Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here today.
My name is Ms. Ana Brandusescu. I research the governance of AI technologies in government.
In my brief, with public participation and AI expert, Dr. Renee Sieber, we argue that the AIDA is a missed opportunity for shared prosperity. Shared prosperity is an economic concept where the benefits of innovation are distributed equitably among all segments of society. Innovation is taken out of the hands of the few—in this case, the AI industry—and put in the hands of the many.
Today, I will present four problems and three recommendations from our brief.
The first problem is that AIDA implies but does not ensure shared prosperity. The preamble of the bill states, “Whereas trust in the digital and data-driven economy is key to ensuring its growth and fostering a more inclusive and prosperous Canada”. However, what we see is a concentration of wealth in the AI industry, especially for big tech companies, which does not guarantee that the prosperity will trickle down to Canadians. Being “data-driven” can just as easily equal mass data surveillance and more opportunities to monetize data.
Trust, too, can be easily conflated in Canada with social acceptance of AI, telling people over and over that AI is invariably good. You may have heard the phrase “show, don't tell”. Repeating that AI is beneficial will not convince marginalized people who are subject to AI harms, such as false arrests. AI harms are extensively covered by the Canadian parliamentary study titled “Facial Recognition Technology and the Growing Power of Artificial Intelligence”.
The second problem is the AIDA's centralization of power to ISED and the Minister of Industry. The current set-up is prone to regulatory capture. We cannot trust ISED—an agency placed in the position of both promoting and regulating AI, with no independent oversight for the AIDA—to ensure shared prosperity. Agencies placed in these dual roles with dual responsibilities, such as nuclear regulatory agencies, are often incompatible, so it will inevitably favour commercial interests over accountability of AI development.
The third problem is that public consultation is absent. To date, there has been no demonstrable public consultation on AIDA. Tech policy expert Christelle Tessono and many others have raised this concern in their briefs and in articles. ISED's consultation process thus far has been selective. Many civil society and labour organizations were largely excluded from consultation on the drafting of the AIDA.
The fourth problem is that the AIDA does not include workers' rights. Workers in Canada and globally cannot share in the prosperity when their working conditions to develop AI systems include surveillance in the workplace and mental health crises. Researchers have extensively documented the exploitative nature of AI systems development on data workers. For instance, there is huge toll on their mental health, even leading to suicide.
In 2018, I learned from digital governance expert Nanjira Sambuli about Sama, which is a Silicon Valley company that works for big tech and hires data workers all over the world, including in Kenya. The contracts that Sama held with Facebook/Meta and OpenAI have been found to traumatize workers.
We have also seen many cases of IP theft from creators, as AI governance expert Blair Attard-Frost has written about in their brief on generative AI.
To share in the prosperity promised by AI, we propose three recommendations.
First, we need a redraft of the AIDA outside of ISED to ensure public and private sector accountability. Multiple departments and agencies that are already involved in work on responsible AI need to co-create the AIDA for the private and the public sector and prevent the use of harmful technologies. This version of the AIDA would hold companies like Palantir, as well as national security and law enforcement agencies, accountable.
Second, we need AI legislation to incorporate robust workers' rights. Worker protection means unions, lawsuits and safe spaces for whistle-blowers. Kenyan data workers unionized and sued Meta due to the company's exploitative working conditions. The Supreme Court ruled in their favour. Canada can follow the lead of the Kenyan government in listening to its workers.
Similarly, in the actors' union strike, American workers prevented production companies from deciding when they could use and not use AI, showing that workers can indeed drive regulations. Beyond unions and strikes, workers need safe and confidential channels to report harms. That is why whistle-blower protection is essential to workers' rights and responsible AI.
Third and lastly, we need meaningful public participation. Government has a responsibility to protect its people and ensure shared prosperity. A strong legislative framework demands meaningful public participation. Participation will actually drive innovation, not slow it down, because the public will tell us what's right for Canada.
Thank you.