Now, I was talking about the fact that the organization raised the issue of poor representation within the expert group. Last October, the federal government held a speedy consultation and even set up a task force charged with updating the strategy. I can tell you that we never got any details or explanations about how the task force members were appointed. Once again, this shows that the government was operating in an opaque and secretive manner. It didn't even want to explain to lawmakers how it had done things.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, noted that, “although the government appointed a CUPE representative to the AI Strategy Taskforce, they excluded many other groups and experts including unions, civil society organizations, and researchers on AI and work, AI governance, privacy, and human rights.”
That's why CUPE called for “the consultation to be extended and broadened to ensure a more representative and fair process.” Unfortunately, the government refused. That is pretty important.
In short, in its letter to Minister Solomon, CUPE stated that it wished to draw the minister's attention to its “concern regarding the consultation process for an updated Canadian AI Strategy.” CUPE welcomed “the inclusion of a CUPE staff member on the AI Strategy Taskforce” but noted that it remains “deeply concerned about several elements of the process that appear to compromise its integrity and inclusiveness.”
I'd like to offer my take on this. It's as if everything had already been arranged. The government made sure everyone was caught off guard, except for the people it wanted to see on the task force. Indeed, CUPE noted in its letter that “tight timelines for consultation significantly limits meaningful engagement” and that “many stakeholders, particularly those from under represented or marginalized communities, require more time to review materials, consult with their networks, and formulate thoughtful responses.” According to CUPE, rushing the process “excludes valuable perspectives and undermines the legitimacy of the consultation outcomes.”
Furthermore, CUPE stated in its letter that it was concerned about “the lack of representation on the taskforce.” According to CUPE, the group's composition appeared to “favour commercial or institutional interests, which do not reflect the broader public interest.” To clarify, this is about the general public interest, that is, the interest of the people who paid for this consultation. That makes the fact that taxpayers can't find out who participated in a public consultation conducted by the government hard to fathom. It's troubling.
In short, CUPE said that the makeup of the task force would favour certain people. It suggested that “an array of unions should be involved as workers in different sectors will be affected in disparate ways.” Thus, according to CUPE, “a much wider range of civil society voices should be present, bringing unique knowledge on privacy, data rights, civil liberties, and human rights.” CUPE then stated that “the task force should also include researchers who focus on the impact of AI on work, AI governance, bias and discrimination in AI systems, and data protection and privacy.” This last point is, of course, another very important issue that I'm concerned about.
It added that “consultation processes that fail to include broader representation lack legitimacy and throw into question the authenticity of federal government endeavours on AI.” That's serious. CUPE, which represents public servants, questioned whether the government truly wanted a representative group that served the public interest.
This is important. Some people believe that the government exists to benefit certain individuals. That's what we're digging into today, and that's why we want access to this data. However, as members of Parliament, we're unable to get it because the government is denying us access to the data. Once again, it's hiding.