Thank you.
I'd like to add something about Bill C‑27. A risk-based approach would avoid treating all artificial intelligence systems in the same way, or placing the same obligations on them. Other options include the high-impact concept, and the amendments introduced by the minister, Mr. Champagne, explain what this concept means in seven different sectors of activity.
I therefore don't think it's fair to say that it would be applied everywhere, on everyone, and haphazardly. It's possible to discuss how it's going to be applied in seven different activity sectors. Some, no doubt, would say that doesn't go far enough, but it is certainly not a law that will lack specifics, because the amendments specify the details.
To return to what was said earlier, it also means that there can be a comprehensive approach with general principles, and an separate approach for each sector or field. That's what the European Union has done with its amendments. That's why statutes being adopted in other countries need to be considered.
As for what was said about the United Kingdom earlier, Canada has signed a policy declaration which has no legal or binding value. It's a very general text that adds nothing to what we have already said about the ethics of artificial intelligence. It definitely does not prevent Canada from following its own path, as the United States did when it issued its executive order right before the summit in England. The Americans were not willing to wait for England to take the lead.
Those are the details I wanted to add.