I have two points to make in response to what you said.
The first is that generative artificial intelligence, generative AI, is the nature of artificial intelligence that we see today through ChatGPT and other types of tools. That is typically considered a general purpose AI, for which, in the letter of the minister, an amendment is proposed to be defined as high-impact systems, which means that it would fall within the governance structure of AIDA. Arguably, it would serve to protect the rights of authors and content creators, because there would be the necessity to govern the use of those systems.
My colleague, Mr. Joli-Coeur, disputed that it should, in fact, be governed separately. I have sympathy for his positions. We are seeing measures that could be put in place to mitigate some of the risks coming up more and more—content provenance and being able to trace watermark content in its original form so we can understand if that content has ever been manipulated or changed in any way that could be problematic to an author or to a content creator when they put their systems online.
In addition, through an entirely separate process, we are undergoing a Copyright Act review, so these types of conversations are very much alive in Canada and in other jurisdictions as well.