Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
I would also like to thank my colleague, Professor Jennifer Quaid, for sharing her time with me.
I' m going to restrict my address to three general comments. I'll begin by saying that I believe artificial intelligence regulation is absolutely essential today, for three primary reasons. First of all, the significance and scope of the current risks are already well documented. Some of the witnesses here have already discussed current risks, such as discrimination, and future and existential risks. It's absolutely essential today to consider the impact of artificial intelligence, in particular its impact on fundamental rights, including privacy, non-discrimination, protecting the presumption of innocence and, of course, the observance of procedural guarantees for transparency and accountability, particularly in connection with public administration.
Artificial intelligence regulation is also needed because the technologies are being deployed very quickly and the systems are being further developed and deployed in all facets of our professional and personal lives. Right now, they can be deployed without any restrictions because they are not specifically regulated. That became obvious when ChatGPT hit the marketplace.
Canada has certainly developed a Canada-wide artificial intelligence strategy over a number of years now, and the time has now come to protect these investments and to provide legal protection for companies. That does not mean allowing things to run their course, but rather providing a straightforward and understandable framework for the obligations that would apply throughout the entire accountability chain.
The second general comment I would like to make is that these regulations must be compatible with international law. Several initiatives are already under way in Canada, which is certainly not the only country to want to regulate artificial intelligence. I'm thinking in particular, internationally speaking, of the various initiatives taking being taken by the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development, the Council of Europe and, in particular, the European Union and its artificial intelligence bill, which should be receiving political approval tomorrow as part of the inter-institutional trialogue negotiations between the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission. Agreement has reached its final phase, after two years of discussion. President Biden's Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence also needs to be given consideration, along with the technical standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the International Organization for Standardization.
My final general comment is about how to regulate artificial intelligence. The bill before us is not perfect, but the fact that it is risk-based is good, even though it needs strengthening. By this I mean considering risks that are now considered unacceptable, and which are not necessarily existential risks, but risks that we can already identify today, such as the widespread use of facial recognition. Also worth considering is a better definition of the risks to high-impact systems.
We'd like to point out and praise the amendments made by the minister, Mr. Champagne, before your committee a few weeks ago. In fact, the following remarks, and our brief, are based on these amendments. It was pointed out earlier that not only individual risks have to be taken into account, but also collective risks to fundamental rights, including systemic risks.
I'd like to add that it's absolutely essential, as the minister's amendments suggest, to consider the general use of artificial intelligence separately, whether in terms of systems or foundational models. We will return to this later.
I believe that a compliance-based approach that reflects the recently introduced amendments should be adopted, and it is fully compatible with the approach adopted by the European Union.
When all is said and done, the approach should be as comprehensive as possible, and I believe that the field of application of Bill C‑27 is too narrow at the moment and essentially focused on the private sector. It should be extended to the public sector and there should be discussions and collaboration with the provinces in their fields of expertise, along with a form of co‑operative federalism.
Thank you for your attention. We'll be happy to discuss these matters with you.