Proposed Changes to Canada’s Bill C-27 Do Little to Mitigate AI Harms - Centre for International Governance Innovation

web

cigionline.org·cigionline.org/articles/proposed-changes-to-canadas-bill-...

This article critically analyzes Canada's proposed amendments to Bill C-27 (AIDA), arguing they fail to adequately protect citizens from AI harms due to self-regulatory governance and lack of redress mechanisms, relevant to AI governance and policy debates.

Metadata

Importance: 42/100opinion piececommentary

Summary

The article critiques Canada's proposed amendments to Bill C-27's Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), arguing that while the amendments align with EU and OECD frameworks and introduce transparency requirements, they still rely on industry self-policing and provide no meaningful remedies for citizens harmed by AI. The governance model concentrates power within ISED and lacks robust public consultation or independent oversight.

Key Points

•Amendments recognize privacy as a fundamental right and introduce transparency requirements, but lack enforcement mechanisms for AI harms.
•The AI and data commissioner role is limited to liaison functions between ISED and industry, not independent oversight.
•Bill C-27 was criticized for being drafted without proper public consultation, weakening its legitimacy and scope.
•The governance model still allows AI vendors to largely self-regulate, failing to address industry concentration and profit-over-public-interest tendencies.
•Comparison to EU AI Act and OECD framework highlights gaps in Canada's approach to high-impact AI system regulation.

Cached Content Preview

HTTP 200Fetched Apr 16, 202615 KB

Artificial Intelligence 

 
 

 Proposed Changes to Canada’s Bill C-27 Do Little to Mitigate AI Harms

 The governance model outlined in this document isn’t significantly different from the bill’s original vision.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Anna Artyushina 
 
 
 

 November 9, 2023 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Until recently, AI has existed in a moral and legal vacuum. (Photo illustration by Dado Ruvic/REUTERS)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On September 28, 2023, Canada’s Standing Committee on Industry and Technology (INDU) passed a motion requesting Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry François-Philippe Champagne to release the proposed government amendments to Bill C-27, which the minister had mentioned in his testimony . In response, Minister Champagne sent correspondence to INDU with the list of proposed amendments to the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA).

 These amendments represent an important step toward aligning Canada’s privacy and artificial intelligence (AI) legislation with the European Union’s AI Act and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) AI framework. Specifically, the amendments recognize privacy as a fundamental human right, strengthen children’s data protection rights, propose new fiscal powers for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), introduce new transparency requirements for businesses across the AI value chain and clarify the concept of the high-impact AI system.

 Yet the governance model outlined in this document isn’t significantly different from the bill’s original vision, essentially that AI vendors should be allowed to police themselves. The amendments provide no mechanisms of redress for citizens whose rights and lives will be affected by AI technologies. The new office of the AI and data commissioner is limited to functioning as a liaison between Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) and the AI industry. Given that the industry is extremely concentrated , as well as inscrutable , and predictably prioritizes profits over the public interest, the amendments fail to address the bill’s biggest issue — ensuring Canadians are safe and have a voice in the new digital landscape.

 ISED has drawn criticism for the lack of proper public consultation on Bill C-27, and for its numerous blind spots . AIDA, specifically, has been described by some as a way to keep both legislative and executive powers within ISED. Another essential issue is that Bill C-27 fails to provide remedies for AI harms.

 In this context, the amendments published by ISED last week come as a pleasant surprise. They are admittedly derived from feedback, provided by the privacy commissioner of Canada, Philippe Dufresne, and several members of Parliament during the September INDU hearings. It makes one wonder how much stronger the bill would have been if it had not been

... (truncated, 15 KB total)

Resource ID: 438dac9057946255 | Stable ID: sid_dtlqgzlrmV