Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Next, we'll go to Mr. Al Soud, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for taking the time to be with us today. It's truly appreciated.

A warm welcome to the millions watching us on CPAC right now.

I'm going to jump right into questions today, no long monologue. Part of why I'm doing that is because, Dr. Kearney—and that is a familiar designation and last name—looking into the work you do over at Artificial Agency had me in a bit of a rabbit hole yesterday.

For those who don't know, you are a technologist and ethicist. Much of your work focuses on this exploration of how AI systems shape human behaviour and creative expression. Your company works on “responsible by design” AI that emphasizes transparency, cultural nuance and inclusivity. You also recently launched a behaviour engine, as you mentioned earlier, to create video games that feel truly alive.

We had the privilege of visiting Amii in Edmonton, in early September.

Given your unique perspective, I'm wondering how you see artists, designers and policy-makers working together to ensure that creativity, not just efficiency, remains central to how we deploy AI.

[Alexandra Kearney]

When you talk about working together, I think a number of the witnesses have brought up having collaborative discussions, seeking input from people in different groups.

To be clear, I'm in a very specific vertical. I'm focused on games.

This isn't a case, again, because we're taking these foundation models and transforming them into behaviour. There isn't really a clear case where imitation would be a concern.

That's one of the things that I want to impress upon the group, when I say that agentic AI and generative AI is not this monolith. A lot of people think about generating text and images, and sure, those are concerns.

I would encourage policy-makers to contemplate and work with people, not just in these traditional mediums but really look to the broader space and see how people are really innovating, using AI and creating new mediums that previously didn't exist.

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

That's fantastic.

Thank you, Doctor.

Monsieur Tessari L'Allié, AI Governance and Safety Canada started with a simple [Inaudible—Editor] Canada, and from Canada, to ensure positive outcomes.

Last year, you testified at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, stating that, “it is only a matter of time before AI outperforms us in all domains.” In your “Preparing for the AI Crisis: A Plan for Canada” report, one of your recommendations is the implementation of global coordination mechanisms.

Could you speak to how Canada's experience in global climate policy can help shape a government's framework for AI that balances innovation, safety and equity?

How do you frame AI safety, not just as a technical issue, but as a social and democratic one, when we talk about institutions, trust and security?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

That's a great question.

First, yes, AI is obviously a global issue. We will require global solutions. Canada, even if we had the best laws in the world, wouldn't be able to stop development elsewhere that could cause Canadian content creators and otherwise.... By all means, let's learn from best practices from dealing with COVID, climate and other areas where we had to collaborate, even if we didn't want to.

The AI that is of most concern is the stuff that will be smarter than human—the biggest opportunity, but also the biggest risk—and is, for the most part, coming from Silicon Valley, and to a lesser extent, from China. If we want to ensure that Canadians benefit from this technology and avoid the risks from it, then we need to be working with the U.S. and China. There's no way around it.

Canada has a good international reputation. We don't have the best relationships, necessarily, with the U.S. and China. We certainly are better than many, and we're at a good place to build a coalition of other countries, the global south, Europe, India and all the rest. Given we have a strong AI ecosystem, a decent international reputation and a Prime Minister who has written a book about how to manage global crises, we're unusually well placed to spearhead a global response, which is absolutely necessary for anything AI related.

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

That's fantastic.

Thank you for that response.

Mr. Dubois and Ms. Roy, SARTEC represents writers from the francophone audiovisual sector. It advocates for their copyright and working conditions and for the recognition of their creative work in a rapidly changing digital environment. In an era when generative artificial intelligence can replicate styles, voices and scripts, your remarks shed light on the issues of intellectual property, artistic work and cultural diversity.

How do you see the role of scriptwriters or audiovisual creators changing as artificial intelligence tools become integrated into production processes?

[Véronyque Roy, Lawyer and Labor Relations Advisor, Société des auteurs et autrices de radio, télévision et cinéma]

In practical terms, one of our real fears is that the scriptwriters will be partially replaced by these tools. We're concerned that these tools are being used more to replace artists. This would undoubtedly create a diversity issue. We would end up with methods that lead to very similar scripts.

Above all, we want to ensure that the current legal tools, such as the Copyright Act, continue to protect scriptwriters. When implementing new measures, we don't want this legislation to cease to apply, leading to a decline in working conditions for our scriptwriters or even job losses.

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

I dare to ask the following question. In your opinion, how could artificial intelligence be used to aid creativity?

[Véronyque Roy]

Artificial intelligence already exists. Our job is mainly to warn our members and contracting parties, meaning producer associations, and remind them of the need to comply with the legislation and respect the originality of both incoming and outgoing content. People must realize what can happen if they use the tool in a way that gives them no control over the quality of the content used as a basis. This content may have been copied. That's why we emphasize the need to verify the content used and to ensure that the final content is truly original.

The idea isn't to prevent people from using the tools. However, we want to ensure that the tools are used for creative purposes without, in a sense, corrupting the content. We don't want scriptwriters to unknowingly commit illegal acts by using this type of content. Take, for example, a producer who submits preliminary content to scriptwriters. These people could end up unknowingly committing illegal acts. Moreover, as I said earlier, the material produced would be of poorer quality.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you, Mr. Al Soud.

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I think we should extend this meeting until 11 p.m. It's crazy how interesting and relevant the content we are hearing today is.

I thank all the witnesses for being here today. From the outset, I have found that the opening remarks alone provided us with so much input. The same goes for the questions.

I want to say hello to the two researchers, Mr. Roberge and Mr. Grenier. It was Marc‑Olivier Ducharme, who was one of the witnesses at our second meeting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Champoux, but we have a problem with the interpretation. It won't affect your speaking time.

Everything seems to be working well now.

You can start from the top, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I won't repeat everything I said. I was just saying that the content our guests have provided so far is really relevant and very interesting.

I was speaking to the two researchers, Mr. Roberge and Mr. Grenier. Marc‑Olivier Ducharme, one of the witnesses who took part in the committee's second meeting on this study, recommended that we invite them.

Gentlemen, I can tell you that, as I listened to your opening remarks, I really didn't regret taking his advice.

Mr. Grenier, earlier you didn't have time to finish your opening remarks. Believe me, five minutes goes by very quickly. In any case, you mentioned something about artists that really struck me—namely how artists can influence the development of artificial intelligence so that they can benefit from it rather than be victims or be affected negatively.

Tell us a bit more about that. I find that it is exactly in line with the study we are currently conducting.

[Étienne Grenier]

Thank you very much.

It is really important to support the cultural sector so that certain experts within the sector, who already know a little about artificial intelligence and are able to craft models and do some fine-tuning, would be able to develop this technology while thinking about the sector's real needs. What we generally see when certain models are deployed is that they are not adapted to the sector's actual tasks. That then requires a redistribution of tasks and leads to a degradation of jobs in the cultural sector.

What we're suggesting is a rethinking of ownership and governance around models and tools. Open data and open software should be promoted wherever possible. Training tools must be provided so that people in the community would be able to use them. We also need to find, among the people from the cultural sector, super users with programming skills. They could then serve as intermediaries, in a way, since they would be able to understand, on the one hand, the highly computerized portion of the work and, on the other hand, its highly cultural portion.

Those initiatives also need to be supported. Some are under way in the sector, such as the ArtIA project, led by Sporobole, the Société des arts technologiques and Projet collectif. These initiatives require consistent and recurring funding to have a sufficient level of capacity building in the sector to work properly with this technology.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Would you say that it's unavoidable and essential and that it's a matter of survival? How do you see this collaboration and this appeal that you're making? Do you think it's a necessary step, period?

[Étienne Grenier]

Mastering production tools and capabilities is essential for the cultural survival of our people. Otherwise, we will be facing a tidal wave from Silicon Valley, where our culture is significantly devalued.

If we want to be able to develop artificial intelligence systems that represent our values and cultural baggage, we'll have to do it ourselves, with our own means and our own institutions. I'm thinking in particular of the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, which develops model projects based on its own data. There are ways of doing it. We met with partners at the French ministry of culture who are working on this, in partnership with the heritage and architecture branch and the museums service.

I can let Jonathan Roberge elaborate on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Go ahead, Mr. Roberge, I want to hear what you have to say on that as well.

[Jonathan Roberge]

I will simply add that we have to go back to the core mandate of Canadian Heritage and what that department has to do. In that sense, we really have to go back to the mission of defending and promoting Canadian culture. Canadian Heritage has to look at technology, of course, but with that core mandate as a foundation.

A coherent strategy also needs to be developed. However, there is clearly a cost deficit in the current policy because there is no plan to develop or deploy a proper cultural policy.

My colleague talked about training, the social safety net and the impoverishment of artists, among other things. Addressing these issues is much more important than, for example, using the model of industries like that of video games, which comes from digital technology, and trying to apply it to cultural industries, which have been around for much longer. That's where the mistake is, and it costs money. When we have to create a cultural policy that takes into account the dangers, problems and challenges of artificial intelligence, we will need evidence. Canada will also not be able to draw inspiration from itself to find solutions to future challenges.

That's what needs to be looked at.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Unless I'm mistaken, you both attended a seminar session in September entitled “Is sovereignty a (new) technology?”. A number of findings and conclusions emerged. One of those findings is that the state is captured in a technological framework dominated by American industry groups.

Are we able to move away from that? Is it too late for us to move away from that and create something that we can control in AI? For example, there's a lot of talk about having copyright-free data banks and feeding the beast, meaning artificial intelligence tools, with content that we're able to regulate and that is in line with our values. Is it still possible to do that, or are we once again lagging behind in regulating a technology that is passing us by?

[Jonathan Roberge]

Sovereignty is indeed a regulatory issue. Looking at sovereignty as we see it today, as a panacea or a catch-all that means nothing, is the problem.

The idea of having cultural sovereignty in Canada does not require us to do promotion and invest billions of dollars to quickly try to invent solutions out of thin air. Rather, it is a way to bring the practice community together to try to develop regulations. General sovereignty in contemporary states, as well as cultural sovereignty, requires regulation. The investment of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, simply to keep pace with Silicon Valley will result in a notorious deficit for Canada, as it will never be able to keep pace.

The trend we're seeing today, particularly in Ottawa, is to talk about sovereignty left, right and centre. This idea is not useless or uninteresting, but it is poorly constructed. I would draw members' attention to the fact that, when we talk about sovereignty, and in particular cultural sovereignty, we have to know what we are talking about. Right now, the debate is very misdirected.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Mr. Waugh, you have five minutes.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to Adrian Capobianco.

What does the landscape look like in this country? You're coming from an advertising agency, and you've learned lots there. Now you're into the social media aspect of it. What brings the uniqueness of that landscape for you to Canadians?

[Adrian Capobianco]

That's a big question. There was a theme that I mentioned in my presentation. I heard it echoed in a couple of others. That was “fighting above our weight class”. I think that's interesting in that we often carry a presence larger than maybe some would expect or assume. I gave a number of examples of how we leverage AI to help us compete and win against much larger companies.

I think there's an element of that scrappiness. I think there's also an element of diversity and acceptance of differences. We leverage that a lot of the time with our brand partners to tell different stories of working with creators across the country from different backgrounds, different locations, different languages, different cultures, etc.

I think there are two things that would come to mind for me—a bit of scrappiness in fighting above our weight class, and a diversity of our population that makes us interesting and unique.