Bill C-11 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Copyright Modernization Act
An Act to amend the Copyright Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 29, 2011
- Debated in principleFeb. 13, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 18, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 28, 2012
- Became lawJune 28, 2012
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
- Stephen GreeneSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Scott ArmstrongPraises the bill and committee amendments as modernizing copyright effectively.
- Christian ParadisMoves the bill at third reading and praises the extensive consultation process.
- James MoorePraises provisions allowing copyright owners to control uses and fight online piracy.
- Dean Del MastroNotes extensive consultation and defends bill against criticisms while highlighting industry support.
- Mike LakeSpeaker presents the bill positively as balancing needs and creating opportunities.
- Paul Calandradescribes the legislation as extraordinarily important to the economy and urges passage
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.
What it set out to do
On 29 September 2011, the Minister Industry introduced Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (Copyright Modernization Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The bill amends the Copyright Act. Among other things, it • updates the rights and protections of copyright owners; • clarifies Internet service providers’ liability and make the enabling of online copyright infringement itself an infringement of copyright; • permits businesses, educators and libraries to make greater use of copyright material in digital form; • permits certain uses of copyright material by consumers; • gives photographers the same rights as other creators; • ensures that it remains technologically neutral; and • mandates its review by Parliament every five years.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-11 · 2011-11-28 · Failed
How it changed on the way
83% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (24,304 words introduced, 19,763 passed). A committee amended it.
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with almost all of its introduced text intact. One new subsection was added to the moral rights section on waivers.
- Added a clause allowing waiver invocation by authorized users.
After: “(4) If a waiver of any moral right is made in favour of an owner or a licensee of a copyright, it may be invoked by any person authorized by the owner or licensee to use the performer's performance,”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text supplies many exact definitions and numeric limits that fix scope quickly. It also relies heavily on reasonableness tests and purpose inquiries that require case-by-case judgment.
Open to argument
“primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of copyright infringement”
The word 'primarily' and the purpose test invite argument over intent and degree.“measures that can reasonably be expected to limit the communication”
The phrase 'reasonably be expected' is a subjective standard rather than an objective checklist.“in a medium that is appropriate for the purposes”
The term 'appropriate' leaves the suitability judgment to later interpretation.“had no reasonable grounds to believe”
This standard appears repeatedly and turns on what a court later decides was reasonable.
Clear-cut
“a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000”
Numeric bounds on statutory damages are fixed and leave little room for debate.“adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996”
Specific treaty names and adoption dates create clear, verifiable categories.“making it available to the public by telecommunication in a way that allows a member of the public to have access to it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public”
The on-demand communication rule is spelled out in operational detail.
Discretion. Almost no power is delegated to ministers or regulations; most interpretive room is left to courts applying the listed reasonableness and purpose tests.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated 'reasonable grounds' and 'primarily for the purpose' language could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 2(b) Charter freedom of expression.
Disputing a charge under it. A defendant can readily dispute whether its conduct met the various 'reasonable' or 'primarily' thresholds, requiring the Crown or plaintiff to prove subjective elements.
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
No official statutory, parliamentary, PBO, Auditor General, or departmental evaluation specifically assesses whether the 2012 Copyright Modernization Act achieved its stated objectives. The closest official source is the 2019 parliamentary review of the Copyright Act, which acknowledges the CMA but focuses on recommending further amendments rather than measuring its effectiveness.
- IIPA 2016 Special 301 Submission on CanadastudyIndustry report notes mixed early impacts of the CMA, with the enablement provision helping against some piracy but fair dealing expansions harming educational publishing revenues.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.