Marks Act and Regulations
(1996).
66  In response to criticisms of the opposition process and the length of time taken to register a
trade mark, the Registrar of Trade Marks recently proposed amending the Trade Marks Regulations
(1996) in order to simplify and speed up the opposition procedure.67  No final decisions are to be
made on what, if any, amendments may be made until further public consultation.
                                                     
66WTO documents IP/N/1/CAN/1, 27 February 1997, CAN/1/Add.1, 16 December 1997,  and
CAN/1/I/1, 10 October 1996.  Canada's legislation for trade marks, geographical indications and industrialdesigns was reviewed by the TRIPS Council on 11-15 November 1996 (WTO document, IP/Q2/CAN/1,2 June 1997).
67World Intellectual Property Report (1997).WT/TPR/S/53 Trade Policy Review
Page 80
146. Under the Trade Marks Act, Section 53 allows "any interested person" to apply for a
court order to prevent import, distribution or sale of goods infringing any person's rights under the
Act.
(iv) Enforcement
147. Jurisdiction for examining allegations of intellectual property rights violations lies
concurrently with the Federal Court and the Superior Court of each province.68  The Federal Court,
however, has no criminal jurisdiction.  Trade secrets are protected through a combination of equity
and the law of contract and tort, in the common la w provinces and through the Civil Code of Quebec.
Jurisdiction in this case, therefore, lies with the supe rior courts of the provinces, rather than with the
Federal Court.69  Border measures allowing customs officials to prevent entry of protected goods into
Canada are available with respect to goods in violation of copyrights or trade marks and under theIntegrated Circuits Topography Act. Border measures can, however, only be enforced by Customs
following a court order.  In addition, the courts have interpreted Section 42 of the Patent Act as
allowing them to issue injunctions against imports of goods infringing patent rights, enabling the
patent holder to take measures to halt imports of counterfeit goods.
70
148. Penalties for copyright infringement can be a fine of up to Can$25,000 or six months
imprisonment for a summary conviction, and Can$1 million or five-years imprisonment for a
conviction on indictment.  Fines may also be imposed in the case of infringements of plant breeders
rights, up to a maximum of Can$5,000.  On convictio n on indictment, penalties can be a maximum of
Can$15,000 or imprisonment up to three years (five years for false representation).  A corporation on
summary conviction may be fined a maximum of Can$25,000.
                                                     
68Federal Court Act, Section 20(2);  Patent Act Section 54(1);  Industrial Designs Act, Section 15.2;
Integrated Circuits (IC) Topography Act, Section 8(1), 23;  Copyright Act, Section 37(1);  Trade Marks Act,Section 55;  Plant Breeders' Rights Act, Section 42(1), 43(1).
69WTO document IP/N/6/CAN/1, 18 February 1997.
70WTO documents IP/N/6/CAN/1, 18 February 1997, and IP/Q4/CAN/1, 28 July 1998.