Industry committee  Here's where there's a little bit of a struggle, and it's part of the reason for going back to the recommendation that actually it would be preferable to revisit this act altogether. I will point to that first, and then I will speak to the practicalities. I think part of the challenge here is that it seems that one of the federal heads of power used to develop this act was the criminal law head of power.

Industry committee  It's a fantastic question. A human rights approach as opposed to a risk mitigation approach would be something structured more like the charter or like human rights acts, where we identify values that are important, that need to be prioritized and that should not be violated, and, when they are, there's a structure in place to seek accountability and in particular to seek compensation.

Industry committee  Absolutely. Thank you for the question. I'm happy to explain that. The exact wording, of course, we would leave to the discussion of the expert lawmakers and to your esteemed committee, who are working on proposed amendments. The reason we incorporated that wording into proposed section 5 was to respond to the ways in which harm can be experienced at the collective level and not solely at the individual level.

Industry committee  Thank you. That's an excellent question. My first reaction would be that this goes back to an important need for this bill to really be able to allow for regulations that will address discriminatory bias outputs that come from AI systems. If the bill is structured in a way that the obligation is clear and actually captures the range of ways in which algorithmic bias can arise, then companies will have an impetus to hire teams that are better enabled to anticipate and mitigate some of those harms.

Industry committee  Yes, thank you. You asked about any positive aspects of the bill, and we did emphasize, in our written submission, some aspects of the bill that we think are very commendable. Dealing with discriminatory bias is important. The recognition that psychological harm is an aspect of harm is important and commendable.

Industry committee  Thank you. I have been researching and writing in the areas of tort law, privacy law and the regulation of automated technologies for over a decade, with a particular focus on rights and substantive equality, including recent publications on safety in AI and robotics governance in Canada and work with the B.C.

Industry committee  Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, Madam Clerk and committee members, for this opportunity to speak with you today about centring human rights and substantive equality in Canadian AI legislation. I am a law professor at UBC. I have been researching and writing in the areas of—