McInnes Cooper Key Lessons

web

mcinnescooper.com·mcinnescooper.com/publications/the-demise-of-the-artifici...

Relevant to AI governance practitioners and policymakers studying why national AI legislation fails; offers Canada-specific lessons applicable to other jurisdictions attempting comprehensive AI regulatory frameworks.

Metadata

Importance: 42/100organizational reportanalysis

Summary

This legal analysis examines the failure of Canada's proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which died when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025. It draws five key lessons from AIDA's collapse about the challenges of legislating AI governance, including the need for stakeholder engagement, regulatory clarity, and adaptive frameworks.

Key Points

•AIDA failed to pass before Parliament's prorogation, leaving Canada without dedicated federal AI legislation and creating regulatory uncertainty.
•Lesson: Early and meaningful stakeholder consultation is critical; AIDA faced criticism for insufficient industry and civil society engagement during drafting.
•Lesson: Overly broad or vague definitions in AI legislation create compliance uncertainty and invite opposition from both industry and rights advocates.
•Lesson: AI legislation must balance innovation promotion with risk mitigation, as perception of bias toward either can doom political support.
•Lesson: Adaptive regulatory mechanisms (e.g., delegated regulations) are necessary given AI's rapid evolution, but must include sufficient accountability safeguards.

Cited by 1 page

Page	Type	Quality
Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA)	Policy	46.0

Cached Content Preview

HTTP 200Fetched Apr 9, 202623 KB

The Demise of AIDA: 5 Key Lessons | McInnes Cooper 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Skip to main content 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 Home 
 >

 Publications 
 >
 The Demise of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA): 5 Key Lessons 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Perspectives 
 The Demise of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA): 5 Key Lessons

 Published:

 March 3, 2025

 
 
 Author(s):

 

 
 David Fraser 

 Sarah Anderson Dykema, CIPP/C, CIPM, AIGP 

 
 
 
 
 Share

 
 
 Print 
 

 

 
 On January 5, 2025, the prorogation of the Canadian Parliament effectively terminated all bills pending in the House of Commons – including Bill C-27 and the proposed and controversial Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) contained in it. The inclusion of AIDA in Bill C-27, which principally focused on privacy law reform, was seen as a big surprise to many. That AIDA wasn’t preceded by any significant consultation with industry or civil society groups was seen as a serious issue by many. But despite AIDA’s demise, it’s inevitable a future Canadian government will seek to pass legislation regulating artificial intelligence. There are lessons a future government doing so can learn from the, at times heated, debate over AIDA; here are five key ones.

 1. Find Real Harmony 

 The rhetoric around AIDA was that it sought to harmonize Canadian AI regulation with that of our international trading partners. But AIDA did not do that. For example, its definitions of high-risk/high-impact systems and their treatment didn’t align with what Canada’s international trading partners are doing. For example, deeming generative, general purpose AI products as automatically “high-risk” was radically out of step with what’s going on in the rest of the world, pulling Canada further away from developing international norms. Similar (but different) terminology and definitions doesn’t make laws compatible.

 Future AI legislation should be compatible with legislation such as Europe’s Artificial Intelligence Act. Ideally, it should also allow mutual recognition of compliance so Canadian companies can easily enter the European market and vice-versa.

 2. Don’t Exclude Government 

 AIDA’s categorical exclusion of the government from AI regulation was dangerous. In stark contrast to relationships between citizens and private sector businesses, the relationships between citizens and their governments are non-voluntary. A citizen, if unsatisfied with the use of AI by their government, can’t choose an alternative. The “government” includes law enforcement; it includes immigration; it includes taxation; and it makes decisions about benefits and entitlements. The government has guns. This is inherently much higher risk – life or death in some cases – than any system deployed by a bank or grocery store. Other analogous regulatory schemes, such as privacy and human rights, apply to businesses and governments.

 AI legislation should include all organiza

... (truncated, 23 KB total)

Resource ID: d44db02ed7d5d717 | Stable ID: sid_uH32AZpTcO