Yes. I worry sometimes that we say “AI” as though it's a whole new system. The system before was that someone would speak into a microphone, as we're doing right now, and it would be a voice-to-print system. Even before AI ever came along, there was technology that allowed the editing of Hansard that would originally be a voice-to-print that was done by a computer. I'm happy to see that they're using AI. For me, as someone who searches Hansard on a regular basis, the ability to find that needle in a haystack with regard to particular speeches would be very helpful.
With regard to other areas, I mentioned earlier the vetting of submissions. If we're going to have a proliferation of submissions, then we're probably also going to see AI as a place in which those submissions will be vetted to some extent. There has to be the human element. There need to be some controls. There has to be in place the ability to check and make sure AI is not taking it in the wrong direction with regard to the vetting. I think this is another area we could potentially see.
The third one I mentioned was analysis and the democratization of analysis: the ability of MPs and constituency staff or research staff in a caucus to use AI with bills, particularly these large omnibus bills; the ability for the analysis to be done in a way that can support them; and the ability for them to get information and discern information that will allow them to have a better understanding of the implications of a bill. That's another area in which AI can be useful.