Industry committee  No. In fact, we do not currently have access to the information, as we said, of how much data is used and exactly how it's being used, which means that it creates a level of uncertainty.

Industry committee  The other dimension that was raised was the dimension of public data and the fact that it can be widely shared or readily accessible, and detailed to the point that an author, a rights holder, would be able to access it.

Industry committee  We believe that the current protection provided by AIDA doesn't go far enough. To reiterate the comment made by my colleague, Marie-Julie Desrochers, it's not sufficient in terms of transparency. Specifically—to give an example about generative AI—there is the fact that there currently is an absence with regard to authorizations from rights holders to use data for mining, for exploitation.

Industry committee  Yes. Thank you for the question. Our view is that, while the Copyright Act offers a number of protections, when we look at the definition of “harm” within AIDA as it exists there currently, it is limited to individuals. Copyright law applies to individuals but also collectively, and we don't think that the current text offers enough protections in terms of copyright for rights holders, for creators or for authors.

Industry committee  Our European counterparts were able to secure these crucial rights to protect their cultural industries. There should be no reason the government can't provide the same level of protections in Canada. Large and well-funded platforms like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft should be required to operate on the same playing field in Canada as they will have to in the European Union.