My Opening Remarks to the Industry and Technology Committee on the AI and Data Act
December 7, 2023
Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Ana Brandusescu. I research the governance of AI technologies in government. In my brief to your committee with public participation and AI expert Dr. Renée Sieber, we argue that the AI and Data Act (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, to the hands of the many.
Today I will present four problems and three recommendations from our brief.
The first problem is that the 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.” Yet what we see is a concentration of wealth in the AI industry, especially Big Tech companies, which does not guarantee that 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 of the phrase “Show; don’t tell.” Repeating that AI is beneficial will not convince marginalized people who are subject to AI harms, for example, false arrests. AI harms were extensively covered by the Canadian parliamentary study titled Facial Recognition Technology and the Growing Power of AI.
The second problem is the AIDA’s centralization of power to ISED and the Minister of Industry. The current setup 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 and responsibilities — such as nuclear regulatory agencies — are often incompatible and 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 the 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 and many civil society and labour organizations were largely excluded from consultation on drafting of the AIDA.
The fourth problem is that the AIDA does not include workers’ rights. Workers in Canada and globally cannot share in 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 the huge toll on their mental health, even leading to suicide. In 2018, I learned from Technology Governance Expert Nanjira Sambuli about Sama, a Silicon Valley company that works for BigTech and hires data workers all over the world, including Kenya. The contracts Sama held with Facebook (Meta) and OpenAI have been found to traumatize workers. We have also seen many cases of IP theft of creators, as AI Governance Expert Blair Attard-Frost has written 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 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 accountable as well as national security and law enforcement agencies.
Second, we need AI legislation to incorporate robust workers’ rights. Worker protection means unions, lawsuits and safe spaces for whistleblowers. Kenyan data workers unionized and sued Meta due to the company’s exploitative working conditions, with the Supreme Court ruling in their favour. Canada can follow the lead of the Kenyan government in listening to its workers. Similarly, American workers from the actors’ union’s strike prevented production companies from deciding when they could use and not use AI, showing that workers can drive regulation. Beyond unions and strikes, workers need safe and confidential channels to report harms. That is why whistleblower 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.
INDU meeting notes, opening remarks and Q&A recording are available here.
