Evidence of meeting #91 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 5th, 2023 / 9:35 a.m.
Parliamentary Librarian
In response to Ms. Gladu, in terms of the library, I'd just like to make a couple of comments that might be interesting to members.
The addition of “digital creations” from a library point of view, in some ways there's a potential for it to be slightly easier for the library to implement. I know that at your last meeting there was talk about sculpture and marble and possibly different things that might be involved in art, and as you know, poetry is words on a page. We can post the poet laureate's poems online at virtually no expense. It's very straightforward. They hold the copyright. We can read the poem and enjoy it.
When you get into visual arts, it's a very different story, of course, and you're potentially looking at painting, art, film, sculpture and so on.
For the library, from a management of the program point of view, digital creations are somewhat easier. From that perspective, in terms of potential impact, it might make management of the program easier, because, as members pointed out last week, the potential implications of some of the other art forms could be significant from a budgetary point of view.
Not having an art collection currently, this is quite a new road for us and opens up doors to things that we have not had to do in the past. Of course, if that's Parliament's wish, we will do it with dedication, but it is quite a different thing for us from poetry.
Digital creations are something that we're a little more familiar with.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To the witnesses, what I think I'm hearing from you and maybe I'm wrong is that the intent behind this amendment is already in the legislation, that the digital artwork would already be included in the definition that we see in these pages.
Would you say that is true, or do you think that we would need this amendment in order to include digital work?
9:40 a.m.
Parliamentary Librarian
In my experience with legislation, if the intent of Parliament is to make it clear that you want that included, it's certainly helpful. For example, for the committee members when we're looking at nominations, if we see that digital creations are explicitly included, then there's no discussion about what fits and what doesn't fit and what would be okay.
There's always room for interpretation, especially in a list that says “including” because that just means here are some of the options. It doesn't mean that other things can't be included, but putting it in does create greater clarity for the program, as opposed to leaving it as a matter for discussion and debate.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Davis, did you want to add anything to that or do you feel comfortable with Ms. Lank's opinion?
9:40 a.m.
Director, Arts Policy & Federal-Provincial-Territorial Culture and Heritage Secretariat, Department of Canadian Heritage
I feel comfortable with Ms. Lank's characterization. I don't think it does any harm or damage to the bill to be explicit about digital if this was the will of the committee.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm going to be supporting this amendment, and I think I'd like to thank Ms. Gladu for bringing it forward.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I'd like to add something to what Ms. Lank was saying a little earlier.
Precision is all the more necessary when there's a list in the definition. Either we include a list to define what the arts in question are, or we don't put one in at all. In the latter case, it would be open to all sorts of interpretations. From the moment you include a list, if you want that to be the case, I think it would be preferable to add the notion of digital creations.
I also support this amendment.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I really like the digital. Film is kind of leaving us, believe it or not. I do know some of us around the table would find that a little bit shocking, but film is leaving. There is digital now. If we can make it easier for Parliament to give you the list, I think it's good, because sometimes retirements happen and people leave certain positions. Then when we're looking at a bill, new people come in and they have no idea what the previous group liked or disliked or how they interpreted the bill.
I do think it needs to be in here and I would like to thank Ms. Gladu for it, because as we've seen in the last year digital art right now is going for hundreds of thousands of dollars, more so than the old structure that we think of, such as paintings. Digital art is on the upswing and I think it needs to be in the bill.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Seeing no other questions, I'm going to call—
Lisa, please go ahead.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I'm sorry, Chair. We're just sort of ruminating about the implications of this. My friend, Ms. Gladu, brought up this notion of AI. I actually heard your colleague speaking about how scary some of this AI and deepfakes are on the Internet these days. I have that concern. I'm concerned that we're opening the door to that sort of abuse with this amendment.
I don't know who might want to comment on that. Maybe our witnesses would want to comment. Does this give you any sort of pause? Does it make you nervous in any way that we would open the door to this with this amendment?
9:45 a.m.
Director, Arts Policy & Federal-Provincial-Territorial Culture and Heritage Secretariat, Department of Canadian Heritage
It's obviously an area of great preoccupation for many of us who are working in the cultural sector. We do find ourselves in a somewhat reactive mode, trying to keep pace. I can tell you that, in terms of our colleagues within the department, within the portfolio and within the broader community of granting agencies and funders across the country working in the cultural spaces, it's very much an active issue and active discussion.
In the current context, I don't think there's a great deal of concern, frankly, because of the individuals who are involved in making the recommendations. When you look at the fact that the Canada Council for the Arts and the National Gallery are members of the committee that's bringing forward those recommendations, I think they're going to bring very informed opinions about whether an art work is in the realm of creativity we would want to be identified with as Canadians and is truly representative of Canadian expression and creativity, and not something that's been generated through some sort of algorithm.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Similarly, I have great faith that a visual arts laureate would be looking at something through the lens of “Is it art?” as opposed to “Is it scary and destructive to someone's life?” I do share Ms. Hepfner's concern about where technology may go, but I don't think it's a concern here in the bill.
9:45 a.m.
Director, Arts Policy & Federal-Provincial-Territorial Culture and Heritage Secretariat, Department of Canadian Heritage
If I may just add, again, I think it's an emerging area, and the parties that are involved in bringing forward the recommendations are really going to bring expertise and will be wrestling with these questions. In that respect, faith can be put in their capacity to wrestle with these questions.
I did want to just return to this question of digital art. I may have made too firm a distinction between digital art as a medium, as opposed to a practice. I had a moment to just quickly confirm, since we are talking about the Canada Council. It has a very clear definition of digital art as a practice, which I can share with you. It states:
...digital arts are any form of artistic expression by professional artists, groups or organizations that responds to the following parameters:
Predominantly uses digital technologies throughout the artistic process as a stand-alone digital art work, and/or a repurposed digital art work for use with other art works;
Contributes to expanding vocabulary, impact or form of digital arts in various artistic contexts: critical, cultural, social, technological, etc.
I will stress, though, that the intent here is to work in the realm of the visual, so it's important that digital art is a range of practice that is outside of the visual.
You can have digital art that's.... I would again stress that the spirit here is to work in the realm of the visual arts, but that could be inclusive of artists who are working in a digital practice.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I am just thinking about the whole question of AI and AI-generated art, and whether or not that would have an impact. There's a growing body of work being done by AI, beautiful pieces of art, abstracts, impressionists, you name it. AI is now producing art that can then be printed using 3-D printers and all kinds of other varieties of forms.
How comfortable are you that the folks who would be part of the adjudication would have the.... It's not a question of expertise but, you know, if things are increasingly difficult to differentiate once produced, are you comfortable that the individuals involved in the provisions of this amendment would create enough space for there to be a real delineation between what is sort of truly—I know it's all art—art generated by humans and not generated by AI.
Are we running a risk here of perhaps the unintended consequence of having something selected that was generated by AI and not by the artists themselves, or am I just worrying too much?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Arts Policy & Federal-Provincial-Territorial Culture and Heritage Secretariat, Department of Canadian Heritage
It's a very interesting question.
I want to look at the office of the visual artist laureate through a lens similar to the one we would look through at the office of the poet laureate. We are looking at having an individual identified in that role who is also playing the role of advocate and spokesperson for the visual arts in a Canadian context and for Canadian creativity.
Again, while I don't want to minimize or dismiss concerns around AI as an emerging presence and technology and its place in the creative realm, I think the objective here is to find an individual we can proudly stand up as the face of expression of Canadian creativity. A big part of that role is to be an advocate as well as a creator. We've seen, in the Canadian jurisdiction and elsewhere, poet laureates championing that discipline. They are championing the practice. They're championing the work of other artists as well as their own work.
When we look at the composition of the individuals charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Speakers, I think we can have a high degree of confidence that they are sensitive to these issues, wrestling with them and looking for the strongest candidate possible to fulfill a full range of duties. As sophisticated as ChatGPT might be, I suspect it is not going to be quite as engaging or convincing a spokesperson as one of our fine Canadian creators.
I don't know, Dr. Lank, whether you have anything to add.