Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Champoux, go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, we adopted the report from the subcommittee meeting we held last week, containing recommendations to the committee on the work we could schedule for the next few weeks of meetings.

I would first like to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the fact that we want to invite Ms. Eatrides, the chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, and Ms. Bouchard, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, on the proposed dates so that the clerk can quickly extend the invitations.

Next, there's a study on artificial intelligence that we discussed at the subcommittee last week that seemed to have consensus around the table. I suggest that we start this study right away. It's a motion to undertake a study to assess the impacts of AI on cultural industries. This is a fairly broad field of study, and it will certainly give rise to some very interesting exchanges. I think we could open the discussion on this study.

My motion proposed four meetings, but that was really a minimum. When I drafted my motion, I expected there would be a lot of study proposals for this fall. I assumed that we would want to make room for other topics, but I think this is a major study. I think this is a major issue for all sectors, not just the cultural one. I feel that we would need a minimum of five meetings, while leaving the door open to more meetings if committee members agree to add them. Since we are meeting with the chair of the CRTC and the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, this study could also take place around those meetings.

Therefore, with the committee's agreement, I would make this study a priority. If you want, we can discuss it. If not, I think we can pass the motion by voting right now. It would save us time, which would be wonderful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Champoux, I'm clarifying with the clerk. We adopted the subcommittee meeting minutes, so we already adopted that third study. We can absolutely talk about how many meetings we want to have, but as I understand it, we've already agreed to start with this study, which is worded in the subcommittee meeting.

Mr. Champoux, go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the motion was included in the subcommittee report that we adopted. I don't think we had discussed the number of meetings, and I think that's what we need to establish today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Généreux has the floor.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

I'll let Mrs. Thomas go first.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I am under the same impression as Mr. Champoux. We adopted the standing committee report indicating the direction of study, but we do have two different motions that deal with artificial intelligence, one from a Liberal member and one from the Bloc Québécois.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I don't think that's public.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Both have been put on notice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Are they in the public domain? They haven't been moved, so they're not public.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

If I understand, I think Mr. Champoux actually wants to move his motion to make it so that his is the motion that is passed in order to guide this study. I would ask for clarification from my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Champoux has the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Perhaps the clerk could provide some clarification on that. We did not adopt one of the motions that was on notice on this topic. We did agree, when we adopted the subcommittee report, to do a study on this. Any discussions to be had on the text of the motion that will guide the study on artificial intelligence would be entirely relevant. Again, maybe the clerk can provide more clarity on what was contained in the subcommittee report that we adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

We don't need to pass a motion on the study because we've already decided to do it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In that case, can we propose the number of meetings and then amend the motion that was passed, or can we just do it amicably?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Jean-François Pagé]

[ Inaudible—Editor ] of the report, because the discussions were in camera. The motion to conduct this study has been adopted and will be in the minutes of today's meeting. As for the number of meetings, it's obviously up to you to determine that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Myles, you're next.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Fortunately, I think we're on the same page in terms of the number of meetings. We agree that we should hold at least five meetings, which will give us a chance to conduct a good study. We also agree about holding meetings with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and CBC/Radio-Canada. We feel the same way, because it will give us an opportunity to ask questions of a variety of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

So we're all on the same page, I just want to make sure that we all agree. We've adopted the motion as suggested at the subcommittee meeting, and now we're discussing any other particulars we might want to add to this motion, for example the number of days.

Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to be sitting on the committee with you for this session. I'm extremely glad to be here.

I understand that we just passed the motion to adopt a motion aimed at conducting a study on artificial intelligence. I would just like to bring to the committee's attention that, over the past two years, the Standing Committee on Industry has studied Bill C‑27, which had an artificial intelligence component. We've heard from a lot of witnesses on this.

If I understand Mr. Champoux's motion correctly, the idea here is to conduct a study on artificial intelligence as it relates to creative industries. It's important to understand that artificial intelligence is an extremely broad subject. It's very, very wide-ranging. If we want to limit our study to the creative industries, at the very least we need to define what those are. Otherwise, we could cast a really wide net.

The other point I would like to raise is that the main motion passed earlier asks us to submit witnesses within 48 hours for a study that I consider extremely important. That's an extremely short time frame for us to find all the witnesses needed to carry out a study. Could we submit witness lists, start the study and then have the option of adding other witnesses later on? It will be hard for us to draw up a list of all the relevant witnesses we would like to see during the five meetings of this study in 48 hours. There may be witnesses from other organizations we want to meet with. We would need the option of adding witnesses.

I also agree that we should hold five meetings. I think this study is very important. As we know, AI is already very prevalent in our lives, and this is just the beginning. I therefore suggest that we move forward and adopt this motion today, but that we ask Mr. Champoux to provide a precise definition of what a creative industry is. I think it's important to study the subject of his motion in five meetings, while being able to add witnesses during the study. I find that 48 hours is much too short a time to come up with a list of appropriate witnesses for this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I believe we already discussed this at the subcommittee. We've agreed to get preliminary witness lists and, later on, invite other people who we think will be essential to this study.

Also, I don't know if we really need to define the concept of a creative industry. I think that will be up to the committee members to decide.

Mr. Al Soud, go ahead.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Could you please read the exact wording of the motion that was passed? It appears to be a study on the effects of technological advances in artificial intelligence on the creative industries. Have I got that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Perhaps the clerk can read what we agreed upon.

[The Clerk]

Here is the last paragraph of the motion: “That the committee give priority to a study on the effects of technological advances in artificial intelligence on the creative industries and that the committee members submit their witness lists […].”