I'm happy to. Thank you for the question.
This was a key issue that we grappled with when my colleague and I set out to write this paper. Sovereignty is a very general concept. It has many different meanings in different contexts.
For the purposes of AI, we ended up looking through the literature on digital sovereignty, and we essentially landed on what we consider to be a workable definition for this space, which is that what we want to achieve with sovereignty here in Canada—at least our advice—is freedom from coercion. It's freedom from letting a foreign power or foreign country use vulnerabilities or dependencies in our AI technological stack against Canada.
We admit that that's maybe a bit different from the more formal, binary way of thinking about sovereignty under international law. When we applied our lens for where these sovereign vulnerabilities are, we applied five different dimensions, essentially, through the lens. Those are technological sovereignty, economic sovereignty, operational sovereignty, societal sovereignty and jurisdictional sovereignty.
I'm happy to elaborate more on each one of those five. They're all different lenses where we think Canada could be vulnerable. Indeed, any country could be vulnerable. We used those tests to essentially develop our recommendations in the report.