Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 6th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Mr. Myles, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for this conversation. I'm finding it fascinating.

I want to say a couple of things. It seems to me—and I think we're all going to be discussing these points—that there is a point at which AI is a tool, and then there is a point at which AI becomes the craftsman itself. There is a point at which it becomes the search engine, and then there's a point at which it becomes the journalist, and this is the tension we're talking about.

I thought that Monsieur Généreux's question about whether one can use it and be an artist was super-interesting. I really like the question, because I think we want to be clarifying when it is a tool and when it is the craftsman itself.

I think about the 1980s, when hip hop came around, and people said, “That's not art. They're sampling records.” When we look at it now, of course it was art. It was transformative. Sampling records and those things were big, and they changed the way we made music and listened to music, so I think it's important for us to be thinking about these issues in a way that points to them as tools. We can't just throw up our hands and say, “No, no.” We need to move things forward.

Artists will adapt. They always adapt. That's what they do the best. That's what they did in the 1980s with hip hop, and hip hop changed the whole world.

In the world of regulation, how do we make these fine points between when it is a tool...? Maybe it's through transparency, as you were saying. When is it a tool, and when does it become the craftsman itself?

Sorry I only spoke in one language.

Actually, my questions are primarily for Ms. Desrochers.

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

Thank you for the questions. I will ask my colleague Ms. Beaulieu to answer.

Before she does, however, I'd like to say that there's a time for legislators to pass laws, and a time to make decisions, like looking at artificial intelligence as a tool.

I've been to many conferences on the subject, and the creator's intent comes up a lot. That's why proof is important. Creators must be able to show their creative process versus just generating something. Our position is very clear. We agree that artists, creators and cultural businesses can use artificial intelligence as a tool. The idea is not to prevent them from doing so. When we talk about transparency in using artificial intelligence, we're really talking about works generated exclusively with AI.

When it comes to art, boundaries are complex. I think a lot of people will look at similar cases and want to know the creator's intent to establish those boundaries. However, that shouldn't stop us from moving forward in defining what is simply AI generated. As an example, Spotify was flooded with synthetic music that was purely synthetic with the sole purpose of saving the company money at the expense of creators. That's what we're trying to avoid.

[Maryse Beaulieu]

I am astounded by my colleague's answer.

I don't want to infringe on any copyright, so I won't use any specific work as an example. That said, your question is hard to answer, because there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

In case law, we use talent to define what an original work is. Let me give you an example. Stakeholders in the cultural industry have agreed not to consider outputs—that's what I call content generated solely by AI—as a work. I'm a bit overzealous when it comes to vocabulary, so I differentiate between a work and content, and AI-generated content is not protected by copyright.

Furthermore, we already have the necessary tools to define what is an original work when considering whether content is a tool or a creator's work. That means we'll have to come to decisions on various situations and sets of facts. Unfortunately, there's no magic wand for that. However, content created only with artificial intelligence output is not considered a creative work, so it's not protected by copyright. That's what we're saying.

That raises another question. We know who owns the copyright when a work is protected. There's a whole system in place, for which I have a soft spot, based on the Copyright Act. However, unidentified works, so outputs that have no author, fall in a different category.

You were asking about the tool. As I've mentioned, it's really to what extent the tool is being used that needs to be defined. Court decisions have often been used to determine which category the tool falls in.

That's my somewhat complex answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you. It was a complex, but very interesting, answer.

Mr. Champoux, you will be the last member to have the floor. You have two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Anctil, when radio came out, it was a major technological change. Many felt threatened, but over the years, it started paying off in the cultural and information industries.

The same thing happened with television. Everyone thought that it would be the end of radio, that it was a thing of the past, but both found their own space. At first, people were scared of television, but it turned into an extraordinary and indispensable tool for the cultural industry and still is to this day.

It was the same when the Internet came out. People were scared of the big Internet monster and wondered whether it would mark the end of television. Obviously, we might need to review the model, and that's been another topic of discussion over the last few years.

Now, it's artificial intelligence. Do you think the same thing will happen? Could the cultural industry eventually survive with artificial intelligence everywhere, including the creative sector? Will our artists, artisans and content creators in the cultural industry be able to create and make a living using artificial intelligence? Do you see a scenario where that would be possible?

[Dave Anctil]

There's a common thread in all the media, information technology and communication innovations you've just mentioned. They all led to new professions, and new ways of communicating and staying connected to each other, as humans.

The Internet is different, though, because it's dominated by a small group of players. We heard an example of that earlier during the long conversation with Mr. Griffiths on Google. Fair competition with Google is impossible, in my opinion. If I buy an Android cell phone, by definition, I'm in the Google environment. Whether it's through search engines, online software or social media, the American oligopolies keep us trapped in their environments. The evolution of artificial intelligence in those environments is controlled by a small group. That's the problem.

To protect cultural diversity, allow people to discover content created thanks to this diversity, and ensure that our cultural and media industries can compete globally, we'll have no other choice but to create our own infrastructure, as we've done in the past. The audiovisual and radio industry developed its own physical infrastructure, and we control that. The Internet, we don't have much control over. More importantly, we don't control what artificial intelligence relies on, meaning the servers.

Considering the evolution of artificial intelligence, without digital sovereignty, I have very little hope for the survival of Canada's cultural sovereignty.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Still, you're giving us a way to get there.

I'd now like to take a moment to thank the witnesses, those who were here and those who participated by video conference. This was the first meeting of our study on the subject, and I thought it was absolutely fascinating. That's why I wanted to take a moment to thank them very much. They got the ball rolling on a study that is shaping up to be fascinating and very useful. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Martin.

Truly, thank you to all of the witnesses for spending these two hours with us. We all found it very fascinating. I'm sure there are other things you would have liked to have said that maybe didn't make it into the record. I would invite you all to submit those thoughts and comments to our committee, so that we will have them and take them into consideration as we prepare a report on this study.

Thank you again for your time.

The meeting is adjourned.