Industry Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

Well, I—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I see Ms. Hénault could also respond.

[Stéphanie Hénault]

If I understand your question, you want to know if the novel you've written has wound up in the algorithm. Is that it?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Is there some way for me to know; is there a list?

[Stéphanie Hénault]

No, it's very difficult. The industry is now criticizing the lack of transparency in the creation of systems. As I said, things will change in Europe because there are very clear obligations of transparency in favour of individual rights in connection with the creation and use of works.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

We aren't necessarily seeing that in Bill C-27.

[Stéphanie Hénault]

That's correct. The bill has to be improved, as Europe is doing in this field.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and tell you that AI is a creator in the same way as a human being, that it exhibits creativity and that it draws inspiration from all kinds of sources.

No artist works in a vacuum. Someone who writes a book has definitely read a lot of novels, 1,000, 2,000 or even 10,000, every one of which has been a source of inspiration. However, if an artist publishes a book, the use of the books that he or she has read for inspiration will not be considered unauthorized. So it's hard to understand why it would be different for a machine that, ultimately, is also a creator.

[Stéphanie Hénault]

No, the machine isn't a creator; a machine is driven by a programmed piece of software to produce results, and it sometimes produces bizarre results because it is a machine, not a human being.

Since companies developing these machines negotiate licenses in exchange for compensation, their data suppliers must also be compensated. That's why a licensing market is developing. There are agencies that specialize in licensing for text searches and copyright-free own data.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

If I'm following your logic, you think that an artwork created by generative AI from other works is per se a kind of amalgam of adapted original works.

[Stéphanie Hénault]

It's a product, first of all, and that product, created by a machine, can be charged with forgery. If a work is recognized as protected and hasn't been authorized for use, that poses a problem for the user.

When you buy and read books that inspire you, copyright makes that possible because the fact that it's been marketed means you can read it. However, our members constantly negotiate licenses for all kinds of services in both the technology and printed book fields.

Text and data searches can be done on works that have been authorized with or without remuneration and on works that are in the public domain. For protected works, licenses must be acquired, as is the case for services one wishes to use and for which one must read the conditions, pay and search. We believe the same is true of intellectual property.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Hénault.

[Stéphanie Hénault]

You're quite welcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Masse, the floor is yours.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses here today.

Last week was really interesting. We had Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta here. I, quite frankly, was shocked by the fact that we had a panel in front of us that had been fined in the multi-billions of dollars across the world, yet we haven't had any of the same kind of oversight here. They also have the distribution rights to many of the works you actually perform here.

Since that time, in fact, Microsoft, which was here, has been challenged in its takeover of Activision, which affects many of you and the people you represent. They have now identified that they're going to lay off a whole bunch of people at Activision, when they previously said they wouldn't, so the U.S. is taking stronger steps there.

I would just like to go across the panel right now because we have to decide on this bill, which basically moves a lot of stuff to regulation. At best, it will be implemented in probably three years' time, or we can rework it across the board in terms of starting almost from the beginning. That's also because the government is unwilling to separate the Privacy Act aspects of this, where I think there's quite a lot of common ground, from the AI stuff.

Maybe we'll start with ACTRA here and go across.

Should we start over, or should we try to continue to work? I'm on the fence on this. Quite frankly, I was really disappointed with last Wednesday's.... I've never seen a panel, in all my years here, where we literally had companies, representing the influence of so many Canadians, that were fined and paid those fines—and lawsuits—including to other governments across the world, for billions of dollars. We've never had a panel like that, and yet they walked in and walked out of the room, just like we were nothing at all. They sent in government relations people, including people who were actually bought from government teams of the past, from government relations.

Do we go ahead with a process that exposes us to potential regulation that's devolved from Parliament in many respects—to be updated—or do we try to rework things and put Parliament back in the front seat?

[Marie Kelly]

From my perspective, its not okay for government to do nothing. Across the globe, governments are struggling with this issue, and we do appreciate that this is a very difficult issue that touches on so many different industries, that touches on business as well as people. We appreciate that it's difficult. We also believe it's going to be a patchwork of protections that are going to come in. It can't just be Bill C-27.

Growing up doing some lobbying in my past life, I was always told, “Get what you can now because government's not going to revisit this for another decade.” That can't be what happens here. We have to move forward as best we can, at every opportunity we have, on protections for Canadians, for workers, for our society.

What I would say to you, on Bill C-27, is that we support the intention to ensure that consent is required for biometric information. We understand that it's going to start to protect name, image and likeness, but you're hearing us say, even on Bill C-27, that it doesn't go far enough for performers. We need greater protections within this bill, but you have to move. I would just say to the government, you have to move with speed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I want to make sure everybody gets in on this.

Thank you. I got that.

[Stéphanie Hénault]

This is a big question. I have to admit I haven't stopped thinking about it. I read this legislation in a rush and wrongly thought it was more about personal data. We have some suggestions for improving it.

As my colleague Ms. Kelly said, I think we have to legislate, but we also clearly have to improve this bill so it genuinely protects Canadians in the AI era.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

I too would say it's important to act to provide a framework for artificial intelligence. The cultural sector may be a bit late to the party, but it's never too late. We're bringing specific proposals. We're reaching out so we can really continue the discussion with you and come up with specific measures that will truly take all the interests in the cultural sector into consideration.

[Dave Forget]

Thank you for the question.

My answer is going to be, yes, we should be moving forward, but the context is moving so quickly. Bill C-27 was drafted before we had the impact of generative AI in the way we see it now. It was only a little over a year ago, with my elected board, that this switched from being in the background to front and centre.

I can echo some of the comments you've heard. In our own surveys of our membership, who work not just as directors but across 50 different job categories, it impacts them in different ways, and it impacts them profoundly.

This is a major concern, so moving quickly but making the improvements, some of which we're happy to be discussing here today, precisely to be able to protect creators, is really important.

Move forward in a thoughtful way, but try to do it quickly. That would be our advice.

[Patrick Rogers]

Mr. Masse, thank you for the question.

Look, I would encourage everyone to continue moving forward with Bill C-27 in its original state, which was a framework for all of these other pieces to hang on. I think that if I were you or any member on this committee, I would go to caucus on Wednesday morning, go to the microphones and say, “I heard really scary things about deepfakes and we have to do something on that now.”

If it takes longer for Parliament to work through Bill C-27, that's fine, but I think there are some actions you could take right now to take real, meaningful action for our industry and, in fact, for all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Perkins, the floor is yours.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

I would like a yes-or-no answer from each one of the groups to start off.

Before this bill was tabled, almost two years ago, were you consulted? It was tabled in June 2022. Were you consulted before that on this bill?

[Marie Kelly]

No.