Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for your invitation and for this opportunity for the cultural sector to comment on Bill C-27.
I am the executive director of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which this year celebrates its 25th anniversary. The coalition consists of more than 50 members from Canada's cultural sector: anglophone and francophone unions, professional associations and collection societies. We cover a broad and diverse range of audiovisual, musical, digital arts, book and publishing disciplines, as well as the visual and performing arts. We also represent more than 350,000 creators and nearly 3,000 businesses in the cultural industry.
I'm in good company today, surrounded by three coalition members: the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres du Québec, the Directors Guild of Canada and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. This small sample represents only part of the impact that the development of artificial intelligence has had on our sector. I encourage you to continue consulting the cultural sector so you can also hear from the representatives of visual artists, screenwriters, producers, composers, authors and others.
Our coalition's primary mission is to secure a cultural exclusion in trade agreements in order to preserve Canada's cultural sovereignty. We also want to ensure that Canada adopts public policies that guarantee protection and promotion for the diversity of cultural expressions, including in the digital environment. Our efforts build on the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. That UNESCO convention came to be as a result of the concerted efforts of Quebec and Canada, and France as well, and I would note that Canada was the first country to ratify it.
We are here today to comment on a bill that it is designed to protect Canadians from the risks presented by the spectacular developments in artificial intelligence, generative AI in particular.
The 2005 convention states that cultural diversity is "indispensable for peace and security at the local, national and international levels". In other words, the development of responsible artificial intelligence must take that diversity into account and ensure it is protected. Diversity is essential in safeguarding our freedom of expression, the health of our democracy and the maintenance of our sovereignty.
Bill C-27 essentially addresses the risks facing individuals as a result of artificial intelligence. As others before us have done, we wish to emphasize how important it also is to consider the societal risks that artificial intelligence presents.
The purpose of the new legislation, stated in clause 4, and the definition of harm that appears in the text are too limited. Adopting wording found in the European Union's AI legislation, we suggest that one of the purposes of the new act be to protect the health, safety and fundamental Charter rights, including democracy—of which the diversity of cultural expressions is a pillar—and the rule of law, as well as the environment, from the harmful effects of AI systems.
The main theme for today's witnesses is copyright. That's heartening because we are convinced that Bill C-27 has a major role to play in this area.
The Canadian government recently conducted a consultation on the impact of generative AI on copyright. The cultural community's unanimous view is that, contrary to the widely held perception, Canadian copyright legislation doesn't need to be significantly modernized to protect rights holders in reaction to developments in generative AI. It already protects human creation and prohibits the unauthorized use of protected cultural content. However, as a result of a lack of transparency regarding the data used to drive AI systems, that act cannot be applied in an optimal fashion. This is where Bill C-27 must play a role.
Here are two specific potential solutions that would restore the Copyright Act to full effectiveness for the benefit of rights holders and Canadians as well.
We should draw on European AI legislation and go beyond the obligation to retain data records, as provided in the new subsection 7(2) proposed by amendment to Bill C-27 and, in particular, provide that a sufficiently detailed summary of the use of copyright-protected training data is made available to the public.
It should also be more clearly stated that Bill C-27 creates responsibilities with respect to the Copyright Act, as the European Union has done.
The accountability framework outlined in new subsection 12(5) moved by amendment to Bill C-27 could thus support policies and procedures concerning the Copyright Act and the use of an individual's voice, image or reputation.
These additions would be consistent with the regulations being introduced at the international level and would foster the development of a licensing market based on consent and remuneration of rights holders.
Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.