Mr. Lemire, thank you very much for that very important question.
The draft law that's in front of you doesn't deal with intellectual property rights at all, and that's unlike the EU legislation, which has at least a provision requiring transparency in data that's disclosed. It's also unlike the draft U.K. bill that requires compliance with copyright laws, and it is also not consistent with draft French legislation, which would also require compliance with copyright laws for training models.
As you know, there is a consultation ongoing with ISED and the Department of Canadian Heritage that asks a number of questions, including whether the act needs to be changed and, in particular, whether there should be a new text and data mining exemption. That is a very important consultation and raises the balance between the ability of creators, including many creators from Quebec, to be able to control the uses of the work and to get compensation for the uses of the work when their models are trained, and what might be an interest that AI entrepreneurs and larger businesses have to use works for training the models. It's a question that has policy considerations in it.
In my view, the existing law adequately sets the standard because, while training models would involve the reproduction right, which would be prima facie infringement, they're always subject to a fair dealing exception and fair dealing is the best way to calibrate, using the current law and the current principles, the use of works without consent.