Thanks, Chair.
Thanks to all of the witnesses for being here today. We have a great juxtaposition of perspectives. We've been hearing a diverse cross-section of perspectives during this undertaking.
I think we can all admit that this is a very big and important piece of legislation that is complex and challenging for all of us, both as legislators and as.... I'm not sure that any one stakeholder has the full view on how this should move forward. I think it's good to have conversations like this that are push-and-pull. There are lots of challenges here. I appreciate that.
I wanted to just say, first off, that this bill was initiated due to recommendations from the minister's AI advisory committee, which consisted of industry experts. The Facebook whistle-blower was also part of the context that led to this work.
I'd also say that, from my perspective, there were consultations of over 300 stakeholders, which included universities, institutes, companies, industry groups, associations, privacy experts and consumer protection groups. I think there are some other categories, but those are the ones that I can see. I have the list here. It has been provided publicly and to committee members.
I would also say, in terms of the way that parliamentary practice goes, that usually amendments aren't provided in advance, during a study where you hear from witnesses. The government has provided the amendments in advance. We've also heard from some witnesses.
There are varying perspectives on what the process should look like. We've heard from some witnesses that tabling a framework piece of legislation was a good way to get something on the Order Paper and then undertake a lot of consultation to inform amendments to that. Some people feel like that process is very justified.
I just wanted to make those statements off the hop.
Ms. Casovan, we've heard the point that you made, about balancing innovation and protection, from some other witnesses. What I've heard is that having responsible guardrails for AI will allow people to benefit from it while protecting them at the same time. I know that's a challenge. Like any legislation that we work on, it is a balancing act that we're constantly confronting.
Could you speak to how we will know if we get that balance right, from your perspective?