Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[Lisa Broadfoot]

I can speak to how it's reshaping budgets. I would say at this point it is still nascent.

As I mentioned before, it's really the tools that producers are using. It can help us with scene optimization and with pre-visualization. There are a number of different tools that producers can use.

Say you want to create a special effect. You can choose to do it with in-camera effects, à la Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible. You have real, live and in camera and that's a creative choice you can make.

You can choose to use volume production, which is like a curved wall with thousands of LED screens that can cheat a location for you, which can save you money and time in not going overseas, or you can choose to use some AI tools to create those in visual effects. All of these are opportunities for producers to take what they want to achieve creatively and use tools that are available to them to do it with the maximum efficiency.

That's how I think it's impacting budgets and financing.

In terms of contractual relationships, a couple of years ago when this was becoming a thing, we commissioned a law firm to do a study on what producers need to consider in terms of the legalities of what they're doing. One of the things we asked producers to consider was whether their contracts with distributors and broadcasters even allow them to use AI because everybody in production has to pass E and O. Everybody knows that they have to do this. It has to be cleared, through chain of title—everything has to be cleared. That's something we asked producers to consider.

They also have to look at, if they are engaging with an AI technology, whether they own their prompts or if those prompts are being turned over to those platforms and therefore their work has been scraped again.

These are all things that producers have to consider when it comes to contracts, budgets and financing.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Roberge and Mr. Grenier, earlier you said that the predominance of English in artificial intelligence was directly harming the visibility of our French-language content online.

According to your research, what are the main risks to the cultural and linguistic vitality of the francophonie if artificial intelligence continues to be developed mainly in English-speaking environments?

[Jonathan Roberge]

Mr. Grenier, would you like to respond?

[Étienne Grenier]

The danger is that French will be considered a poorly endowed language. However, this is not entirely the case, as there is data available.

I will take the example of speech synthesis generation. Generating a voice in French is much more difficult than generating one in English, as there is a lack of data for certain types of work.

We feel we obviously need to increase the distribution of our content through government-supported strategies, particularly standardized description strategies, in order to promote Quebec and francophone culture on the Internet and to feed the major models so that we can find our place in them.

At the same time, we must ensure that content is not entirely plundered and copied by companies that want to use it to train their models.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Mr. Champoux, you have two minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for you, Mr. Dubois.

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, many artists, creators, technicians and workers in the cultural sector and related industries decided to change jobs altogether due to growing insecurity and uncertainty about a return to normal.

I feel that the cultural sector is going from crisis to crisis. At the end of COVID‑19, we see that there may be a way to reinvest a little and re-engage in the profession we had before the pandemic struck. Now, I feel that the advent of artificial intelligence is disrupting work and creative habits, but also the work of all professions related to culture.

Is the cultural sector currently in a state of shock? In your contacts with various players in the field, do you feel that something is discouraging people and that we are going to experience another exodus of our talent?

[Laurent Dubois]

Indeed. You say that a few people have left, but I would say that many people have left. It is still a massive disengagement, which is entirely understandable.

Indeed, there is a new crisis that could have the same effect. I would like to take a few seconds to point out that, in the cultural sector, there is no interest in the development of artificial intelligence, except to save money. To date, I have yet to see a project done by artificial intelligence that has a creative contribution that a human could not have made. For the moment, it is only a question of reducing costs, and I think that artists will not be able to bear it a second time, especially since they have no social safety net. We must remember this.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You have very wisely touched on the heart of the problem, namely that money will probably be the main argument in all this.

Do you feel that, while respecting the values and interests of all the various players in this field, if we can come up with regulations quickly enough, we will be able to change course? Is it too late? Have we reached the point of no return?

[Laurent Dubois]

I cannot stand before you and say that we have reached the point of no return.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In your opinion, have we reached it?

[Laurent Dubois]

No, we haven’t reached it. However, we need to get started now because democracy is slow, and that’s normal. We talk to each other, we exchange ideas, we engage in dialogue. It takes time, but we can get there. It just takes courage and dialogue.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You know, it’s nice to have a little optimism at this table.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dubois.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Today’s discussions were really very interesting.

I want to thank all of our witnesses online and in the room for being here today.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

There was a gentleman's agreement on the table to come back to me to finish up.

Thank you.

There were several things I was going to do, but in the interests of time, I will do just one, and that is to move a motion.

The motion I would like to seek my colleagues' support on is this:

Given that,

Through the Indigenous Art Centre, the federal government safeguards a collection of more than 5,000 indigenous artworks of exceptional cultural and artistic value, with an estimated value exceeding $14 million,

More than 130 artworks managed by the centre have gone missing, according to a troubling audit that highlights widespread mismanagement, weak oversight, and inadequate security,

The committee invite the following witnesses to testify before the committee: the director of the Indigenous Art Centre, for no less than two (2) hours, and the authors of the audit report prepared by the Audit and Assurance Services Branch of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, for no less than two (2) hours,

And that the committee report to the House its concerns with the audit report.

The reason I bring this up is that this report just came out, I believe, toward the end of last week. It seems to be raising some eyebrows within the indigenous community as to where 132 pieces of art went missing.

The art is funded through Heritage Canada, so it is incumbent upon this committee to look at what exactly happened here and to come to a better understanding of where these 132 pieces are and what can be done to make sure this doesn't continue to happen going forward.

I move that motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

You can't move that motion, because we are not in committee business and it doesn't have anything to do with what we're doing.

You can give notice of that motion, and we can discuss it at a later date.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would the challenge the chair, if I may.

I would draw your attention to the fact that at a meeting of this nature, when the floor is given to a member, he or she does have the ability to move a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

You can move a motion if it has something to do with the topic we're discussing on that day, but you can't move a completely different motion unless we've been given notice. You can challenge the chair and we can vote on that, but you're going to lose.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That's a bit of a bold statement. We have equal members at the table.

Generally, a chair interprets that rule with quite a—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

We're not going to debate this. If you want to challenge the chair, we can do that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I am going to challenge the chair.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Okay. We'll vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

I want to once again thank all the witnesses for being here today.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair…

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I want to say that if there's something you want to put on the record today and maybe didn't have a chance, please send us a brief or a letter. We can all be apprised of what you weren't able to say today. The analysts can use that as we put together our final report on this topic.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would just like to say a few words about the motion Mrs. Thomas has just introduced.

I voted to uphold your decision because it was the decision most consistent with the Standing Orders.

However, this remains a motion of great interest, and I believe we have a duty to discuss it as soon as possible at a future meeting. This is quite shocking, and I believe it is also of concern to indigenous communities, so we should take it very seriously and set aside time to discuss this motion on Wednesday. There should be a proper notice of motion within two days.