Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2025

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, don't look for another Bloc Québécois member—I'm the only one here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Champoux, you may be the last speaker for this round of questions.

In fact, colleagues, I don't think we'll have time to finish this round.

I was just wondering if we should continue for another 10 minutes after Mr. Champoux and finish the round, or if we should get to our committee business.

I think we'll go to Mr. Champoux first.

Go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Morin and Mr. Buridans, you proudly represent francophones living in official language minority communities.

What is your greatest concern? What do you think of what you're hearing today? Do you share the concerns of francophone communities across Canada about the arrival of new technology that could further drown out francophone culture in the very areas in which it is most vulnerable? That's what could happen if we're not careful.

[Marie-Christine Morin]

I'll answer first, before handing it over to Mr. Buridans.

It is certainly a concern when it comes to the diversity of cultural expressions. We see ourselves in this language, that's clear. In this mass of somewhat homogenized information and content, we can identify francophone voices in minority situations that are found throughout the value chain—that is, from the space where they're created and made accessible to the space where they're advertised. Clearly, however, without specific legislative measures or parameters on the subject, such voices risk being completely drowned out.

There is certainly cause for concern, especially since artificial intelligence has come into the picture. We had precisely the same conversation about the discoverability of broadcast content. It's the same problem.

[Sven Buridans]

I was just about to bring up all the work that was done on discoverability. It's as though it had suddenly been forgotten—because AI is a complete game changer in terms of structured and unstructured data—but that's the whole problem with discoverability.

We've trained our organizations to teach their members how to understand structured data in order to strengthen the discoverability of French-language content on online platforms. All of a sudden, we're facing new challenges related to artificial intelligence and we're unable to respond to them. That's why we're emphasizing the need to continue the digital literacy training we've offered within our network—precisely to keep pace with these technological advances and innovation.

What I find interesting about today's discussion is the issue of whether Canada is lagging behind. The answer is yes. I'm not going to go back over all the elections that led to Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑27 being on a sinking ship, but we may still have Bill C‑11, which remains afloat. What I mean to say is that we are lagging, and this legislative uncertainty is causing tension and distrust of artificial intelligence. I find it very interesting that, as soon as we tease Meta and Facebook representatives a bit on certain topics, they tell us that they have open-source code models. That's great, and we're working with those types of models.

I'd like to tell you about the Culturepedia project, the first social trust for cultural data management. We've brought our members together to work on this platform within a fairly innovative legal framework. Having a social trust for virtual data is quite innovative. The idea was precisely to create a protected and sovereign legal environment in which data can be uploaded to train members of cultural organizations to work with data, taking into account data interoperability, which is very complicated.

At the beginning, I spoke about the need to work with structured data because of large language models. We pitted open-source models, namely Llama and Gemini, against each other. We had them work on organizational data, structured data, and unstructured data to begin analyzing the effects of our artistic and cultural work on our communities and the country. However, we are in the early stages. It is really just a prototype.

The difficulty with an initiative like the digital band, which has helped our members embrace the concepts of digital literacy for three years, arises when budget cuts occur. This means that our momentum in training, awareness and digital maturity is being cut short at a time when we should be ramping up our efforts and when the complexity of evidence management is being disrupted. We absolutely need to strengthen our capacity to work with that data and help our members understand those concepts.

Personally, I look forward to having Canadian open source models governed by clear legislation that addresses threats or concerns. We would then be in a protected environment, a sovereign country, where we would work with models, computing power and infrastructure that would allow us to store data here at home.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Well done. That was exactly two and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Mr. Champoux, that was double your allotted time.

I'm going to give the Liberals and the Conservatives three minutes for the last round instead of five, and then we should be okay.

Mrs. Thomas, you have three minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That's perfect. Thanks so much.

Ms. Curran, I'm going to come back to you if I may, because we got cut off.

I asked about how AI Studio is helping artists reach new audiences and with their effectiveness and efficiency in running their accounts. You talked about how technology gives way to new forms or new opportunities within the creative sector.

Can you expand on that in terms of the use of AI for expansion?

[Rachel Curran]

We're at the beginning of these generative AI tools and how the creative industry and artists are starting to use them. Right now, we're seeing what you've heard from the other witnesses here. AI is being used to deal with more rote or administrative tasks that they need to deal with so they can then focus on the work that requires real creativity and human judgment. That is where we're seeing the early developments. It's the administrative work and the kinds of things that can be easily automated and made more efficient.

Over time, we'll see how artists start to use generative AI tools as assistants in the creative process. I think we're seeing that across the board, where AI is being used more as a helper and an assistant, not a replacement.

I think someone mentioned the concern about job loss. We see AI helping humans do their jobs better and really focus on the tasks that require human judgment and complex thought, which are things that AI probably will never replace. They're able to focus their time and attention on the parts of the work that require human activity, with AI assisting them in that work.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

With AI there is a danger, of course, but there is also an opportunity. Where is that line as we consider regulation?

[Rachel Curran]

Our view is that you should regulate the use of the technology, not the technology itself. Look at the uses to which AI is being put. Many of those uses are legal or illegal already. It's already illegal to engage in impersonation or fraud, for instance, so those laws simply need to be enforced in the context of AI.

Where there are net new risks or marginal risks that are genuinely beyond the scope of current laws, we would suggest regulating those. Look at the use to which AI technology is being put and regulate that rather than the technology itself, which I think is impossible to regulate given how quickly it's moving.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Al Soud, you can close us out with three minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Morin and Mr. Buridans, as you know, French-speaking cultural communities already face structural challenges when it comes to visibility and the size of their market. In the age of digital platforms and AI, how can we ensure that French-language content has visibility and support? How do we make sure it doesn't get swallowed up by a mostly English tech ecosystem?

[Marie-Christine Morin]

That is the big question. Our experience tells us that, without parameters and clear legislation, it won't work. The country's cultural sovereignty and diversity of cultural expressions cannot rest in the hands of private companies that don't have a mandate to protect them. The government has to enact legislation to address these issues. Otherwise, what you described is exactly what will happen—French content will get swallowed up by content that does not reflect who we are, created in a language that is not ours. In a situation like that, the government absolutely has to play a role.

[Sven Buridans]

I'd like to add something, if I may. That is why we are calling for cross-institutional efforts in our digital strategy. We are engaging directly with federal cultural institutions. We have a co-operation agreement with the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council for the Arts and the Department of Canadian Heritage, among others. It is important to coordinate how our language and the unique characteristics of our communities are represented. Currently, those efforts are a bit scattered, so we are trying to focus them on these issues.

We've spoken with ministers Solomon and Guilbeault. I was part of a delegation for the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation seems to want to move forward on this issue, whereas the Department of Canadian Heritage delegates the responsibility for managing these issues and the challenge associated with overseeing things like copyright and transparency. It's as though the two things are supposed to work in parallel and aren't complex intertwined issues. I must say, that view astounds me, so that is where we are trying to play a role.

What's more, in speaking with Minister Solomon's staff, we found out that the government had announced an agreement with the company Cohere to train an AI model to improve public services. I believe models have been trained in English, but I don't think any have been trained in French. Nevertheless, not only does language need to be taken into account, but so do the unique characteristics of Canadian and Acadian French-speaking cultural communities. It's not good enough to simply train a model in this language or that language. We talked about AI bias earlier. It will take more than a language model to prevent AI from generating overly biased output. It will take a cultural learning model.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

That is all the time we have for questions today.

I want to thank all of our panel members for coming and for their excellent testimony today.

I will reiterate the always eloquent words of Martin Champoux. If there's anything you didn't manage to say today and you have more things that you wish to submit to committee, please send them to our clerk so our analyst can include that information in the report for our study.

I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes, and we will move to committee business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I call the meeting back to order.

We're coming back into session to deal with some committee business. I will advise members that we are still in public. Keep that in mind. We have not gone to an in camera session.

The point of today's committee business is to talk about extending our AI study. We are due to finish the minimum of five meetings which we set out at the beginning at the end of October. October 29 will be our fifth meeting. We still have a huge list of witnesses who would like to testify, so I wanted to canvass the will of the members to see if you would like to extend the meetings or move on to something else.

Martin Champoux, I think I saw your hand go up first.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I think all the parties agree on adding a few meetings. I looked at the witness list, and I know other witnesses were added. It's a lot of people. If we decide to hear from everyone being proposed, we'll still be working on this study in March.

I am not saying that anyone doesn't deserve to be on the list, on the contrary. Certain issues affect a lot of people, so it's perfectly normal that so many people want to have their say in our study. However, we have to prioritize, since we'll have other studies we want to do.

I think we should add a few meetings. We can all decide how many meetings to add to the initial five. We should also look at our witness lists and figure out together whether there are any witnesses that all the parties definitely want to invite or give priority to. Everyone can co-operate. We need to prioritize and make sure we don't have any duplication. We've covered many facets of the issue. It's good to consider a variety of topics in the study. I'm thinking of the analysts, who will have to keep track of all our discussions.

I'm open to adding two or three meetings. I suggest two, and then we can see whether we want to add more. We can leave the door open. I think that will force us to assess the current list of witnesses and make some decisions together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would agree with my colleague, Mr. Champoux. We would suggest adding two more meetings. If we were to add two more meetings, that would take us up to the break.

I would agree that we have to refine our list as parties. I don't feel the need to hear from every single individual who wants to come to this table. I think eventually it becomes repetitive. Certainly we want to make sure that the main points are made and considered in the report.

To date, we have not heard from a number of individuals or organizations that would represent more of the creative sector, for example, video game creation or digital creators. I think we have a responsibility to hear from some of those folks.

I think that we can get a very good sampling with two more meetings and then, of course, the acceptance of written briefs. Anyone who wants their voice heard on this topic has the opportunity to submit a brief. My suggestion is that we agree to two more meetings. If, at that point in time, we feel that we still haven't heard enough, once again we can expand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Go ahead, Mr. Ntumba.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

I think we agree with adding two meetings.

I'd like to follow up on what Mrs. Thomas said about needing to hear from witnesses with different areas of expertise. I think it would be a good idea to hear about the potential impact of AI on children. That was discussed at a conference I was at in Kelowna recently. If we can find witnesses with that type of experience, it could result in a much more informed approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Over to you, Mr. Myles.

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

I think we're all in agreement. We had a chance to chat a bit, and I think it all makes sense.

I like the idea of looking at the witness list again. We want to get the most out of the study. We know that when we start hearing the same thing from multiple people, then we're not necessarily getting the best thing. I think it's a good move.

We can get to our, say, seventh in total and say that we're clearly not there or that we are at it. I think we're getting a good picture, but there's still more to be done. We need to be a bit more strategic. What we're all saying is that we can look at this list and know that we haven't heard from specific digital creators. The video game industry is a good example. There are voices we want to make sure we're hearing, even from the industry. It's going to be helpful to hear from industry what is possible. I keep on asking that. It's going to be helpful for us to know what the models are capable of doing when it comes to licensing and regulations. I think that will be a great part of the conversation.

I'm totally happy where this is going as well.