Industry committee  I think we're looking for more clarity. In order to answer your question, we really need to see some clarity both in the legislation itself and in how it would be applied.

Industry committee  No problem. To your question about whether there should be a threshold or some sort of test for harm, I think we would agree that there should be. This is maybe just an issue of clarification, because elsewhere in the bill there are references to significant or material harm. Maybe what we really need to do is have some consistency in the language.

Industry committee  We would go to the proverb “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.” We see this as a real global opportunity, and we want to go far together, so I think this is one of those areas where we need to collaborate with international partners to get it right.

Industry committee  Similarly, we're focused on international entities like the G7. That's an area where we can work with Canada, which is also active in the development of that code of conduct.

Industry committee  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to that. Safety is our number one priority. We take a comprehensive approach to child safety. That begins with designing age-appropriate products, then providing settings and tools for parents and users to make the right choices for them and, finally, having policies that we enforce.

Industry committee  No, we're not aware of anyone else taking that approach. I would point out that the test is also a likelihood to contravene, so it goes beyond what we tend to see.

Industry committee  Thank you. I just wanted to pick up on what Nicole Foster was saying, because it's consistent with the approach that the United Kingdom is taking. It really leans into the existing expertise that our sectoral regulators have in the space. They can best understand the risks that exist for their sectors, the actors in those sectors, and they know the questions to ask.

Industry committee  From a Google perspective, obviously we've been public in our commitment to having responsible AI principles. My colleague Tulsee is at the centre of our governance process around that, which is scalable and incredibly rigorous and robust. Similar to some of the comments we've heard from others, one of the areas where you might want to consider a focus is in the definition of “high impact”.

Industry committee  Similar to others, we see other vehicles as being appropriate mechanisms to address the incredibly legitimate concerns around images of that sort. I want to be clear that for non-consensual images, we have a zero tolerance policy on Google, regardless of whether those images are synthetic.

Industry committee  We also support the OECD process and international corporate tax reform.

Industry committee  I think I would echo a lot of the comments from my counterparts and point in particular to the definition of “harm”, because I think that could solve a lot of issues here. If you have a test of material harm, that can resolve exactly what the threshold is for both the identification and mitigation of risks associated with specific use cases for AI systems.

Industry committee  We've shared our concerns with the proposed text, and we will be pleased to share specific amendments with all committee members.

Industry committee  Of course.

Industry committee  To my knowledge, we were not consulted.

Industry committee  Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jeanette Patell and I am the director of government affairs and public policy for Google in Ottawa. I am joined remotely by my colleagues Tulsee Doshi and Will DeVries. Tulsee is a director and head of product in responsible AI at Google.