Bill C-11 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Copyright Act (access to copyrighted works or other subject-matter for persons with perceptual disabilities)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 24, 2016
- Debated in principleMay 17, 2016
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 17, 2016
- Passed the second chamberJune 20, 2016
- Became lawJune 21, 2016
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
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 24 March 2016, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development introduced Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (access to copyrighted works or other subject-matter for persons with perceptual disabilities), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-11 amends provisions of the Copyright Act on access for persons with perceptual disabilities to copyrighted materials and, in doing so, implements the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled. The amendments facilitate access for such persons to copyrighted materials while ensuring that the interests of copyright owners are safeguarded.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
51% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,530 words introduced, 1,709 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core aim of changing copyright rules to help people with disabilities access materials and meet the Marrakesh Treaty. Over half the text was rewritten with updates to dates, contract rules, royalty payments, and exception wording.
- Rules on contracts before sending copies were expanded to cover access requests.
Before: “requiring that, before a non-profit organization provides, or provides access to , a work or other subject-matter under paragraph (1)(b), the organization enter into a contract with respect to the use of the work or other subject-matter with, as the case may be , the recipient non-profit organization or the non-profit organization through which the request was made ;”
After: “requiring that, before a non-profit organization provides, or provides access to, a work or other subject-matter under paragraph (1)(b), the organization enter into a contract with respect to the use of the work or other subject-matter with, as the case may be, the recipient non-profit organization or the non-profit organization through which the request was made;”
- Royalty payment rules were updated to cover other subject-matter besides works.
Before: “respecting to which collective society a royalty is payable in relation to works or classes of works for the purposes of subsection (5);”
After: “respecting to which collective society a royalty is payable in relation to works or other subject-matter, or classes of works or other subject-matter, for the purposes of subsection (5);”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses exact lists of permitted acts and clear definitions for terms like print disability and Marrakesh Treaty country, but repeatedly inserts subjective qualifiers such as reasonable time, price, effort and grounds. These leave room for argument over when the exception applies.
Open to argument
“available in the other country within a reasonable time and for a reasonable price and may be located in that country with reasonable effort”
Three overlapping reasonableness tests create factual disputes rather than a bright-line rule.“demonstrates that it had reasonable grounds to believe”
Subjective belief standard invites litigation over what facts were known or should have been checked.“within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition in section 2”
Cross-reference to an external definition adds an extra layer of interpretation.
Clear-cut
“Marrakesh Treaty country means a country that is a party to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, done at Marrakesh on June 27, 2013”
Treaty and exact date fix membership with no discretion.“print disability means a disability that prevents or inhibits a person from reading a literary, musical, artistic or dramatic work in its original format and includes such a disability resulting from (a) severe or total impairment of sight or the inability to focus or move one's eyes; (b) the inability to hold or manipulate a book; or (c) an impairment relating to comprehension”
Enumerated list of impairments supplies an objective test.
Discretion. Regulations may set royalty amounts, reporting formats, and required contract terms between non-profit organizations, leaving those details to officials.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions expand access rather than restrict expression, so a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under Charter s. 2(b) would face an uphill argument on the supplied text.
Disputing a charge under it. A non-profit could readily dispute whether a work was truly unavailable by arguing the reasonableness of time, price or search effort under subsection 32.01(2).
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.