CHPC Committee Meeting

     I call this meeting to order.

    Welcome to meeting number two of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

     This is a hybrid format meeting, but I don't believe we have any participation online today. All in-person participants, please consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These are measures in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will notice a QR code on the card for a short awareness video if you need it.

     Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon.

    I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand in the room, and the clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

     Today, this committee is meeting to discuss committee business. The subcommittee met on Wednesday, September 17, to consider the business of the committee and agreed to make the following recommendations: first, that the committee invite the chairperson and chief executive officer of the CRTC, Vicky Eatrides—

    I have a point of order.

    Go ahead.

    I'm sorry. That wouldn't be my preferred way to interrupt, but I just want to make sure this is a business meeting. Normally they're not in the public domain, so I want to check in with you, Madam Chair, and see where things are at with that. I notice that it says “public”. I also notice that we have more people in the room than we should have if it is not, in fact, public, so I'm just checking in.

     It's a public meeting with committee business. I think there has to be a motion if we want to go in camera.

    To reiterate, the subcommittee came up with three decisions:

     Is there someone who's willing to move a motion to adopt the report of the subcommittee? You all should have a copy of this in your inbox.

    Mr. Al Soud, go ahead.

     I move the motion to adopt the subcommittee report.

    Is everyone in favour?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Next, you have also received in your inbox an operational budget to cover the cost of the meal for our meeting with the minister coming up this Wednesday. Will someone move to adopt the budget for the meeting on Wednesday? Does no one want food for our witnesses on Wednesday?

    Mr. Myles, go ahead.

    I'm not totally sure how to say this. This is my first time.

    I move to adopt the motion for the budget for the food for the meeting. Thank you.

    That was well done.

    I'll get better.

    Mrs. Thomas, did you have your hand up, or was that just the intervention you already made?

     That was just the intervention I made, but I will put up my hand whenever there's an opportunity.

    All right. It's over to you.

    That's perfect.

    Given that we are dealing with committee business, I would like to move a motion that was previously discussed on June 16. It's a motion to adopt several reports that were drafted during the last Parliament and then didn't get tabled because of prorogation. There was a friendly agreement around the table that the summer would be given for members to look at those reports and to make sure they were fine with them.

    The motion reads as follows:

     I'm sorry, Mrs. Thomas. May I clarify? Are you talking about the tech giants report?

     No. I believe there are several reports that need to be moved and adopted from the previous Parliament. The tech giants report is one of them, but the one that I'm moving right now is about the national forum on the media.

    Okay.

    Mr. Champoux, go ahead.

    We could streamline our work. Since we already had this conversation in June, we are aware of the motions for the reports that Mrs. Thomas is talking about today. If everyone agrees and it's possible to do so, I think we could combine the three motions and adopt them as we had discussed doing a little earlier.

     I have a quick point of order.

     Mrs. Thomas, go ahead on a point of order.

    I'm so sorry. We do not have interpretation, so we actually didn't get to hear what he said.

    I will suspend for a couple of minutes while we figure this out. Thank you.

     All right, we are back in session.

    I hope everyone can hear the interpretation.

    Can you repeat what you said, Mr. Champoux?

    Absolutely.

    We've already debated the concurrence motions for the committee reports from the previous Parliament that Mrs. Thomas is proposing to vote on today. Since we've had the summer to read the reports, including members who weren't familiar with the content, I would propose, with the committee's agreement, that we save time by adopting all three motions together.

    If we have unanimous consent to group the report on tech giants, the report on illegal sexual material online and the report on the national forum on the media, as Mr. Champoux has suggested, we will adopt all three reports together. Does everybody agree?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Mr. Champoux, go ahead.

    Madam Chair, we adopted the report from the subcommittee meeting we held last week, containing recommendations to the committee on the work we could schedule for the next few weeks of meetings.

    I would first like to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the fact that we want to invite Ms. Eatrides, the chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, and Ms. Bouchard, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, on the proposed dates so that the clerk can quickly extend the invitations.

    Next, there's a study on artificial intelligence that we discussed at the subcommittee last week that seemed to have consensus around the table. I suggest that we start this study right away. It's a motion to undertake a study to assess the impacts of AI on cultural industries. This is a fairly broad field of study, and it will certainly give rise to some very interesting exchanges. I think we could open the discussion on this study.

    My motion proposed four meetings, but that was really a minimum. When I drafted my motion, I expected there would be a lot of study proposals for this fall. I assumed that we would want to make room for other topics, but I think this is a major study. I think this is a major issue for all sectors, not just the cultural one. I feel that we would need a minimum of five meetings, while leaving the door open to more meetings if committee members agree to add them. Since we are meeting with the chair of the CRTC and the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, this study could also take place around those meetings.

    Therefore, with the committee's agreement, I would make this study a priority. If you want, we can discuss it. If not, I think we can pass the motion by voting right now. It would save us time, which would be wonderful.

     Mr. Champoux, I'm clarifying with the clerk. We adopted the subcommittee meeting minutes, so we already adopted that third study. We can absolutely talk about how many meetings we want to have, but as I understand it, we've already agreed to start with this study, which is worded in the subcommittee meeting.

    Mr. Champoux, go ahead.

    Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the motion was included in the subcommittee report that we adopted. I don't think we had discussed the number of meetings, and I think that's what we need to establish today.

    Mr. Généreux has the floor.

    I'll let Mrs. Thomas go first.

    I am under the same impression as Mr. Champoux. We adopted the standing committee report indicating the direction of study, but we do have two different motions that deal with artificial intelligence, one from a Liberal member and one from the Bloc Québécois.

    I don't think that's public.

    Both have been put on notice.

     Are they in the public domain? They haven't been moved, so they're not public.

    If I understand, I think Mr. Champoux actually wants to move his motion to make it so that his is the motion that is passed in order to guide this study. I would ask for clarification from my colleague.

    Mr. Champoux has the floor.

    Perhaps the clerk could provide some clarification on that. We did not adopt one of the motions that was on notice on this topic. We did agree, when we adopted the subcommittee report, to do a study on this. Any discussions to be had on the text of the motion that will guide the study on artificial intelligence would be entirely relevant. Again, maybe the clerk can provide more clarity on what was contained in the subcommittee report that we adopted.

    We don't need to pass a motion on the study because we've already decided to do it.

    In that case, can we propose the number of meetings and then amend the motion that was passed, or can we just do it amicably?

    [ Inaudible—Editor ] of the report, because the discussions were in camera. The motion to conduct this study has been adopted and will be in the minutes of today's meeting. As for the number of meetings, it's obviously up to you to determine that.

     Mr. Myles, you're next.

    Fortunately, I think we're on the same page in terms of the number of meetings. We agree that we should hold at least five meetings, which will give us a chance to conduct a good study. We also agree about holding meetings with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and CBC/Radio-Canada. We feel the same way, because it will give us an opportunity to ask questions of a variety of witnesses.

    So we're all on the same page, I just want to make sure that we all agree. We've adopted the motion as suggested at the subcommittee meeting, and now we're discussing any other particulars we might want to add to this motion, for example the number of days.

    Mr. Généreux.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to be sitting on the committee with you for this session. I'm extremely glad to be here.

    I understand that we just passed the motion to adopt a motion aimed at conducting a study on artificial intelligence. I would just like to bring to the committee's attention that, over the past two years, the Standing Committee on Industry has studied Bill C‑27, which had an artificial intelligence component. We've heard from a lot of witnesses on this.

    If I understand Mr. Champoux's motion correctly, the idea here is to conduct a study on artificial intelligence as it relates to creative industries. It's important to understand that artificial intelligence is an extremely broad subject. It's very, very wide-ranging. If we want to limit our study to the creative industries, at the very least we need to define what those are. Otherwise, we could cast a really wide net.

    The other point I would like to raise is that the main motion passed earlier asks us to submit witnesses within 48 hours for a study that I consider extremely important. That's an extremely short time frame for us to find all the witnesses needed to carry out a study. Could we submit witness lists, start the study and then have the option of adding other witnesses later on? It will be hard for us to draw up a list of all the relevant witnesses we would like to see during the five meetings of this study in 48 hours. There may be witnesses from other organizations we want to meet with. We would need the option of adding witnesses.

    I also agree that we should hold five meetings. I think this study is very important. As we know, AI is already very prevalent in our lives, and this is just the beginning. I therefore suggest that we move forward and adopt this motion today, but that we ask Mr. Champoux to provide a precise definition of what a creative industry is. I think it's important to study the subject of his motion in five meetings, while being able to add witnesses during the study. I find that 48 hours is much too short a time to come up with a list of appropriate witnesses for this study.

    I believe we already discussed this at the subcommittee. We've agreed to get preliminary witness lists and, later on, invite other people who we think will be essential to this study.

    Also, I don't know if we really need to define the concept of a creative industry. I think that will be up to the committee members to decide.

     Mr. Al Soud, go ahead.

    Could you please read the exact wording of the motion that was passed? It appears to be a study on the effects of technological advances in artificial intelligence on the creative industries. Have I got that right?

     Perhaps the clerk can read what we agreed upon.

    Here is the last paragraph of the motion: “That the committee give priority to a study on the effects of technological advances in artificial intelligence on the creative industries and that the committee members submit their witness lists […].”

     I have Madame Thomas, and then Mr. Champoux and Mr. Al Soud.

     Mrs. Thomas, go ahead.

     Thank you.

    I just want to lend our support. As Conservatives, we would support defining this study as being five meetings long. We'd be prepared to accept that.

    Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

    I'd like to say two things to reassure Mr. Généreux.

    We did indeed specify that we would submit a list of preliminary witnesses by Wednesday to allow us to begin the study. We can obviously add witnesses later and take a bit more time to think about our list.

    As for defining the creative industries, as the chair said earlier, I don't think it's essential. We know what we're referring to when we talk about creative industries and there may be individuals in a specific sector of the creative industries you'd like to include in this study. The Liberals may have a different idea, us too, but I think we're capable of understanding the definition of creative industry in the context of this study.

    I'm in favour too of having at least five witnesses. Just based on today's conversation, I think that number could be higher. So I believe we should keep that in mind too. I think this study has the potential to come back.

    Furthermore, what Mr. Généreux is saying is true. In the previous Parliament, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology considered Bill C‑27. It dealt mainly with AI, but the impacts are being directly felt by artisans and content creators and in all sectors of the creative industries. We must be able to anticipate some of the challenges. I think we have often been behind the curve of technological progress over the past 30 years and we still are. Then, I think there are things we will hear from the witnesses we invite. They'll tell us how much we need to regulate in some areas.

    Perhaps the committee will reach that conclusion, but this study will truly help us have a better understanding of the effects on the creative industries, in particular.

     Mr. Al Soud, you are next.

    It has already been discussed.

    I'd also like to mention that we need at least five meetings, because, in my view, there is significant potential for a more elaborate study.

    Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

    You're correct, Mr. Champoux: we spent two years working on Bill C‑27, which unfortunately died on the Order Paper.

    Mr. Myles, I don't know whether the government intends to table its bill on AI again this time minus everything on privacy. That's because when it's all lumped together, it goes nowhere. I don't know whether the government intends to table a new bill, and perhaps you could find out. If so, perhaps we should be advised quickly if we need to plan a study on it.

    Mr. Ntumba, the floor is yours.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

     Based on what he said, Mr. Champoux presumes we all agree on the definition of cultural industry. I'd still like to include a written definition, so that we can move forward without ambiguity or any misinterpretation of what a cultural industry is. A definition could state, for example, that “a cultural industry designates all economic activities that produce, distribute and market goods and services related to arts, culture and creative activities.” In other words, these are sectors where artistic and cultural creation is transformed into products or services for public consumption, be it in cinema, audio-visual media, music, entertainment, publishing, books, newspapers, graphic novels, video games, visual arts, fashion and architecture. It's quite broad. Therefore, if we imply a definition without putting anything in writing, we risk lacking focus.

     Is everyone in agreement that we take this study to a minimum of five meetings and add that to the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: I also note that in our subcommittee motion, we do not ask for a report or a response from the government. Do we want to add that to this motion?

     Mr. Al Soud.

    Yes.

    I don't see any other hands up.

    Mrs. Thomas.

    Thank you.

    I understand that we have our trajectory in front of us. I would like to propose a study that might follow after the one on AI. Depending on how long that study is, if it is continuously expanded, then maybe this one could be interjected in there at some point. It has to do with my motion.

    I would move this motion to be passed by the committee, so that this would be a topic of study going forward.

    Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

    In terms of this motion, in keeping with what we just said in relation to the previous motion, I move adding that the committee report back to the House. However, I wonder whether we need to report back to the House or to—

    That can be done at the conclusion of the study. When the committee concludes its study, it can move motions to adopt the report, and then ask the government to respond. We don't need to do it now.

    Okay. I understand.

    Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

    I'm still in agreement when we talk about undertaking studies on the journalism and media sectors. I agree with the proposal to hold five meetings. I consider this study to be broad enough.

    I also note that, yet again, there is a request to invite the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada to testify for two hours as part of this study. I understand full well the importance of the public broadcaster in the Canadian and Quebec news ecosystem. However, I think there are other major players in the news media sector and so I am somewhat reticent to set aside a two-hour meeting just for the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada as part of this study. That's a lot. There's nothing to prevent us from inviting her, I think it's quite relevant, but there are other challenges facing Quebecor, Cogeco Media, as well as the newspapers and all sectors of journalism in Quebec and Canada. I get the impression that devoting two hours of this study just to CBC Radio-Canada may distract us a little from this study. I am a little less comfortable with that part of the motion. I move it simply be removed.

    I quite agree with the motion to invite the minister again. I don't see a problem with having the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada as part of this study. However, I am really much less comfortable with setting aside two hours for her appearance. I get the feeling that industry stakeholders, particularly those from Quebec with whom I've been speaking, might say that the committee is inviting Ms. Bouchard yet again, and that CBC Radio-Canada is in the spotlight yet again, whereas those stakeholders would like more time to speak and, once again, be heard by the committee.

    I would amend the motion by moving simply that the invitation to the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada be withdrawn. As for the rest of the motion, I fully agree for us to undertake a study on this subject and give it priority, after the study on AI. I don't know what the committee thinks.

    Will we debate the motion as amended?

     Is there any debate on the amendment?

    We have Mr. Al Soud, and then Mrs. Thomas.

     Madam Chair, would it be possible to move to suspend for a second?

     Do you understand what just happened?

    Yes.

    Okay. Sure. I'm going to suspend for a minute.

    Thank you.

    I call the meeting back to order.

    I have Mr. Waugh, Mr. Champoux and then Madame Royer.

     I'll let Mr. Champoux go ahead—I may follow up after that—because he had the floor before and was talking about this.

     If you don't mind, Chair, I'll give the floor to Mr. Champoux first.

    Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

    That's respect, Madam Chair. All jokes aside, I think it was extremely productive to take a small break to discuss all that. I believe we may have a proposal to achieve consensus.

    I thank Mr. Waugh for allowing me to continue my intervention.

    What I would do is withdraw the amendment I made before we suspended, and replace it with another. I am bothered by the fact that we would reserve an entire meeting for CBC Radio-Canada in a study on journalism and the media sector in Quebec and Canada. However, I think it's important for us to set aside some time and have the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada appear as a witness in this study.

    I would reword my amendment slightly to find a way to say that we want the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture to be with us for an entire meeting. I think that's important, because the study falls under his department and his area of responsibility. We can have him testify for two hours. I would also state we want the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada to appear, but without specifying the length of her appearance. We are committing then to inviting her as a witness but not necessarily for an entire meeting. If she came during a meeting with other witnesses, so be it. That can be decided later.

    I would simply like to amend the motion to invite the minister for a two-hour meeting, which is appropriate, and I would move we add that Ms. Bouchard, the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada, be simply added to the list of witnesses for this study. Would that wording allow us to reach an agreement?

     I need unanimous consent to accept Martin's request, because he has already put forward a motion. We need unanimous consent to allow him to amend his motion. Are we all good?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    However, we can to discuss it.

    Yes, of course.

    However, we all had to agree that he could amend the motion he'd already put on the floor.

    Ms. Royer, you have the floor.

     Thank you, Madam Chair and esteemed colleagues of the committee.

    I was fully supportive of MP Champoux's original amendment. I see great benefit in inviting others. I don't think that is off the table; perhaps I need a little clarity on this. I see great benefit in inviting CPAC and the Canadian Ethnic Media Association. Pardon me if it's already off the table.

    Are you suggesting that we add more names to the motion, or are you content to leave it as it is? You can invite whomever you want as a witness for this study, so it will still work. We don't need to put them in the text. I don't think I can do that, actually.

    I have Mr. Ntumba next.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mr. Champoux, thank you for amending your motion. I understood that as well, meaning that we needed to set aside time for the minister and that the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada should be among those invited to appear, without, however, specifying the length of her appearance.

    Like Ms. Royer just did, I will ask the clerk to add the name of the Black Screen Office to the list of witnesses. I have spoken to them. Thank you.

    I have Mr. Myles, and then Mr. Waugh.

    For me, the only question that remains is this: Since the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada is scheduled to appear before us next week for two hours, will we need to invite her back as part of the new study, along with the minister? It's the same subject, in my opinion.

     I have Mr. Waugh, and then Mr. Champoux.

     Thanks, Madam Chair.

     I do like this from Mr. Champoux. We've had a number of incidents over the last six months in this country where CBC has gone into areas in Quebec, and, I can tell you, in Alberta—namely, Lloydminster and Medicine Hat—where they've squeezed the traditional media right out. I do think that, since Madame Bouchard has hired.... They've promoted this: “We have reporters in Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and all over.” She was here touting that, along with Ms. Tait. It is their game plan to eliminate media in other zones. I will challenge them when they come. They've done a very good job of eliminating a 50-year station in Lloydminster and a 70-year station in Medicine Hat. That was their game plan, to hire reporters.

    Madam Chair, you used to be a reporter. They have unlimited resources. I look forward to CBC coming and answering why they hired 30 additional reporters in specific regions where they knew the local media currently there was very vulnerable.

     There are a few former journalists around this table. You can tell we're very passionate about this topic.

    I will give the floor to Mr. Champoux, who I believe is a former journalist.

    That sets the stage for Ms. Bouchard's visit. I think two hours with Ms. Bouchard will certainly not be enough to cover everything we need to cover.

    I wanted specifically to respond to Mr. Myles's question. Several topics under committee business will relate to CBC Radio-Canada. The appearance by Ms. Bouchard, scheduled for October 8, if it works, will allow us to address a variety of topics. However, when we delve into the study on journalism, for example, that will be a different study, during which we will invite back the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada. What I mean by that is that we won't take advantage of one appearance to talk about both the study we will undertake in three months' time and the events that took place this summer and to which Mr. Waugh is referring. We invite witnesses one study at a time, even if some return rather often. Over the past few years, the committee has become familiar with several faces.

    Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

    My only request would be that, perhaps, the clerk could read the motion as amended or just read the amendment before we go to the vote.

    That's a good idea.

     I don't have it in writing, but my understanding is that we'll keep “the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and the President and CEO of the CBC/Radio-Canada to testify” and—

    We take out the time.

    Yes. For the minister it's two hours, but we take out the time for CBC/Radio-Canada.

    Should we just take out the time for both of them? There's only one instance of time in there.

    Shall we set aside two hours for the minister?

    Okay, so we keep the minister for two hours. It's only the CBC.... That's in the motion, but with no time, as a regular witness.

    Agreed.

    I don't have the exact wording there. I will make sure to work on it, and I can show it to you after. I don't have the text now, but that's my understanding.

     Mr. Champoux, go ahead.

    The wording of my motion aims to help everyone understand: That the committee undertake a study on the journalism and media sectors in Canada and Quebec, including issues of fairness and competition; that the study be comprised of at least five meetings; that the committee invite the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture for a minimum of two hours; that the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada be on the list of witnesses appearing before committee; and that the committee invite other witnesses selected by the parties to appear.

     All right. I don't see any other hands up to speak to the amended motion.

    Go ahead, Mr. Myles.

     I would propose to amend it so the minister does not have to come for two hours, because he's coming in two days for two hours. That would be the amendment I propose.

     Do we have to vote on the first amendment?

    Yes, we have an amendment. We vote on that. Then he could move his amendment.

    Mr. Généreux.

     Mr. Myles, I'm sorry but I don't agree with your idea.

    It's the same principle again as for the CEO of CBC Radio-Canada. We haven't mentioned the number of hours she would be testifying. However, the minister also needs to be there. These are two completely separate files that concern the department. So it's important the minister be present.

    Since we don't often get the opportunity to hear from the ministers in a given year, we can afford to invite them for two hours for the first study and one hour for the second. That said, it is clear that, at the very least, the minister needs to appear.

    If we delete all the hours….

    I'm hearing no.

     We are going to vote on Mr. Champoux's amendment now.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Now Mr. Myles can move his amendment to that motion.

    Could I just propose to reduce the amount of time to one hour?

    Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

    Usually, when we invite the minister for two hours, he only comes for one. That will be the case on Wednesday: we invited him to a two-hour meeting, but he will only be here for one hour. We will have the deputy ministers for the second hour.

    The minister must be accountable: It's his department. This will be an important study and it will be quite separate from his appearance next week. We're talking about a study on AI, which will take place in the coming weeks and will last several weeks. I don't believe it will be too exhausting for him to appear twice before committee in that period.

    Furthermore, let me repeat that this file is directly related to his department. We are inviting him for two hours, which is entirely reasonable. He will probably again negotiate with us to come for just one hour. What do you expect? Ministers' schedules are like that. That said, it is reasonable to invite him for two hours, meaning for the full meeting, and it's entirely reasonable in the context of a study like this.

     All right. We will vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Myles. I think we should do a recorded vote. I think that's easier.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Okay. We will vote on Mrs. Thomas's motion as amended by Mr. Champoux, and we will do a recorded vote.

    (Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    Madam Speaker, on a point of order. What is happening on screen?

    We're seeing the interpreter.

     Okay. The problem is resolved.

    Going once, going twice.... Nobody else has any other interventions. We will adjourn our meeting a bit early today, then.