Thank you, and good evening.
My name is Vass Bednar. You heard that I run the master of public policy program in digital society at McMaster University, where I'm an adjunct professor of political science. I engage with Canada's policy community broadly as a senior fellow at CIGI, a fellow with the Public Policy Forum, and through my newsletter “Regs to Riches”. I'm also a member of the provincial privacy commissioner's strategic ad hoc advisory committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear. I appreciate the work of this committee. I do agree there is an urgent need to modernize Canada's legislative framework so that it's suited in the digital age. I also want to note I've been on a sabbatical of sorts for the past year, and I have not followed every detailed element of debate on this bill in deep detail. That made me a little bit anxious about appearing, but then I remembered that I am not on the committee; I am appearing before the committee, so I decided to be as constructive as I could be today.
As we consider this framework for privacy, consumer protection and artificial intelligence, I really think we're fundamentally negotiating trust in our digital economy, what that looks like for citizens and actually articulating what responsible innovation is supposed to look like. That's what gets me excited about the direction that we're going.
Very briefly, on the privacy side, it's well known, or it has been well said, that this is not the most consumer-centric privacy legislation we see from other jurisdictions. It does provide clarity for businesses, both large and small, which is good, and especially small businesses. I don't think the requirements for smaller businesses are overly onerous.
The elements on consent have been well debated. Zooming in on that language beyond what is necessary, I think, is such a major hinge of debate. Who gets to decide what is necessary and when? I think the precedent of consent, of course, is critical. I think about a future where, as people who are experiencing our online world, or exchanging information with businesses, there's just way more autonomy for consumers.
For example, there's being able to search without self-preferencing algorithms that dictate the order of what you see; seeing prices that aren't tailored to you, or even knowing there is a personalized dynamic pricing situation; accessing discounts through loyalty programs, without trading your privacy to use them; or simple things like returning to an online store that you've shopped at before without seeing these so-called special offers based on your browsing or purchase history.
That tension, I think, is probably going to be core to our continued conversation around that need for organizations to collect.
On algorithmic collusion, recent reporting from The New Statesman elaborated on how the prices of most goods now are set not by humans, but by automatic processes that are set to maximize their owners' gains. There's this big academic conversation about the line between what's exploitative and what's efficient. Our evolving competition law may soon begin to consider algorithmic collusion, which may also garner more attention through advancements on Bill C-27 as it prompts the consideration of the effects of algorithmic conduct in the public interest.
Again, very briefly on the AI side, I agree with others that the AI commissioner should be more empowered, perhaps as an officer of Parliament. That office needs to be properly funded in order to do this work. Note that the provinces may want to create their own AI frameworks as a way to solve for some of the ambiguities or intersections. We should embrace and celebrate that in a Canadian federalist context.
In the spirit of being constructive and forward-looking, I wonder if we should be taking some more inspiration from very familiar policy areas of labelling and manufacturing just to achieve more disclosure. For the layer of transparency that's proposed for those who manage a general purpose AI system, we should ensure that individuals can identify AI-generated content. This is also critical for the result of any algorithmically generated system.
We probably need either a nutrition facts label approach to privacy or a registration requirement. I would hope we can avoid onerous audits, or kind of spurring strange secondary economies, that sprout and maybe aren't as necessary as they seem. Having to register novel AI systems with ISED, so the government can keep tabs on potential harms and justifications for them entering into the Canadian market, would be helpful.
I will wrap up in just a moment.
Of course, we, you, should all be thinking about how this legislation will work with other policy levers, especially in light of the recently struck Digital Regulators Forum.
Much of my work is rooted in competition issues, such as market fairness and freedom. I note that in the U.S., the FTC held a technology summit on artificial intelligence just last week. There it was noted, “we see a tech ecosystem that has concentrated...power in the hands of a small number of firms, while entrenching a business model built on constant surveillance of consumers.” Canadian policy people need to be more honest about connecting these dots. We should be doing more to question that core business model and ensure we're not enshrining it, going forward.
I have a final, very quick worry about productivity, which I know everyone is thinking about.
I have a concern that our productivity crisis in Canada will fundamentally act, whether implicitly or explicitly, to discourage regulation of any kind over the phantom or zombie risk of impeding this elusive thing we call innovation. I want to remind all of you that smart regulation clarifies markets and levels the playing field.
Thanks for having me.