Bill C-59 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 1, 2007
- Debated in principleJune 13, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 13, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2007
- Became lawJune 22, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Janis G. JohnsonSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Rob NicholsonOpens debate on the bill by explaining why camcording is a major threat and why action is needed.
- Don BellAppreciates the opportunity to speak and is pleased to see the bill presented as important to the industry.
- Réal MénardCongratulates the government for responding to the film industry and explains the bill's provisions positively.
- Dennis DawsonSenate · SenatorSupports the bill as addressing film piracy and restoring Canada's image on copyright protection, calling it a step in the right direction.
- The Acting SpeakerNo personal position stated; only procedural record of passage.
- Joe ComartinExplicitly stands to speak in support of the bill and notes all-party agreement.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (473 words introduced, 456 passed).
moderate changeintent kept
The bill passed with added royal assent information and chapter numbering while the core offence provisions stayed identical. Line numbers, page markers, and first-reading details from the introduced version were removed.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The provisions rely on an external statutory definition, fixed penalty maxima, and explicit limits on forfeiture to create clear boundaries. Some elements such as consent and purpose still leave interpretive space.
Open to argument
“without the consent of the theatre manager”
Theatre manager is undefined, so it is unclear whose authority counts.“for the purpose of the sale, rental or other commercial distribution”
Purpose is a subjective mental element open to factual dispute.
Clear-cut
“a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act”
It imports an existing statutory definition rather than leaving the term open.“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years”
Numerical maximums fix the available punishment without subjective standards.“No order may be made under subsection (3) in respect of anything that is the property of a person who is not a party to the offence”
Explicit limitation narrows the scope of forfeiture power.
Discretion. The Attorney General may direct disposal of forfeited items and courts may order forfeiture, but both powers are bounded by the listed statutory conditions.
Challenging the law itself. The offence is confined to specific conduct inside theatres with an objective consent requirement, so a vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter would face a high bar.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could contest whether consent was given or whether the recording was made for commercial distribution, both of which turn on evidence of fact and intent.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.