Summary of National Summit on AI and Culture | By IMAA’s National Director

Dear members,

Please find below the report I have drafted for the Canadian Arts Coalition of my perspective on the National Summit on AI and Culture which occurred in Banff, Alberta on March 17-18, 2026.

AI and Culture on Many Tracks: Summary of March 17-18 National Summit

The Summit gathered over 300 people from academia, the government, cultural industries, the arts and culture sector and the business and technology sectors. Ministers Evan Solomon and Marc Miller were joined by parliamentary secretaries Madeleine Chinette, David Myles, and Taleed Noormohamed, as well as Senator René Cormier.  Representation and organisation from the Department of Canadian Heritage was led by Director General Madonna Radi and her team. 

The summit began with some effective tone setting from Shani Gwin, sixth-generation Métis founder and CEO of pipikwan pêhtâkwan an Indigenous-owned and led communications, public relations and engagement agency. Gwin put current technological developments in AI within Canada’s history of misinformation, resource extraction and Indigenous dispossession and urged for a slow, community-based approach to the development of artificial intelligence technologies. Gwin’s opening keynote was followed by a  statement by ABBA-renowned artist Bjorn Ulvaeus on behalf of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers affirming that artists need to be remunerated for the use of their work in all contexts: Ulvaeus argued that Canada is at a crossroads where it needs to decide how it will value human creativity in a world that privileges technological development, and affirmed that innovation and copyright protections can co-exist. 

While this initial framing of the Summit seemed to indicate a human-first, artist-centred underlying structure to the two-day gathering, the rest of the event was not as straightforward and different priorities quickly emerged. Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation Evan Solomon’s opening remarks focused on the need for speed and leadership in the face of threatened national sovereignty. Members of the tech sector consistently emphasized the rapid pace of technological development and the real potential of Canadian [industry] sectors being “left behind”. In contrast, demands from different parts of the cultural sector for a clear federal position on whether and how artistic intellectual property will be protected from exploitation by Large Language Model (LLM) training resounded throughout all conversations with no clear answer. Confusion and attempts to untangle what exactly different people were referring to when speaking about artificial intelligence (generative versus assistive AI broadly, US-based tech companies, LLMs, etc.) also abounded throughout. 

Overall however, three main themes emerged. As mentioned above, discussion of copyright and intellectual property and demands for the protection of artists’ work, led in large part by the literature and music sectors, echoed loudly throughout the entirety of the summit. While precise calls varied—from suggestions that if the government were to sign military contracts with tech giants they add-in clauses for remuneration of text and image use, to calls for caution of demanding legislation without clear capacity for regulation and enforcement—overall the call that no carve outs be made in Canada’s copyright act for AI companies resounded. While there was predictably no decisive response to the demands that intellectual property is protected from exploitation, they were nonetheless well received by Minister Miller who articulated that he is not envisaging any changes to current Canadian Copyright laws which, in theory at least, already currently protect Canadian artworks from being mined without compensation by generative AI companies. 

On the side of how the technology can support the arts and culture sector, many conversations were held on the topics of training, adoption, and integration. Many companies focused on training, who  work in trying to teach cultural workers how to utilize AI to support their work,  were present at the Summit. It is unclear however how much demand for this there currently is given the overwhelming scepticism and mistrust of many in the sector to engage with the technology given the lack of transparency of the AI industry at large. This was effectively illustrated in a presentation by Compétence Culture which in 2024 conducted a survey on AI use in the cultural sector and found overwhelming ambivalence about its integration into everyday workflows due to a range of factors including lack of understanding of the technology and concerns about privacy and the technology’s ethical dimensions more broadly. 

Lastly, the importance of Canadian sovereignty with respect to data ownership and to the development of the industry in this country was discussed and showcased at length. It is clear that there is potential and desire for Canada to develop the technology here and that it is possible to do so at a local level that would generate creativity. Multiple panelists argued for ways in which the Canadian government needs to invest in local enterprise both in terms of business support and talent retention.  The Summit featured a showcase of artists and organizations working with artificial intelligence technology including  the organisation Les sept doigts de la main (The 7 Fingers) who use AI to create visualisations that compliment semi-improvisational performances, and an application by Magnify Digital that analyses and interprets audience growth across digital platforms. The showcase exemplified the importance of a human-centered approach to the development of artificial intelligence technology as well as its distinct and limited usefulness for arts administration and cultural production. 

While there was a strong Indigenous presence from the technology industry, many perspectives were undoubtedly missing. Most notably, outside of a few tangential mentions, there was no meaningful conversation on the relationship between culture, AI technology and the climate crisis. This was eerie, but not surprising given how few invitees were from or representing equity-seeking communities. (Furthermore, several people present from these communities expressed having to advocate for their inclusion in the event.) This was disappointing for many reasons, not least of which because many communities missing have a lot of knowledge on the topic of artificial intelligence, such as the disability community, for instance (represented at the summit only by the Disability Screen Office), which has used AI tools for a long time and has deep knowledge about the generative potential of its integration. 

Though the intent or outcome of the Summit remain not overall clear, what is clear is that it provided a setting for many valuable connections between different sectors in attendance. The Summit culminated in the announcement of a permanent Arts and Culture advisory committee which would have 12 yearly-rotating members. While this was a somewhat anti-climactic ending to two days of collective work, the enthusiasm to gather again soon and continue the negotiations and dialogues between different sectors which began at this event was shared loudly by many. If answered, the call to meet again and consistently, could provide opportunity and chart a path towards productive engagement with the federal government as decided by the arts and culture sector itself. 

– Barbora Racevičiūtė, IMAA National Director