Industry committee  I liked your standing committee idea better because it gets closer to what I believe in, which is that this is an important first-step framework bill, but we will be writing laws about AI forever, so we should make sure that we're clear in that as we go forward.

Industry committee  Yes. Ultimately, we are copyright stakeholders, as we have said many times today. The Copyright Act has a section on this. It is an important opportunity to review and make sure that we are up to international norms, but it is by no means a silver bullet to this problem. Like an

Industry committee  I don't believe that currently the bill describes music as high-impact. I would find it hard to believe that anybody who's spent the last two hours listening to us, though, would think that there wasn't a high impact of AI on all cultural industries. If there is an attempt to all

Industry committee  I'm really sorry. I know I'm on the corner here. May I?

Industry committee  I believe the minister's amendments are a step in the right direction on those pieces. I think that, as we've discussed, they can go further. I am desperate, though, to speak about the idea that because they're big numbers or complicated, they shouldn't be regulated, or there s

Industry committee  Can I just say, without casting aspersions on anyone, that this is an impossible game of three-card monte for stakeholders? The bill before Parliament is Bill C-27. There is a copyright review going on. If we don't comment on AI and its interaction with copyright during Bill C-

Industry committee  Yes. I think what we're here for, all of us in different ways.... Again, I think that, on AI, the human element of this is very important. If you come to ground on the principles, you can go and change the laws however you want.

Industry committee  I just wanted to say, on the U.S./EU question on deepfakes, specifically, that the No AI FRAUD Act in the U.S. is a bipartisan bill that our industry supports widely, and we would encourage all members to take a look at it. I think it provides a great framework for the deepfake i

Industry committee  I feel very strongly about this. We're here as a sort of cultural industries panel, but, members of Parliament, if you think about it as people.... In music, we call it VNIL: voice, name, image and likeness. It doesn't have to be the extreme example. It doesn't have to be pornog

Industry committee  Again, I take the position that of course it's copyright. It's not even debatable to me. I know some people believe otherwise, but I don't understand it. In order for the rest of the copyright framework to work, I have to know what it was trained on, so the people who rightfully

Industry committee  I don't mean to be a stickler, but there was a public AI consultation in which most of the industry said they were not ready to talk about AI.

Industry committee  We've spoken to staff.

Industry committee  Obviously, in the music industry space we've been through this path once before, so we have made major efforts to license music in the best ways we can, but in many of the ways you've listed off, those would not be licensed yet.

Industry committee  Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on that. You can go about it either way. Either you can say that there are no exceptions for AI, that AI is like everything else, and you can do it in a bill like Bill C-27 and go back and reference the Copyright Act, or you can make

Industry committee  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 cauc