Evidence of meeting #110 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was copyright.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions
Yes, of course. At the speed things are going, it is probably ideal to review it regularly.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
I have a question for Mr. Forget from the Directors Guild.
You and your members do a lot of heavy lifting; you are the creative side of the world, if I'm understanding this. How are your members feeling these days?
12:45 p.m.
National Executive Director, Directors Guild of Canada
Thank you for that question. Thank you also for the reference to the impact of the two strikes last year on our members, particularly in British Columbia.
I would say that over the past year there's been a high level of anxiety. Our members do many different functions, starting with directors but right across the spectrum: picture and sound editing, location managers, production accountants, production coordinators, designers and so on.
In asking members questions around their use of AI, their feelings about where this is going and how it's going to be impacting their job, we hear a different story, naturally. From the designers, we're hearing a very high level of apprehension. Designers are the people who create the world that you see onscreen, so they're responsible for the artwork that's on the wall in the person's home where the character is. Editors are quite concerned about the impact, as are, obviously, directors as well as authors.
Across the spectrum, I would say that many of the members we represent see AI as being transformative. I think that meets the definition in my mind of something that will have a high impact, both for Canadians and the impact of culture, and in the way productions are made.
I have one really quick comment. We're used to innovation. We've been digital for 30 years. We don't use film anymore to make films, so we have been early adopters and eager adopters of new technologies all along the way. You may be right that this is equivalent to the invention of the printing press, but we've had the experience of the introduction of a lot of new technologies that are now incorporated into the work that our members do day to day.
AI, in a nutshell, is seen as something different. It is more significant and more transformative.
I hope that answers your question.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Obviously, it creates uncertainty for your members, who are hard-working Canadians and work domestically and internationally, and who are artistically gifted, if I can use that term.
My time is up.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to comment on the transparency issue. One of my colleagues, Mr. Turnbull, discussed this. He said it might be complicated to determine the identity of works that have been used among billions of data points. However, my impression is that an AI system capable of reading 100 million books a day is capable of searching from a list. You'd have to check that.
That being said, some intervenors have told us that Bill C-27 won't get the job done. Many representatives of the web giants told us so, almost implying that we should reject it, start over from scratch, modify all kinds of other acts and work on it for I don't know how many years. We have that option, but there's also the option of moving ahead, continuing to amend Bill C-27 and doing the best we can. Then there's the option of waiting and imitating Europe, since Canada is a minor player after all.
However, there's another solution: we could add a provision requiring periodic updates to the act, say every three to five years. That would force Parliament to review the act completely and would give it the opportunity to align the act periodically with the legislation of other countries so that Canada remains competitive, while enabling it to participate in the international review process.
Ms. Hénault, what do you think of that kind of provision?
12:50 p.m.
Director of Legal Affairs, Association nationale des éditeurs de livres
I'd prefer that we try to do things right, starting now, based on the information we have and foundational policy needs. I'm going to think about this and will pass on my comments to you.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Do any other witnesses wish to speak to the appropriateness of adding a periodic review provision to the bill?
12:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada
Yes. Ultimately, we are copyright stakeholders, as we have said many times today. The Copyright Act has a section on this.
It is an important opportunity to review and make sure that we are up to international norms, but it is by no means a silver bullet to this problem. Like an endless election cycle, it creates an endless lobbying cycle in which this goes on. These pieces are often useful in minority governments. It is something you should add, but it's not something you should depend on.
12:50 p.m.
National Executive Director, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists
We believe that it's fundamentally important for the government to take action. Our members are already detrimentally hurt by this.
I love the idea you have about looking at this more regularly. I don't know that you need to have something legislative for it. I hope we have good government that looks at this on a regular basis. It is amplified each and every day. This changes. What we're talking to you about today will likely have a new aspect to it a month from now.
I would like to believe, as a Canadian, that we have a government that cares about these issues and that is going to continue to look at all aspects of this issue and make the changes you need to make when you need to make them.
I want to say that we often look to see what's happening in other countries, but I'm a proud Canadian. I think we can lead, and I think we should lead on this.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first intervention is the challenge of what we do next, because what I think you have demonstrated today is that it's like the argument that we're going to consult you on Bill C-27, and we will fix it sometime on copyright, and we will fix it somehow after we pass Bill C-27. That is not sufficient for the NDP. It's clear to us that you can do both of those things. Alternatively, we either send this to regulatory oblivion—that's really what happens—or dismantle what we have here.
I'm looking at an alternative where we view it through the lens of almost like national security. Perhaps we even have a standing committee of Parliament and the Senate that looks at this over all the different jurisdictions, because copyright is proving that it's just outside this particular bill in terms of the technicality of it, but the reality is that it encompasses everything you have been saying and doing here in a much more wholesome way than in many other industries.
I have one quick question to go across the table here about an AI commissioner. Should the commissioner be independent and able to fine the abuse of artificial intelligence if that is part of the law?
Maybe we can start with ACTRA and go across.
12:55 p.m.
National President, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists
Yes.
12:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions
12:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, Directors Guild of Canada
Yes, provided we also have a framework for determining the nature of the abuse we're talking about, and that's where the bill comes in.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Yes, 100%, that's a good point.
I know it's really basic, but I only have 30 seconds, I think.
12:55 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada
I liked your standing committee idea better because it gets closer to what I believe in, which is that this is an important first-step framework bill, but we will be writing laws about AI forever, so we should make sure that we're clear in that as we go forward.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you very much, colleagues.
We still have about five minutes left, so if there are any lingering questions on your mind, I'll open the floor.
I recognize Mr. Perkins.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Ms. Noble and Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly, you mentioned in your opening statement the issue of what you called “moral rights”. Can you explain that to the committee, please?
February 12th, 2024 / 12:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists
In the copyright laws, a few decades ago, when Napster happened, there was a decision made that they would give a certain level of copyright. There are different levels of copyright. This is called the moral right, and it allows musicians to defend music. When they have music and it goes out into the world and somebody steals it, it allows them to claim that they have ownership of it. Performers don't have that. It sounds strange for me to say that, but performers don't have it. However, there wasn't a Napster for performers back then.
You were on film, and nobody was going to take that film. Now we're out there in the ether digitally, and the deepfakes can easily take that. The problem we have is that the studios.... Eleanor works for a studio, and she's in a movie. The studio then owns her likeness and her performance for that particular movie, but if somebody steals it and puts it out on the Internet and does something to it, she doesn't have a moral right to protect herself against that. She should have that right.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Very quickly, proposed section 33 of the AI bill speaks about establishing a data commissioner, an AI commissioner. This commissioner would be granted broad powers, largely outlined in the amendments the minister put forward.
There's been a discussion at other panels as to whether the Canadian public would be served by a commissioner who reports directly to the minister or whether, given the significant societal and individual impact AI will have on every one of us, a commissioner should not report to the minister but to Parliament directly.
Do you have any comments on that?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Legal Affairs, Association nationale des éditeurs de livres
I think that the Université de Montréal professor Catherine Régis talked about this, and I want to have more reflections on that. I think it's a very important question that you ask because the separation of powers....
I don't know why I'm speaking in English; I think you'll understand better if I answer in French.