Yes. Perhaps I can quickly add something to your prior question besides agreement with the prior three responses.
An environment like you brought up is a great example. In environmental law, years ago, we thought that regulating was challenging, because we mistakenly thought that the costs were local but the harms were global. Not regulating meant developing the industry while not imposing global harms.
With AI, it's the same. We think sometimes the harms are global and the costs of regulating are local, but that is not the case. Many of the harms of AI are local. That makes it urgent for Canada to pass a regulation such as this one, a regulation that protects its citizens while it fosters industry.
On the Copyright Act, it's a challenging question. As Professor Bengio pointed out a bit earlier, AI is not just one technology. Technologies do one thing—self-driving cars drive and cameras film—but AI is a family of methods that can do anything. Regulating AI is not about changing one variable or the other; AI will actually change or affect all of the law. We will have to reform several statutes.
What is being discussed today is an accountability framework plus a privacy law, because that's the one that's most intimately affected by AI. I do not think we should have the illusion that changing this will account for all AI and for all the effects of AI, or think that we should stop it because it doesn't capture everything. It cannot. I think it is worth discussing an accountability framework to account for harm and bias and it is worth discussing the privacy change to account for AI. It is also possibly warranted to make a change in the Copyright Act to account for generative AI and the new challenges it brings for copyright.