Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[Alain Deneault]

Mediocracy is sticking to the behaviour of the average manager. Managers do what they have to do because they feel they have to. We are, in a way, caught in a kind of encompassing game, where we dare not question the ins and outs of a problem. Above all, once again, we have to think precisely, acutely and demandingly about the interests that are at stake when a situation arises.

Critical thinking is very much, in history, the relationship of citizens to power. Power usually promotes an ideology, that is, a perspective that is supposed to be operational and functional. It is the prerogative of power to administer things and to rely on documents that seem to be more relevant for making this or that decision. On the other hand, the opposition can engage in some critical thinking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm afraid we're out of time.

Now to finish us out for this panel, we go to Mr. Green for six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am sitting here in Hamilton Centre. I'll share with this committee that I had some concerns that we weren't perhaps using our best time at this committee in dealing with this particular case, given everything that's happening around the world, but in today's interventions and the study, particularly with this panel, I feel like we are seized with the question.

The question for me, what stuck with me, is Professor Deneault's reference to Facebook as a weapon of math destruction, understanding the ways in which AI can take big data and know people better than themselves and manipulate public discourse. I can only reference what's happening outside on Parliament Hill today, and in fact in cities across this country. I would say this is a very important discussion.

The professor acknowledged or at least referenced the idea of stopping production at the source, agreeing to stop developing certain types of tools. He talked about the way in which big data, ranging from mobility to social media and other surfing habits online, could lead to compromised democracies. I think about Pegasus, which is the spyware developed by the Israeli cyber arms company NSO Group, which is known to be used by countries around the world to compromise people.

My question for Professor Deneault is one that I've asked in the past: What major philosophical or sociological considerations that have arisen in Canada as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic should the federal government take into account when making decisions that impact Canadians' privacy? I would go further and allow him to elaborate on—in a broader sense, given this moment we're in—what measures we should be taking to safeguard people against the possibility of AI manipulation and other ways we can be compromised in our democratic processes and discourse.

[Alain Deneault]

Thank you.

I will quickly address two points. The first is that of informed consent.

When you find yourself in an emergency situation, a crisis—which I think is exacerbated in the case of the health crisis—you tell yourself that you have no choice.

You have to do this or that. You don't even have to consider your rights, or opposing views. Yet critical thinking would be to give voice, in the media in particular, to dissident scientists as much as orthodox scientists. Many virologists, epidemiologists and medical professionals have taken issue with government measures. The state makes decisions, and that is normal, it is its prerogative. However, it is not normal for society to have to march in step to the point where it loses its constitutional rights in matters of health decisions, and in particular with regard to vaccination and the vaccination of children. There is a lot of pressure. Being free and consenting when making an informed decision is a fundamental thing.

For the second point, I refer to a book of very great importance, Hans Jonas' “The Responsibility Principle”. Mr. Jonas is a great ethicist. He says three important things, which I will summarize at speed.

First, the data-generating techniques being implemented today, such as those of GAFAM, are not just likely to matter socially; they affect human beings intrinsically, both medically and culturally. Today, techniques are so powerful that they act on human subjectivity itself. Today, we create subjects that are not the same as in the days of the book, given the impact of social media, especially on young minds—I'm thinking of adolescents—that leave considerable, lasting traces.

Second, ethics must allow for predictability and measurement. We must be able to measure and predict the impact of discoveries, otherwise we are not being ethical and I don't think we are being democratic either. If we allow such techniques to be deployed on a societal scale, without ever being able to measure and control their impact, that is to check what they generate on a social and political scale, we are not being ethical; we are just doing a type of small-time management.

However, it is very important to be creative. Hans Jonas ends his plea by stating that ethics need to be creative. We have to be as creative as the technicians who, year after year, keep throwing gear at us that we didn't ask for.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to allow the professor to close with the last 30 seconds here, with a request that.... Considering what the discourse has been in previous studies, what I am looking for, again, is trying to find the systems changes.

We're talking about our Privacy Act. We have opened up a discussion on our Privacy Act, so I would ask if the professor would be willing to, after this meeting, consider from his perspective the ethical considerations of our Privacy Act as it stands, as well as any international considerations that might be added as recommendations as we move forward.

It is my focus throughout this study to come from this committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

You have left him a lot less than 30 seconds now to answer.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, I don't need him to answer. I just want it in writing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

My apologies. Carry on.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If he could contribute those thoughts in writing, we could use them for our analysts, and for the good and welfare of this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We are now out of time.

Thank you very much, Professor, for your remarks.

The meeting is adjourned.