Copyright Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Copyright Act

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Christian Paradis  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Copyright Act to
(a) update the rights and protections of copyright owners to better address the challenges and opportunities of the Internet, so as to be in line with international standards;
(b) clarify Internet service providers’ liability and make the enabling of online copyright infringement itself an infringement of copyright;
(c) permit businesses, educators and libraries to make greater use of copyright material in digital form;
(d) allow educators and students to make greater use of copyright material;
(e) permit certain uses of copyright material by consumers;
(f) give photographers the same rights as other creators;
(g) ensure that it remains technologically neutral; and
(h) mandate its review by Parliament every five years.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 18, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
May 15, 2012 Passed That Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 54 the following: “(3) The Board may, on application, make an order ( a) excluding from the application of section 41.1 a technological protection measure that protects a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording, or classes of them, or any class of such technological protection measures, having regard to the factors set out in paragraph (2)(a); or ( b) requiring the owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording that is protected by a technological protection measure to provide access to the work, performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording to persons who are entitled to the benefit of any limitation on the application of paragraph 41.1(1)(a). (4) Any order made under subsection (3) shall remain in effect for a period of five years unless ( a) the Governor in Council makes regulations varying the term of the order; or ( b) the Board, on application, orders the renewal of the order for an additional five years.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 52 with the following: “(2) Paragraph 41.1(1)( b) does not”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 51 with the following: “(2) Paragraph 41.1(1)( b) does not”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 7 on page 51.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 33 on page 50.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting line 37 on page 49 to line 3 on page 50.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 29 on page 48.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 44 on page 47.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “(5) Paragraph (1)( a) does not apply to a qualified person who circumvents a technological protection measure on behalf of another person who is lawfully entitled to circumvent that technological protection measure. (6) Paragraphs (1)( b) and (c) do not apply to a person who provides a service to a qualified person or who manufactures, imports or provides a technology, device or component, for the purposes of enabling a qualified person to circumvent a technological protection measure in accordance with this Act. (7) A qualified person may only circumvent a technological protection measure under subsection (5) if ( a) the work or other subject-matter to which the technological protection measure is applied is not an infringing copy; and ( b) the qualified person informs the person on whose behalf the technological protection measure is circumvented that the work or other subject-matter is to be used solely for non-infringing purposes. (8) The Governor in Council may, for the purposes of this section, make regulations ( a) defining “qualified person”; ( b) prescribing the information to be recorded about any action taken under subsection (5) or (6) and the manner and form in which the information is to be kept; and ( c) prescribing the manner and form in which the conditions set out in subsection (7) are to be met.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “41.101 (1) No one shall apply, or cause to be applied, a technological protection measure to a work or other subject-matter that is intended to be offered for use by members of the public by sale, rental or otherwise unless the work or other subject-matter is accompanied by a clearly visible notice indicating ( a) that a technological protection measure has been applied to the work; and ( b) the capabilities, compatibilities and limitations imposed by the technological protection measure, including, where applicable, but without limitation (i) any requirement that particular software must be installed, either automatically or with the user's consent, in order to access or use the work or other subject-matter, (ii) any requirement for authentication or authorization via a network service in order to access or use the work or other subject-matter, (iii) any known incompatibility with ordinary consumer devices that would reasonably be expected to operate with the work or other subject-matter, and (iv) any limits imposed by the technological protection measure on the ability to make use of the rights granted under section 29, 29.1, 29.2, 29.21, 29.22, 29.23 or 29.24; and ( c) contact information for technical support or consumer inquiries in relation to the technological protection measure. (2) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the form and content of the notice referred to in subsection (1).”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “41.101 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)( a) does not apply to a person who has lawful authority to care for or supervise a minor and who circumvents a technological protection measure for the purpose of protecting the minor if ( a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter with regard to which the technological protection measure is applied is not an infringing copy; and ( b) the person has lawfully obtained the work, the performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or the sound recording that is protected by the technological protection measure. (2) Paragraphs 41.1(1)( b) and (c) do not apply to a person who provides a service to a person referred to in subsection (1) or who manufactures, imports or provides a technology, device or component, for the purposes of enabling anyone to circumvent a technological protection measure in accordance with subsection (1). (3) A person acting in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) is not entitled to benefit from the exception under that subsection if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright or contravenes any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 40 on page 46.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 45 with the following: “measure for the purpose of an act that is an infringement of the copyright in the protected work.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 30 to 34 on page 20.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 37 on page 19.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 27, be amended by deleting line 42 on page 23 to line 3 on page 24.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 29 on page 23 with the following: “paragraph (3)( a) to reproduce the lesson for non-infringing purposes.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 21, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 17 the following: “(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations defining “education” for the purposes of subsection (1).”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
May 15, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Feb. 13, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Feb. 13, 2012 Passed That this question be now put.
Feb. 8, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Nov. 28, 2011 Failed 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, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, because it fails to: ( a) uphold the rights of consumers to choose how to enjoy the content that they purchase through overly-restrictive digital lock provisions; (b) include a clear and strict test for “fair dealing” for education purposes; and (c) provide any transitional funding to help artists adapt to the loss of revenue streams that the Bill would cause”.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Madam Speaker. I apologize to the hon. member for the interruption. However, there have been further discussions among the parties and now I am much more confident that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That a take note debate on the subject of the ongoing violence and vicious attacks against Coptic Christians in Egypt and their institutions, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, take place on Tuesday, October 25.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.


See context

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The House has heard the terms of this motion. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to present the motion?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.


See context

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:15 p.m.


See context

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I will forgive the hon. member for the interruption since that is also a very important issue.

I would now like to continue. As I was saying, this story helps us to understand the major technological changes that the world is experiencing and what our creators stand to lose if Bill C-11 is passed as is.

Creators must not have their works expropriated, as the wheat farmers in my riding have had the fruits of their labour expropriated; this must be avoided at all costs. And we are not even talking about the impact such action would have on the entire creation-related production system, which involves a very large number of people. Today, I would like to set the record straight and put things into perspective.

First, it is important to understand that, contrary to popular belief, artists are not rolling in money. As some other hon. members have mentioned, according to the figures for 2009-10, the average income of an artist in Canada is less than $13,000 a year, which is below the poverty line.

According to a 2008 report by the Conference Board of Canada, the cultural sector generated approximately $25 billion in tax revenue in 2007 at all levels of government. That is three times higher than the $7.9 billion that was invested in culture by all levels of government in 2007. If an investment yields three times its cost, I do not see what is preventing the government from supporting this industry in every way possible. How can anyone claim that artists are dependent on government handouts when their creativity contributes to the country's economic and cultural prosperity?

I would be remiss if I did not mention the many economic benefits generated by creators. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists estimates that the arts and culture industries in Canada contribute $85 billion a year to our economy. I would like to remind the members of this House that this amount represents over 7% of Canada's gross national income. That is over a million jobs in the Canadian economy. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can survive only in an environment where intellectual property is protected.

It is worth taking a moment to talk about what the government calls the iPod tax. Several times now, the government has described extending the private copying exception to include digital audio recorders, which the NDP supports, as an iPod tax. The tax could cost Canadian consumers up to $75 per device, the Conservatives said. Does it not seem a little ridiculous to imagine artists and authors taxing consumers, who are their bread and butter? Quite the opposite, the Conservatives' copyright bill, Bill C-11, will ultimately increase the current levies on cassettes, CDs and DVDs. To use the language that the Conservatives themselves are using, this would be like a tax on those products.

Another important point deserves our attention for a moment. Bill C-11 creates an artificial distinction between copying for private use and reproducing for private use. It does not propose adding any new digital storage media to the existing private copying system, but it protects the system in its current state. Nothing could be further from the truth, since the scope of the levies would be determined by the Canadian Copyright Board, a government agency under the supervision of the industry minister. This kind of control would make authors take a back seat, and it would be somewhat worrisome to see the minister have that kind of arbitrary power.

The Conservatives ignored the opinion of the experts who appeared in committee and the conclusions of their own consultations on copyright held in 2009. It is absurd. As a result, they have introduced a bill that could do more harm than good. In addition to introducing a new control mechanism wielded by a single minister, this government did not take expert opinions on the matter into account.

In conclusion, I invite my colleagues to remain vigilant. The NDP believes that Canada's copyright laws can strike a balance between the rights of creators to obtain fair compensation for their work and the rights of consumers to have reasonable access to content.

We need to pay attention to creators. Wanting to tax consumers shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality facing authors.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:20 p.m.


See context

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, we have a clear understanding on this side of the House, but for the opposition, much of the problems with the bill stems from the fact that they do not see that we are taxing Canadians enough. I think we have a clear picture of that.

However, would the member comment on the unique part of the bill which talks about “notice and notice” for our Internet service providers so we can better protect copyright owners from those who seek to poach their work and does he support that provision in the bill?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:20 p.m.


See context

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking this question.

This really is one of the regrettable aspects of this debate and others as well. Unfortunately, we argue too easily over details. All the New Democratic Party is asking for, in this debate as well as others, is to be able to discuss these questions openly and thoroughly.

Unfortunately, despite this government's openness to receiving proposals, all of ours were categorically rejected. I hope that the hon. member will listen to me and that we can speak openly.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:20 p.m.


See context

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the striking way he is approaching this issue.

I would like to carry on with his analogy. In terms of his machine, it seems to me that it is a question of modernization, as opposed to creation. Usually, when a machine is created, engineers are called in to help, but when it comes time to modify it, I would think it important to consult with those who actually use the machine.

In the case of Bill C-11, are there associations of creators in Quebec or Canada that seem to support the government?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:20 p.m.


See context

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for praising my creative talents. I truly enjoyed using them.

So far there has been no representation from the creators in support of this bill. It is a shame that in this situation, and in others, it is the major conglomerates, the major power holders that have the upper hand. It is the property holders—Sony, Apple and other corporations—that have ample means to defend themselves. Obviously we have to provide a regulatory framework to protect their interests, but creators are also calling for this same right. We wonder why the government is denying them that right.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:20 p.m.


See context

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, could the member elaborate on the economic contributions he sees from the indirect jobs? I know many of our communities have those indirect jobs in the arts and culture industry.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:20 p.m.


See context

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.

Yesterday, I had the honour of receiving farmers from across the country. They told me all about the spinoffs of farming activities. The same thing applies to the arts. It is quite extraordinary to see the economic contribution made by creators through the many partnerships they bring to the table and the massive multiplier effect that results. I am talking about two, three and four times the level of government investment. Sometimes it is almost 10 times the investment when we talk about general economic activity.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:25 p.m.


See context

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to this debate. What we are dealing with in the House at this moment is an amendment to Bill C-11 suggesting that what we should be doing is essentially striking the bill. The amendment says that the House would decline to give a second reading. I believe part of the reason for the amendment is that this piece of legislation fails to deal with the concerns raised in connection with previous versions of the bill; this is not the first time that the House has seen some attempt to amend the Copyright Act.

With regard to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, I know listeners are interested in why we are talking about complex issues. The legislative summary discusses copyright law in Canada. It says:

Copyright is a legal term describing rights given to creators for their literary and artistic works. Copyright attaches to an original work that is fixed in some material form. In other words, copyright protects the expression of an idea or intellectual creation; it does not protect the idea itself.

It also says:

The Act affords the author of a work the right to authorize or prohibit certain uses of his or her work and to receive compensation for its use. The purpose of the Act, like that of other pieces of intellectual property legislation, is to protect copyright owners while promoting creativity and the orderly exchange of ideas.

New Democrats, the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, have very ably raised the point that we absolutely need an amendment to the copyright laws we currently have in Canada. Everyone agrees that we need an amendment, but as other members have pointed out, the devil is in the details.

New Democrats have consistently proposed that copyright laws in Canada can balance the right of the creators to be compensated fairly for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content. We have proposed amendments to the bill that would create a fair royalty system for artists, because as it stands right now, the proposed legislation will actually wipe away millions of dollars in revenue for artists. This has a profound effect not only on the artists' ability to continue to create and contribute, but also on our communities and our economic well-being. I will touch on that in a minute.

The proposed Copyright Modernization Act essentially gives with one hand while it takes away with the other. While the bill contains a few concessions for consumers, they are unfortunately undermined by the government's refusal to compromise on the single most controversial copyright issue in this country, digital lock provisions.

In the case of long-distance education, for example, people in remote, isolated communities would have to burn their school notes after 30 days; this is hardly an improvement or an appropriate use of copyright laws. I was formerly the aboriginal affairs critic, and we understand that the only way for many aboriginal communities to have access to a more balanced education system is through the Internet. Students simply need a reasonable parity of time to access material that is so essential toward their becoming important and productive members of the future labour force.

New Democrats have proposed removing the sections of the copyright modernization bill that would make criminals out of everyday Canadians who break digital locks for personal noncommercial use. We support the lessening of penalties for those who are responsible for breaking copyright laws; this would prevent the excessive use of lawsuits against ordinary citizens, which has been problematic in the United States. There were extensive copyright consultations in 2009, and the bill that has been reintroduced from the former bill simply has disregarded that extensive consultation.

I want to turn for a moment to the economics around copyright. This is the reason it is so essential for us get this piece of legislation right. Many of our communities have a vibrant community of writers, singer-songwriters, theatrical producers, cinematographers, and producers of Internet media, and many communities derive a substantial benefit from these creative activities.

A couple of years ago, the Conference Board of Canada did an extensive report on the contribution that arts and culture make to our communities. I want to quote from the report, because it illustrates why it is important that we get it right and why New Democrats have been so very adamant that what the Conservatives have proposed simply does not fix some of the problems before us.

Chapter 1 is entitled “Valuing Arts and Culture as Cornerstones of the Creative Economy”.

The chapter summary says in part:

In a dynamic environment of global competition, demographic change, and migration, Canada’s culture sector plays a critical role in attracting people, businesses, and investment; stimulating creativity and innovation; and distinguishing Canada as an exciting place where people can celebrate their heritage and achieve personal and professional fulfillment.

The first chapter of the report goes on to discuss:

...the value to Canada of the culture sector as an economic engine, a magnet for talent, and a catalyst for prosperity.

We often hear in this House about how important it is for what we do here to contribute toward overall economic growth. What the Conference Board of Canada is laying out is a framework describing how the culture sector, beyond just the very fact of culture, is part of what is creating that innovation and that prosperity.

The report goes on to state:

Traditionally, the culture sector has been recognized for its multi-faceted role in contributing to individual and community development, social cohesion, and quality of life; however, in recent decades there has been growing understanding and examination of the substantial economic contributions of arts and culture industries and of their central role in the creative economy.

The report goes on on to talk about what the creative economy is, and since I only have 10 minutes, I cannot get into the details of that. However, I know, for example, from talking with some of major software developers that it has been very important for the software development industry to be able to tap into that creative community to enhance their product. That is another sideline that the creative community often plays.

Now we can talk about dollars and cents. This is an overview of the economic contribution. I am only going to read a small part of it. It says:

The economic footprint of the culture sector is much larger, when accounting for combined direct, indirect, and induced effects. The Conference Board calculates this full contribution as valued at $84.6 billion, about 7.4 per cent of total real GDP, in 2007.

It goes on to say:

Considering the effect of culture industries on other sectors of the economy, including direct, indirect, and induced effects combined, culture and related industries employed over 1.1 million people in 2007.

However, there is a discrepancy in this, and the Conference Board of Canada goes on to point this out. Many people feel that sometimes people in these creative industries make big bucks. Contrary to that, it specifically cites artists. The report states:

In the case of artists, for example, despite the fact that 41 per cent of artists have a university degree, a certificate, or a diploma--almost double the rate of 22 per cent for the overall labour force--average earnings remain relatively low at $23,500 per year.

It is important to raise that point because of the complexity of the copyright legislation. One of the goals of copyright is to ensure that artists are adequately compensated for the work they do. If we fail to do that, we already have some components of the culture sector who are seriously underpaid for what they do, so we want to ensure they are compensated.

Many of us could get up in this House and talk about the importance of culture at the local level in our ridings. My riding is a great example. A number of years ago, the town of Chemainus was struggling because its major employer, the sawmill, shut down. The town of Chemainus reinvented itself and became known as the town of murals. Chemainus is now a vibrant artistic community that not only has these magnificent murals on the walls but has also generated a whole series of other activities. In addition, the town of Chemainus has a very good theatre company, and people come from all over the island to attend its productions.

In the town of Duncan, every July we have a folk festival that brings in singers and songwriters. This provides a venue for, particularly, new and emerging Canadian artists to perform and engage in other creative activities with other artists from across the country, and sometimes from afar as well.

The city of Nanaimo has a very vibrant theatre culture, and of course Gabriola is awash with world-renowned songwriters and performers. Bob Bossin is only one of many. A recent arts tour on Thanksgiving weekend highlighted the diversity of the arts culture on Gabriola.

I will conclude by saying that this is a very important piece of legislation that we need to get right in order to protect not only consumers but also producers of arts and culture in our country. I would strongly urge all members to take this bill back to some basics and get it right.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague's very eloquent exploration of the bill is greatly appreciated.

This country has enjoyed a massive burst of popularity due to the work that groups like Arcade Fire are expressing. Their ability to do their job is predicated on the fact that they do not have to literally go to McDonald's and flip burgers to make ends meet.

Could my hon. colleague comment on what losing this kind of income would mean to the creative capacity of our artists?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, that question is fundamental to part of what we should be talking about.

We often hear in this current economic climate about how important it is that we support job creation and that we support good-paying jobs. I would argue that as the arts and culture community is fundamental to so many of our communities, it is very important that we protect artists' rights to make a decent living.

That romantic notion of starving artists living in garrets to produce their great works does not retain much romance when they have to pay their bills at the end of the day. What we want is a thriving arts and culture community that can pay its bills.

Another colleague talked about the multiplier effect. The arts and culture sector is an enormous contributor to many of our communities. People see the finished product and think that is all we are dealing with. However, they are not talking about all the suppliers for the painters. They are not talking about the people who provide the framing of those goods.

I could go on about the economic contribution that arts and culture makes, but in the context of this particular bill, we need to ensure that we do the job of protecting both the consumer and the producer.