Teresa Scassa - Blog

The Department of Innovation Science and Economic Development (ISED) has released the results of the consultation it carried out in advance of its development of the latest iteration of its AI Strategy. The consultation had two components – one was a Task Force on AI – a group of experts tasked with consulting their peers to develop their views. The experts were assigned to specified themes (research and talent; adoption across industry and government; commercialization of AI; scaling our champions and attracting investment; building safe AI systems and public trust in AI, education and skills; infrastructure; and security). The second component was a broad public consultation asking for either answers to an online survey or emailed free-form submissions. This post offers some reflections on the process and its outcomes.

1. The controversy over the consultation

The consultation process generated controversy. One reason for this was the sudden and short timelines. Submissions from the public were sought within a month, and Task Force members were initially expected to consult their peers and report in the month following the launch of the consultation. In the end, the Task Force Reports were not published until early February – the timelines were simply unrealistic. However, there was no extension for the public consultation. The Summary of Inputs on the consultation refers to it as “the largest public consultation in the history of Innovation Science and Economic Development Canada, generating important ideas, questions and legitimate concerns to take into consideration in the drafting of the strategy” (at page 3). The response signals how important the issue is to Canadians and how they want to be heard. One has to wonder how many submissions ISED might have received with longer timelines. Short deadlines favour those with time and resources. Civil society organizations, small businesses, and individuals with full workloads (domestic and professional) find short timelines particularly challenging. Running a “sprint” consultation favours participation from some groups over others.

Another point of controversy was the lack of diversity of the Task Force. The government was roundly criticized for putting together a Task Force with no representation from Canada’s Black communities, particularly given the risks of bias and discrimination posed by AI technologies. A letter to this effect was sent to the Minister of AI, the Prime Minister, and the leaders of Canada’s other political parties by a large group of Black academic and scholars. Following this, a Black representative – a law student - was hurriedly added to the Task Force.

An open letter to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence for civil society organizations and individuals also denounced the consultation, arguing that the deadline should be extended, and that the Task Force should be more equitably representative. The letter noted that civil society groups, human rights experts, and others were absent from the Task Force panel. The group was also critical of the online survey for being biased towards particular outcomes. This group indicated that it would be boycotting the consultation. They have now set up their own People’s Consultation on AI, which is accepting submissions until March 15, 2026.

These controversies highlight a major stumble in developing the AI Strategy. The lack of consultation around the failed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act in Bill C-27 and the criticism that this generated should have been a lesson to ISED on how important the issues raised by AI are to the public and about how they want to be heard. The Summary makes no mention of the controversy it generated. Nevertheless, the criticisms and pushbacks are surely an important part of the outcome of this process.

2. Some thoughts on Transparency

ISED has not only published a summary of the results of its consultation and of the Task Force Reports, it has published in its open government portal the raw data from the consultation, as well as the individual task force reports. This seems to be in line with a new commitment to greater transparency around AI – in the fall of 2025 ISED also published its beta version of a register of AI in use within the federal public service. These are positive developments, although it is worth watching to see if tools like the register of AI are refined, improved (and updated).

ISED was also transparent about its use of generative AI to process the results of the consultation. Page 16 of the summary document explains how it used (unspecified) LLMs to create a “classification pipeline” to “clean survey responses and categorize them into a structured set of themes and subthemes”. The report also describes the use of human oversight to ensure that there was “at least a 90% success rate in categorizing responses into specific intents”. ISED explains that it consulted research experts about their methodology and indicated that the methods they used were in conformity with the recent Treasury Board Guide on the use of generative artificial intelligence. The declaration on the use of AI indicates that the output was used to produce the final report, which is apparently a combination of human authorship and extracts from the AI generated content.

It would frankly be astonishing if generative AI tools have not already been used in other contexts to process submissions to government consultations (but likely without having been disclosed). As a result, the level of transparency about the use here is important. This is illustrated by my colleague Michael Geist’s criticisms of the results of ISED’s use of AI. He ran the Task Force reports through two (identified) LLMs and noted differences in the results between his generated analysis and ISED’s. He argues that “the government had not provided the public with the full picture” and posits that the results were softened by ISED to suggest a consensus that is not actually present. Putting a particular spin on things is not exclusively the result of the use of AI tools – humans do this all the time. However, explaining how results were arrived at using a technological system can create an impression of objectivity and scientific rigor that can mislead, and this underscores the importance of Prof. Geist’s critique.

It is worth noting that it is the level of transparency provided by ISED that allowed this analysis and critique. The immediacy of the publication of the data on which the report was based is important as well. Prolonged access to information request processes were unnecessary here. This approach should become standard government practice.

3. AI Governance/Regulation

The consultation covered many themes, and the AI Strategy is clearly intended to be about more than just how to regulate or govern AI. In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that the AI Strategy will be about everything except governance and regulation, given the limited expertise from these areas on the Task Force. These focus areas emphasized adoption, investment in, and scaling of AI innovation, as well as strengthening sovereign infrastructure. Among the focus areas only “public trust, skills and safety” gives a rather offhand nod to governance and regulation.

That said, reading between the lines of the summary of inputs, Canadian are concerned about AI governance and regulation. This can be seen in statements such as “Respondents…urged Canada to prioritize responsible governance” (p. 7). Respondents also called for “meaningful regulation” (p. 8) and reminded the government of the need to “modernize regulations” (p. 8). There were also references to “accountable and robust governance”(p. 8) and “strict regulation, penalties for non-compliance and frameworks that uphold Canadian values” (p. 8) when it comes to generative AI. There were also calls for “strict liability laws” (p. 9), and concerns expressed over “lack of regulation and accountability” (p. 9).

One finds these snippets throughout the summary document, which suggests that meaningful regulation was a matter of real concern for respondents. However, the “Conclusions and next steps” section of the report mentions only the need for “regulatory clarity” and streamlined regulatory frameworks – neither of which is a bad thing, but neither of which is really about new regulation or governance. Instead, the report concludes that: “There was general consensus among participants that public trust depends on transparency, accountability, and robust governance, supported by certification standards, independent audits and AI literacy programs” (p. 15, my emphasis). While those tools are certainly part of a regulatory toolkit for AI, on their own and outside of a framework that builds in accountability and oversight, they are basically soft-law and self-regulation. This feels like a rather convenient consensus around where the government was likely heading in the first place.

The Ontario and British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioners each released new AI medical scribes guidance on Privacy Day (January 28, 2026). This means that along with Alberta and Saskatchewan, a total for four provincial information and privacy commissioners have now issued similar guidance. BC’s guidance is aimed at health care practitioners running their own practices and governed by the province’s Personal Information Protection Act. It does not extend to health authorities and hospitals that fall under the province’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Ontario’s guidance is for both public institutions and physicians in private practice who are governed by the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

This flurry of guidance on AI Scribes shows how privacy regulators are responding to the very rapid adoption in the Canadian health sector of an AI-tool that raises sometimes complicated privacy issues with a broad public impact.

At its most basic level, an AI medical scribe is a tool that records a doctor’s interaction with their patient. The recording is then transcribed by the scribe, and a summary is generated that can be cut and pasted by the doctor into the patient’s electronic medical record (EMR). The development and adoption of AI scribes has been rapid, in part because physicians have been struggling with both significant administrative burdens as well as burnout. This is particularly acute in the primary care sector. AI scribes offer the promise of better patient care (doctors are more focused on the patient as they are freed up from notetaking during appointments), as well as potentially significantly reduced time spent on administrative work.

AI medical scribes raise a number of different privacy issues. These can include issues relating to the scribe tool itself (for example, how good is the data security of the scribe company? What kind of personal health information (PHI) is stored, where, and for how long? Are secondary uses made of de-identified PHI? Is the scribe company’s definition of de-identification consistent with the relevant provincial health information legislation?) They may also include issues around how the technology is adopted and implemented by the physician (including, for example” whether the physician retains the full transcription as well as the chart summary and for how long; what data security measures are in place within the physician’s practice; and how consent is obtained from patients to the use of this tool). As the BC IPC’s guidance notes, “What distinguishes an AI scribe’s collection of personal information from traditional notetaking with a pen and notepad is that there are many processes taking place with an AI scribe that are more complex, potentially more privacy invasive, and less obvious to the average person” (at 5).

AI scribes raise issues other than privacy that touch on patient data. In their guidance, Ontario’s IPC notes the human rights considerations raised by AI scribes and refers to its recent AI Principles issued jointly with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (which I have written about here). The quality of AI technologies depends upon the quality of their training data. Where training data does not properly represent the populations impacted by the tool, there can be bias and discrimination. Concerns exist, for example, about how well AI scribes will function for people (or physicians) with accents, or for those with speech impaired by disease or disability. Certainly, the accuracy of personal health information that is recorded by the physician is a data protection issue; it is also a quality of health care issue. There are concerns that busy physicians may develop automation bias, increasingly trusting the scribe tool and reducing time spent on reviewing and correcting summaries – potentially leading to errors in the patient’s medical record.

AI scribes are being adopted by individual physicians, but they are also adopted and used within institutions – either with the engagement of the institution, or as a form of ‘shadow use’. A recent response to a breach by Ontario’s IPC relating to the use of a general-purpose AI scribe illustrates how complex the privacy issues may be in such as case (I have written about this incident here). In that case, the scribe tool ‘attended’ nephrology rounds at a hospital, transcribed the meeting, sent a summary to all 65 people on the mailing list for the meeting and provided a link to the full transcript. The summary and transcript contained the sensitive personal information of the patients seen on those rounds. Complicating the matter was the fact that the physician whose scribe attended the meeting was no longer even at the hospital.

Privacy commissioners are not the only ones who have stepped up to provide guidance and support to physicians in the choice of AI scribe tools. Ontario MD, for example, conducted an evaluation of AI medical scribes, and is assisting in assessing and recommending scribing tools that are considered safe and compliant with Ontario law.

Of course, scribe technologies are not standing still. It is anticipated that these tools will evolve to include suggestions for physicians for diagnosis or treatment plans, raising new and complex issues that will extend beyond privacy law. As the BC guidance notes, some of these tools are already being used to “generate referral letters, patient handouts, and physician reminders for ordering lab work and writing prescriptions for medication” (at 2). Further, this is a volatile area where scribe tools are likely to be acquired by EMR companies to integrate with their offerings, reducing the number of companies and changing the profile of the tools. The mutable tools and volatile context might suggest that guidance is premature; but the AI era is presenting novel regulatory challenges, and this is an example of guidance designed not to consolidate and structure rules and approaches that have emerged over time; but rather to reduce risk and harm in a rapidly evolving context. Regulator guidance may serve other goals here as well, as it signals to developers and to EMR companies those design features which will be important for legal compliance. Both the BC and Ontario guidance caution that function creep will require those who adopt and use these technologies to be alert to potential new issues that may arise as the adopted tools’ functionalities change over time.

Note: Daniel Kim and I have written a paper on the privacy and other risks related to AI medical scribes which is forthcoming in the TMU Law Review. A pre-print version can be found here: Scassa, Teresa and Kim, Daniel, AI Medical Scribes: Addressing Privacy and AI Risks with an Emergent Solution to Primary Care Challenges (January 07, 2025). (2025) 3 TMU Law Review, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5086289

Ontario’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and Human Rights Commission (OHRC) have jointly released a document titled Principles for the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence.

Notably, this is the second collaboration of these two institutions on AI governance. Their first was a joint statement on the use of AI technologies in 2023, which urged the Ontario government to “develop and implement effective guardrails on the public sector’s use of AI technologies”. This new initiative, oriented towards “the Ontario public sector and the broader public sector” (at p. 1), is interesting because it deepens the cooperation between the IPC and the OHRC in relation to a rapidly evolving technology that is increasingly used in the public sector. It also fills a governance gap left by the province’s delay in developing its public sector AI regulatory framework.

In 2024, the Ontario government enacted the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 (EDSTA), which contains a series of provisions addressing the use of AI in the broader public sector (which includes hospitals and universities). It also issued the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence Directive which sets basic rules and principles for Ontario ministries and provincial agencies. The Directive is currently in force and is built around principles similar to those set out by the IPC and OHRC. It outlines a set of obligations for ministries and agencies that adopt and use AI systems. These include transparency, risk management, risk mitigation, and documentation requirements. The EDSTA, which would have a potentially broader application, creates a framework for transparency, accountability, and risk management obligations, but the actual requirements have been left to regulations. Those regulations will also determine to whom any obligations will apply. Although the EDSTA can apply to all actors within the public sector, broadly defined, its obligations can be tailored by regulations to specific departments or agencies, and can include or exclude universities and hospitals. There has been no obvious movement on the drafting of the regulations needed to breathe life into EDSTA’s AI provisions

It is clear that AI systems will have both privacy and human rights implications, and that both the IPC and the OHRC will have to deal with complaints about such systems in relation to matters within their respective jurisdictions. As the Commissioners put it, the principles “will ground our assessment of organizations’ adoption of AI systems consistent with privacy and human rights obligations.” (at p. 1) The document clarifies what the IPC and OHRC expect from institutions. For example, conforming to the ‘Valid and reliable” principle will require compliance with independent testing standards and objective evidence will be required to demonstrate that systems “fulfil the intended requirements for a specified use or application”. (at p. 3) The safety principle also requires demonstrable cybersecurity protection and safeguards for privacy and human rights. The Commissioners also expect institutions to provide opportunities for access and correction of individuals’ personal data both used in and generated by AI systems. The “Human rights affirming” principle includes a caution that public institutions “should avoid the uniform use of AI systems with diverse groups”, since such practices could lead to adverse effects discrimination. The Commissioners also caution against uses of systems that may “unduly target participants in public or social movements, or subject marginalized communities to excessive surveillance that impedes their ability to freely associate with one another.” (at p. 6)

The Commissioners’ “Transparency” principle requires that the use by the public sector of AI be visible. The IPC’s mandate covers both access to information and privacy. The Principles state that the documentation required for the “public account” of AI use “may include privacy impact assessments, algorithmic impact assessments, or other relevant materials.” (at p. 6) There must also be transparency regarding “the sources of any personal data collected and used to train or operate the system, the intended purposes of the system, how it is being used, and the ways in which its outputs may affect individuals or communities.” (at p. 6)

The Principles also require that systems used in the public sector be understandable and explainable. The accountability principle requires public sector institutions to document design and application choices and to be prepared to explain how the system works to an oversight body. They should also establish mechanisms to receive and respond to complaints and concerns. The Principles call for whistleblower protections to support reporting of non-compliant systems.

The joint nature of the Principles highlights how issues relating to AI do not easily fall within the sole jurisdiction of any one regulator. It also highlights that the dependence of AI systems on data – often personal data or de-identified personal data – carries with it implications both for privacy and human rights.

That the IPC and OHRC will have to deal with complaints and investigations that touch on AI issues is indisputable. In fact, the IPC has already conducted formal and informal investigations that touch on AI-enabled remote proctoring, AI scribes, and vending machines on university campuses that incorporate face-detection technologies. The Principles offer important insights into how these two oversight bodies see privacy and human rights intersecting with the adoption and use of AI technologies, and what organizations should be doing to ensure that the systems they procure, adopt and deploy are legally compliant.

The federal government has just launched an AI Strategy Task Force and public engagement on a new AI strategy for Canada. Consultation is a good thing – the government took a lot of flak for the lack of consultation leading up to the ill-fated AI and Data Act that was part of the now-defunct Bill C-27. That said, there are consultations and there are consultations. Here are some of my concerns about this one.

The consultation has two parts. First, the government has convened an AI Task Force consisting of some very talented and clearly public-spirited Canadians who have expertise in AI or AI-adjacent areas. Let me be clear that I appreciate the time and energy that these individuals are willing to contribute to this task. However, if you peruse the list, you will see that few of the Task Force members are specialists in the ethical or social science dimensions of AI. There are no experts in labour and employment issues (which are top of mind for many Canadians these days), nor is there representation from those with expertise in the environmental issues we already know are raised by AI innovation. Only three people from a list of twenty-six are tasked with addressing “Building safe AI systems and public trust in AI”. The composition of the Task Force seems clearly skewed towards rapid adoption and deployment of AI technologies. This is an indication that the government already has a new AI Strategy – they are just looking for “bold, pragmatic and actionable recommendations” to bolster it. It is a consultation to make the implicit strategy explicit.

The first part of the process will see the members of the Task Force, “consult their networks to provide actionable insights and recommendations.” That sounds a lot like insider networking which should frankly raise concerns. This does not lend itself to ensuring fair and appropriate representation of diverse voices. It risks creating its own echo chambers. It is also very likely to lack other elements of transparency. It is hard to see how the conversations and interactions between the private citizens who are members of the task force and their networks will produce records that could be requested under the Access to Information Act.

The second part of the consultation is a more conventional one where Canadians who are not insiders are invited to make contributions. Although the press release announcing the consultation directs people to the “Consulting Canadians”, it does not provide a link. Consulting Canadians is actually a Statistics Canada site. What the government probably meant was “Consulting with Canadians”, which is part of the Open Canada portal (and I have provided a link).

The whole process is described in the press release as a “national sprint” (which is much fancier than calling it “a mad rush to a largely predetermined conclusion”). In November, the AI Task Force members “will share the bold, practical ideas they gathered.” That’s asking a lot, but no doubt they will harness the power of Generative AI to transcribe and summarize the input they receive.

If, in the words of the press release, “This moment demands a renewal of thinking—a collective commitment to reimagining how we harness innovation, achieve our artificial intelligence (AI) ambition and secure our digital sovereignty”, perhaps it also demands a bit more time and reflection. That said, if you want to be heard, you now have less than a month to provide input – so get writing and look for the relevant materials in the Consulting with Canadians portal.

On May 13, 2024, the Ontario government introduced Bill 194. The bill addresses a catalogue of digital issues for the public sector. These include: cybersecurity, artificial intelligence governance, the protection of the digital information of children and youth, and data breach notification requirements. Consultation on the Bill closes on June 11, 2024. Below is my submission to the consultation. The legislature has now risen for the summer, so debate on the bill will not be moving forward now until the fall.

Submission to the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery on the Consultation on proposed legislation: Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024

Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy, University of Ottawa

June 4, 2024

I am a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy. I research and write about legal issues relating to artificial intelligence and privacy. My comments on Bill 194 are made on my own behalf.

The Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 has two schedules. Schedule 1 has three parts. The first relates to cybersecurity, the second to the use of AI in the broader public service, and the third to the use of digital technology affecting individuals under 18 years of age in the context of Children’s Aid Societies and School Boards. Schedule 2 contains a series of amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). My comments are addressed to each of the Schedules. Please note that all examples provided as illustrations are my own.

Summary

Overall, I consider this to be a timely Bill that addresses important digital technology issues facing Ontario’s public sector. My main concerns relate to the sections on artificial intelligence (AI) systems and on digital technologies affecting children and youth. I recommend the addition of key principles to the AI portion of the Bill in both a reworked preamble and a purpose section. In the portion dealing with digital technologies and children and youth, I note the overlap created with existing privacy laws, and recommend reworking certain provisions so that they enhance the powers and oversight of the Privacy Commissioner rather than creating a parallel and potentially conflicting regime. I also recommend shifting the authority to prohibit or limit the use of certain technologies in schools to the Minister of Education and to consider the role of public engagement in such decision-making. A summary of recommendations is found at the end of this document.

Schedule 1 - Cybersecurity

The first section of the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act (EDSTA) creates a framework for cybersecurity obligations that is largely left to be filled by regulations. Those regulations may also provide for the adoption of standards. The Minister will be empowered to issue mandatory Directives to one or more public sector entities. There is little detail provided as to what any specific obligations might be, although section 2(1)(a) refers to a requirement to develop and implement “programs for ensuring cybersecurity” and s. 2(1)(c) anticipates requirements on public sector entities to submit reports to the minister regarding cyber security incidents. Beyond this, details are left to regulations. These details may relate to roles and responsibilities, reporting requirements, education and awareness measures, response and recovery measures, and oversight.

The broad definition of a “public sector entity” to which these obligations apply includes hospitals, school boards, government ministries, and a wide range of agencies, boards and commissions at the provincial and municipal level. This scope is important, given the significance of cybersecurity concerns.

Although there is scant detail in Bill 194 regarding actual cyber security requirements, this manner of proceeding seems reasonable given the very dynamic cybersecurity landscape. A combination of regulations and standards will likely provide greater flexibility in a changeable context. Cybersecurity is clearly in the public interest and requires setting rules and requirements with appropriate training and oversight. This portion of Bill 194 would create a framework for doing this. This seems like a reasonable way to address public sector cybersecurity, although, of course, the effectiveness will depend upon the timeliness and the content of any regulations.

Schedule 1 – Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems

Schedule 1 of Bill 194 also contains a series of provisions that address the use of AI systems in the public sector. These will apply to AI systems that meet a definition that maps onto the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition. Since this definition is one to which many others are being harmonized (including a proposed amendment to the federal AI and Data Act, and the EU AI Act), this seems appropriate. The Bill goes on to indicate that the use of an AI system in the public sector includes the use of a system that is publicly available, that is developed or procured by the public sector, or that is developed by a third party on behalf of the public sector. This is an important clarification. It means, for example, that the obligations under the Act could apply to the use of general-purpose AI that is embedded within workplace software, as well as purpose-built systems.

Although the AI provisions in Bill 194 will apply to “public service entities” – defined broadly in the Bill to include hospitals and school boards as well as both federal and municipal boards, agencies and commissions – the AI provisions will only apply to a public sector entity that is “prescribed for the purposes of this section if they use or intend to use an artificial intelligence system in prescribed circumstances” (s. 5(1)). The regulations also might apply to some systems (e.g., general purpose AI) only when they are being used for a particular purpose (e.g., summarizing or preparing materials used to support decision-making). Thus, while potentially quite broad in scope, the actual impact will depend on which public sector entities – and which circumstances – are prescribed in the regulations.

Section 5(2) of Bill 194 will require a public sector entity to which the legislation applies to provide information to the public about the use of an AI system, but the details of that information are left to regulations. Similarly, there is a requirement in s. 5(3) to develop and implement an accountability framework, but the necessary elements of the framework are left to regulations. Under s. 5(4) a public sector entity to which the Act applies will have to take steps to manage risks in accordance with regulations. It may be that the regulations will be tailored to different types of systems posing different levels of risk, so some of this detail would be overwhelming and inflexible if included in the law itself. However, it is important to underline just how much of the normative weight of this law depends on regulations.

Bill 194 will also make it possible for the government, through regulations, to prohibit certain uses of AI systems (s. 5(6) and s. 7(f) and (g)). Interestingly, what is contemplated is not a ban on particular AI systems (e.g., facial recognition technologies (FRT)); rather, it is potential ban on particular uses of those technologies (e.g., FRT in public spaces). Since the same technology can have uses that are beneficial in some contexts but rights-infringing in others, this flexibility is important. Further, the ability to ban certain uses of FRT on a province-wide basis, including at the municipal level, allows for consistency across the province when it comes to issues of fundamental rights.

Section 6 of the bill provides for human oversight of AI systems. Such a requirement would exist only when a public entity uses an AI system in circumstances set out in the regulations. The obligation will require oversight in accordance with the regulations and may include additional transparency obligations. Essentially, the regulations will be used to customize obligations relating to specific systems or uses of AI for particular purposes.

Like the cybersecurity measures, the AI provisions in Bill 194 leave almost all details to regulations. Although I have indicated that this is an appropriate way to address cybersecurity concerns, it may be less appropriate for AI systems. Cybersecurity is a highly technical area where measures must adapt to a rapidly evolving security landscape. In the cybersecurity context, the public interest is in the protection of personal information and government digital and data infrastructures. Risks are either internal (having to do with properly training and managing personnel) or adversarial (where the need is for good security measures to be in place). The goal is to put in place measures that will ensure that the government’s digital systems are robust and secure. This can be done via regulations and standards.

By contrast, the risks with AI systems will flow from decisions to deploy them, their choice and design, the data used to train the systems, and their ongoing assessment and monitoring. Flaws at any of these stages can lead to errors or poor functioning that can adversely impact a broad range of individuals and organizations who may interact with government via these systems. For example, an AI chatbot that provides information to the public about benefits or services, or an automated decision-making system for applications by individuals or businesses for benefits or services, interacts with and impacts the public in a very direct way. Some flaws may lead to discriminatory outcomes that violate human rights legislation or the Charter. Others may adversely impact privacy. Errors in output can lead to improperly denied (or allocated) benefits or services, or to confusion and frustration. There is therefore a much more direct impact on the public, with effects on both groups and individuals. There are also important issues of transparency and trust. This web of considerations makes it less appropriate to leave the governance of AI systems entirely to regulations. The legislation should, at the very least, set out the principles that will guide and shape those regulations. The Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery has already put considerable work into developing a Trustworthy AI Framework and a set of (beta) principles. This work could be used to inform guiding principles in the statute.

Currently, the guiding principles for the whole of Bill 194 are found in the preamble. Only one of these directly relates to the AI portion of the bill, and it states that “artificial intelligence systems in the public sector should be used in a responsible, transparent, accountable and secure manner that benefits the people of Ontario while protecting privacy”. Interestingly, this statement only partly aligns with the province’s own beta Principles for Ethical Use of AI. Perhaps most importantly, the second of these principles, “good and fair”, refers to the need to develop systems that respect the “rule of law, human rights, civil liberties, and democratic values”. Currently, Bill 194 is entirely silent with respect to issues of bias and discrimination (which are widely recognized as profoundly important concerns with AI systems, and which have been identified by Ontario’s privacy and human rights commissioners as a concern). At the very least, the preamble to Bill 194 should address these specific concerns. Privacy is clearly not the only human rights consideration at play when it comes to AI systems. The preamble to the federal government’s Bill C-27, which contains the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, states: “that artificial intelligence systems and other emerging technologies should uphold Canadian norms and values in line with the principles of international human rights law”. The preamble to Bill 194 should similarly address the importance of human rights values in the development and deployment of AI systems for the broader public sector.

In addition, the bill would benefit from a new provision setting out the purpose of the part dealing with public sector AI. Such a clause would shape the interpretation of the scope of delegated regulation-making power and would provide additional support for a principled approach. This is particularly important where legislation only provides the barest outline of a governance framework.

In this regard, this bill is similar to the original version of the federal AI and Data Act, which was roundly criticized for leaving the bulk of its normative content to the regulation-making process. The provincial government’s justification is likely to be similar to that of the federal government – it is necessary to remain “agile”, and not to bake too much detail into the law regarding such a rapidly evolving technology. Nevertheless, it is still possible to establish principle-based parameters for regulation-making. To do so, this bill should more clearly articulate the principles that guide the adoption and use of AI in the broader public service. A purpose provision could read:

The purpose of this Part is to ensure that artificial intelligence systems adopted and used by public sector entities are developed, adopted, operated and maintained in manner that is transparent and accountable and that respects the privacy and human rights of Ontarians.

Unlike AIDA, the federal statute which will apply to the private sector, Bill 194 is meant to apply to the operations of the broader public service. The flexibility in the framework is a recognition of both the diversity of AI systems, and the diversity of services and activities carried out in this context. It should be noted, however, that this bill does not contemplate any bespoke oversight for public sector AI. There is no provision for a reporting or complaints mechanism for members of the public who have concerns with an AI system. Presumably they will have to complain to the department or agency that operates the AI system. Even then, there is no obvious requirement for the public sector entity to record complaints or to report them for oversight purposes. All of this may be provided for in s. 5(3)’s requirement for an accountability framework, but the details of this have been left to regulation. It is therefore entirely unclear from the text of Bill 194 or what recourse – if any – the public will have when they have problematic encounters with AI systems in the broader public service. Section 5(3) could be amended to read:

5(3) A public sector entity to which this section applies, shall, in accordance with the regulations, develop and implement an accountability framework respecting their use of the artificial intelligence system. At a minimum, such a framework will include:

a) The specification of reporting channels for internal or external complaints or concerns about the operation of the artificial intelligence system;

b) Record-keeping requirements for complaints and concerns raised under subparagraph 5(3)(a), as well as for responses thereto.

Again, although a flexible framework for public sector AI governance may be an important goal, key elements of that framework should be articulated in the legislation.

Schedule 1 – Digital Technology Affecting Individuals Under Age 18

The third part of Schedule 1 addresses digital technology affecting individuals under age 18. This part of Bill 194 applies to children’s aid societies and school boards. Section 9 enables the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations regarding “prescribed digital information relating to individuals under age 18 that is collected, used, retained or disclosed in a prescribed manner”. Significantly, “digital information” is not defined in the Bill.

The references to digital information are puzzling, as it seems to be nothing more than a subset of personal information – which is already governed under both the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) and FIPPA. Personal information is defined in both these statutes as “recorded information about an identifiable individual”. It is hard to see how “digital information relating to individuals under age 18” is not also personal information (which has received an expansive interpretation). If it is meant to be broader, it is not clear how. Further, the activities to which this part of Bill 194 will apply are the “collection, use, retention or disclosure” of such information. These are activities already governed by MFIPPA and FIPPA – which apply to school boards and children’s aid societies respectively. What Bill 194 seems to add is a requirement (in s. 9(b)) to submit reports to the Minister regarding the collection, use, retention and disclosure of such information, as well as the enablement of regulations in s. 9(c) to prohibit collection, use, retention or disclosure of prescribed digital information in prescribed circumstances, for prescribed purposes, or subject to certain conditions. Nonetheless, the overlap with FIPPA and MFIPPA is potentially substantial – so much so, that s. 14 provides that in case of conflict between this Act and any other, the other Act would prevail. What this seems to mean is that FIPPA and MFIPPA will trump the provisions of Bill 194 in case of conflict. Where there is no conflict, the bill seems to create an unnecessary parallel system for governing the personal information of children.

The need for more to be done to protect the personal information of children and youth in the public school system is clear. In fact, this is a strategic priority of the current Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC), whose office has recently released a Digital Charter for public schools setting out voluntary commitments that would improve children’s privacy. The IPC is already engaged in this area. Not only does the IPC have the necessary expertise in the area of privacy law, the IPC is also able to provide guidance, accountability and independent oversight. In any event, since the IPC will still have oversight over the privacy practices of children’s aid societies and school boards notwithstanding Bill 194, the new system will mean that these entities will have to comply with regulations set by the Minister on the one hand, and the provisions of FIPPA and MFIPPA on the other. The fact that conflicts between the two regimes will be resolved in favour of privacy legislation means that it is even conceivable that the regulations could set requirements or standards that are lower than what is required under FIPPA or MFIPPA – creating an unnecessarily confusing and misleading system.

Another odd feature of the scheme is that Bill 194 will require “reports to be submitted to the Minister or a specified individual in respect of the collection, use, retention and disclosure” of digital information relating to children or youth (s. 9(b)). It is possible that the regulations will specify that it is the Privacy Commissioner to whom the reports should be submitted. If it is, then it is once again difficult to see why a parallel regime is being created. If it is not, then the Commissioner will be continuing her oversight of privacy in schools and children’s aid societies without access to all the relevant data that might be available.

It seems as if Bill 194 contemplates two separate sets of measures. One addresses the proper governance of the digital personal information of children and youth in schools and children’s aid societies. This is a matter for the Privacy Commissioner, who should be given any additional powers she requires to fulfil the government’s objectives. Sections 9 and 10 of Bill 194 could be incorporated into FIPPA and MFIPPA, with modifications to require reporting to the Privacy Commissioner. This would automatically bring oversight and review under the authority of the Privacy Commissioner. The second objective of the bill seems to be to provide the government with the opportunity to issue directives regarding the use of certain technologies in the classroom or by school boards. This is not unreasonable, but it is something that should be under the authority of the Minister of Education (not the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery). It is also something that might benefit from a more open and consultative process. I would recommend that the framework be reworked accordingly.

Schedule 2: FIPPA Amendments

Schedule 2 consists of amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. These are important amendments that will introduce data breach notification and reporting requirements for public sector entities in Ontario that are governed by FIPPA (although, interestingly, not those covered by MFIPPA). For example, a new s. 34(2)(c.1) will require the head of an institution to include in their annual report to the Commissioner “the number of thefts, losses or unauthorized uses or disclosures of personal information recorded under subsection 40.1”. The new subsection 40.1(8) will require the head of an institution to keep a record of any such data breach. Where a data breach reaches the threshold of creating a “real risk that a significant harm to an individual would result” (or where any other circumstances prescribed in regulations exist), a separate report shall be made to the Commissioner under s. 40.1(1). This report must be made “as soon as feasible” after it has been determined that the breach has taken place (s. 40.1(2)). New regulations will specify the form and contents of the report. There is a separate requirement for the head of the institution to notify individuals affected by any breach that reaches the threshold of a real risk of significant harm (s. 40.1(3)). The notification to the individual will have to contain, along with any prescribed information, a statement that the individual is entitled to file a complaint with the Commissioner with respect to the breach, and the individual will have one year to do so (ss. 40.1(4) and (5)). The amendments also identify the factors relevant in determining if there is a real risk of significant harm (s. 40.1(7)).

The proposed amendments also provide for a review by the Commissioner of the information practices of an institution where a complaint has been filed under s. 40.1(4), or where the Commissioner “has other reason to believe that the requirements of this Part are not being complied with” (s. 49.0.1).) The Commissioner can decide not to review an institution’s practices in circumstances set out in s. 49.0.1(3). Where the Commissioner determines that there has been a contravention of the statutory obligations, she has order-making powers (s. 49.0.1(7)).

Overall, this is a solid and comprehensive scheme for addressing data breaches in the public sector (although it does not extend to those institutions covered by MFIPPA). In addition to the data breach reporting requirements, the proposed amendments will provide for whistleblower protections. They will also specifically enable the Privacy Commissioner to consult with other privacy commissioners (new s. 59(2)), and to coordinate activities, enter into agreements, and to provide for handling “of any complaint in which they are mutually interested.” (s. 59(3)). These are important amendments given that data breaches may cross provincial lines, and Canada’s privacy commissioners have developed strong collaborative relationships to facilitate cooperation and coordination on joint investigations. These provisions make clear that such co-operation is legally sanctioned, which may avoid costly and time-consuming court challenges to the commissioners’ authority to engage in this way.

The amendments also broaden s. 61(1)(a) of FIPPA which currently makes it an offence to wilfully disclose personal information in contravention of the Act. If passed, it will be an offence to wilfully collect, use or disclose information in the same circumstances.

Collectively the proposed FIPPA amendments are timely and important.

Summary of Recommendations:

On artificial intelligence in the broader public sector:

1. Amend the Preamble to Bill 194 to address the importance of human rights values in the development and deployment of AI systems for the broader public sector.

2. Add a purpose section to the AI portion of Bill 194 that reads:

The purpose of this Part is to ensure that artificial intelligence systems adopted and used by public sector entities are developed, adopted, operated and maintained in manner that is transparent and accountable and that respects the privacy and human rights of Ontarians.

3. Amend s. 5(3) to read:

5(3) A public sector entity to which this section applies, shall, in accordance with the regulations, develop and implement an accountability framework respecting their use of the artificial intelligence system. At a minimum, such a framework will include:

a) The specification of reporting channels for internal or external complaints or concerns about the operation of the artificial intelligence system;

b) Record-keeping requirements for complaints and concerns raised under subparagraph 5(3)(a), as well as for responses thereto.

On Digital Technology Affecting Individuals Under Age 18:

1. Incorporate the contents of ss. 9 and 10 into FIPPA and MFIPPA, with the necessary modification to require reporting to the Privacy Commissioner.

2. Give the authority to issue directives regarding the use of certain technologies in the classroom or by school boards to the Minister of Education and ensure that an open and consultative public engagement process is included.

The federal government’s proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) (Part III of Bill C-27) - contained some data governance requirements for anonymized data used in AI in its original version. These were meant to dovetail with changes to PIPEDA reflected in the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) (Part I of Bill C-27). The CPPA provides in s. 6(5) that “this Act does not apply in respect of personal information that has been anonymized.” Although no such provision is found in PIPEDA, this is, to all practical effects, the state of the law under PIPEDA. PIPEDA applies to “personal information”, which is defined as “information about an identifiable individual”. If someone is not identifiable, then it is not personal information, and the law does not apply. This was the conclusion reached, for example, in the 2020 Cadillac Fairview joint finding of the federal Privacy Commissioner and his counterparts from BC and Alberta. PIPEDA does apply to pseudonymized information because such information ultimately permits reidentification.

The standard for identifiability under PIPEDA had been set by the courts as a “’serious possibility’ that an individual could be identified through the use of that information, alone or in combination with other available information.” (Cadillac Fairview at para 143). It is not an absolute standard (although the proposed definition for anonymized data in C-27 currently seems closer to absolute). In any event, the original version of AIDA was meant to offer comfort to those concerned with the flat-out exclusion of anonymized data from the scope of the CPPA. Section 6 of AIDA provided that:

6. A person who carries out any regulated activity and who processes or makes available anonymized data in the course of that activity must, in accordance with the regulations, establish measures with respect to

(a) the manner in which data is anonymized; and

(b) the use or management of anonymized data.

Problematically, however, AIDA only provided for data governance with respect to this particular subset of data. It contained no governance requirements for personal, pseudonymized, or non-personal data. Artificial intelligence systems will be only as good as the data on which they are trained. Data governance is a fundamental element of proper AI regulation – and it must address more than anonymized personal data.

This is an area where the amendments to AIDA proposed by the Minister of Industry demonstrate clear improvements over the original version. To begin with, the old s. 6 is removed from AIDA. Instead of specific governance obligations for anonymized data, we see some new obligations introduced regarding data more generally. For example, as part of the set of obligations relating to general-purpose AI systems, there is a requirement to ensure that “measures respecting the data used in developing the system have been established in accordance with the regulations” (s. 7(1)a)). There is also an obligation to maintain records “relating to the data and processes used in developing the general-purpose system and in assessing the system’s capabilities and limitations” (s. 7(2)(b)). There are similar obligations the case of machine learning models that are intended to be incorporated into high-impact systems (s. 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(a)). Of course, whether this is an actual improvement will depend on the content of the regulations. But at least there is a clear signal that data governance obligations are expanded under the proposed amendments to AIDA.

Broader data governance requirements in AIDA are a good thing. They will apply to data generally including personal and anonymized data. Personal data used in AI will also continue to be governed under privacy legislation and privacy commissioners will still have a say about whether data have been properly anonymized. In the case of PIPEDA (or the CPPA if and when it is eventually enacted), the set of principles for the development and use of generative AI issued by federal, provincial, and territorial privacy commissioners on December 8, 2023 make it clear that the commissioners understand their enabling legislation to provide them with the authority to govern a considerable number of issues relating to the use of personal data in AI, whether in the public or private sector. This set of principles send a strong signal to federal and provincial governments alike that privacy laws and privacy regulators have a clear role to play in relation to emerging and evolving AI technologies and that the commissioners are fully engaged. It is also an encouraging example of federal, provincial and territorial co-operation among regulators to provide a coherent common position on key issues in relation to AI governance.

This is Part III of a series of posts that look at the proposed amendments to Canada’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (which itself is still a Bill, currently before the INDU Committee for study). Part I provided a bit of context and a consideration of some of the new definitions in the Bill. Part II looked at the categories of ‘high-impact’ AI that the Bill now proposes to govern. This post looks at the changed role of the AI and Data Commissioner.

The original version of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (Part II of Bill C-27) received considerable criticism for its oversight mechanisms. Legal obligations for the ethical and transparent governance of AI, after all, depend upon appropriate oversight and enforcement for their effectiveness. Although AIDA proposed the creation of an AI and Data Commissioner (Commissioner), this was never meant to be an independent regulator. Ultimately, AIDA placed most of the oversight obligations in the hands of the Minister of Industry – the same Minister responsible for supporting the growth of Canada’s AI sector. Critics considered this to be a conflict of interest. A series of proposed amendments to AIDA are meant to address these concerns by reworking the role of the Commissioner.

Section 33(1) of AIDA makes it clear that the AI and Data Commissioner will be a “senior official of the department over which the Minister presides”, and their appointment involves being designated by the Minister. This has not changed, although the amendments would delete from this provision language stating that the Commissioner’s role is “to assist the Minister in the administration and enforcement” of AIDA.

The proposed amendments elevate the Commissioner somewhat, giving them a series of powers and duties, to which the Minister can add through delegation (s. 33(3)). So, for example, it will be the newly empowered Commissioner (Commissioner 2.0) who receives reports from those managing a general-purpose or high impact system where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the use of the system has caused serious harm (s. 8.2(1)(e), s. 11(1)(g)). Commissioner 2.0 can also order someone managing or making available a general-purpose system to provide them with the accountability framework they are required to create under s. 12 (s. 13(1)) and can provide guidance or recommend corrections to that framework (s. 13(2)). Commissioner 2.0 can compel those making available or managing an AI system to provide the Commissioner with an assessment of whether the system is high impact, and in relation to which subclass of high impact systems set out in the schedule. Commissioner 2.0 can agree or disagree with the assessment, although if they disagree, their authority seems limited to informing the entity in writing with their reasons for disagreement.

More significant are Commissioner 2.0’s audit powers. Under the original version of AIDA, these were to be exercised by the Minister – the powers are now those of the Commissioner (s. 15(1)). Further, Commissioner 2.0 may order (previously this was framed as “require”) that the person either conduct an audit themselves or that the person engage the services of an independent auditor. The proposed amendments also empower the Commissioner to conduct an audit to determine if there is a possible contravention of AIDA. This strengthens the audit powers by ensuring that there is at least an option that is not at least somewhat under the control of the party being audited. The proposed amendments give Commissioner 2.0 additional powers necessary to conduct an audit and to carry out testing of an AI system (s. 15(2.1)). Where Commissioner 2.0 conducts an audit, they must provide the audited party with a copy of the report (s. 15(3.1)) and where the audit is conducted by the person responsible or someone retained by them, they must provide a copy to the Commissioner (s. 15(4)).

The Minister still retains some role with respect to audits. He or she may request that the Commissioner conduct an audit. In an attempt to preserve some independence of Commissioner 2.0, the Commissioner, when receiving such a request, may either carry out the audit or decline to do so on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds for an audit, so long as they provide the Minister with their reasons (s. 15.1(1)(b)). The Minister may also order a person to take actions to bring themselves into compliance with the law (s. 16) or to cease making available or terminate the operation of a system if the Minister considers compliance to be impossible (s. 16(b)) or has reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the system “gives rise to a risk of imminent and serious harm” (s. 17(1)).

As noted above, Commissioner 2.0 (a mere employee in the Minister’s department) will have order making powers under the amendments. This is something the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, an independent agent of Parliament, appointed by the Governor in Council, is hoping to get in Bill C-27. If so, it will be for the first time since the enactment of PIPEDA in 2000. Orders of Commissioner 2.0 or the Minister can become enforceable as orders of the Federal Court under s. 20.

Commissioner 2.0 is also empowered to share information with a list of federal or provincial government regulators where they have “reasonable grounds to believe that the information may be relevant to the administration or enforcement by the recipient of another Act of Parliament or of a provincial legislature.” (s. 26(1)). Reciprocally, under a new provision, federal regulators may also share information with the Commissioner (s. 26.1). Additionally, Commissioner 2.0 may “enter into arrangements” with different federal regulators and/or the Ministers of Health and Transport in order to assist those actors with the “exercise of their powers or the performance of their functions and duties” in relation to AI (s. 33.1). These new provisions strengthen a more horizontal, multi-regulator approach to governing AI which is an improvement in the Bill, although this might eventually need to be supplemented by corresponding legislative amendments – and additional funding – to better enable the other commissioners to address AI-related issues that fit within their areas of competence.

The amendments also impose upon Commissioner 2.0 a new duty to report on the administration and enforcement of AIDA – such a report is to be “published on a publicly available website”. (s. 35.1) The annual reporting requirement is important as it will increase transparency regarding the oversight and enforcement of AIDA. For his or her part, the Minister is empowered to publish information, where it is in the public interest, regarding any contravention of AIDA or where the use of a system gives rise to a serious risk of imminent harm (ss. 27 and 28).

Interestingly, AIDA, which provides for the potential imposition of administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of the Act does not indicate who is responsible for setting and imposing these penalties. Section 29(1)(g) makes it clear that “the persons or classes of persons who may exercise any power, or perform any duty or function, in relation to the [AMP] scheme” is left to be articulated in regulations.

The AIDA also makes it an offence under s. 30 for anyone to obstruct or provide false or misleading information to “the Minister, anyone acting on behalf of the Minister or an independent auditor in the exercise of their powers or performance of their duties or functions under this Part.” This remains unchanged from the original version of AIDA. Presumably, since Commissioner 2.0 would exercise a great many of the oversight functions, this is meant to apply to the obstruction or misleading of the Commissioner – but it will only do so if the Commissioner is characterized as someone “acting on behalf of the Minister”. This is not language of independence, but then there are other features of AIDA that also counter any view that even Commissioner 2.0 is truly independent (and I mean others besides the fact that they are an employee under the authority of the Minister and handpicked by the Minister). Most notable of these is that should the Commissioner become incapacitated or absent, or should they simply never be designated by the Minister, it is the Minister who will exercise their powers and duties (s. 33(4)).

In sum, then, the proposed amendments to AIDA attempt to give some separation between the Minister and Commissioner 2.0 in terms of oversight and enforcement. At the end of the day, however, Commissioner 2.0 is still the Minister’s hand-picked subordinate. Commissioner 2.0 does not serve for a specified term and has no security of tenure. In their absence, the Minister exercises their powers. It falls far short of independence.

My previous post looked at some of the new definitions in the proposed amendments to the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) which is Part III of Bill C-27. These include a definition of “high impact” AI, and a schedule of classes of high-impact AI (the Schedule is reproduced at the end of this post). The addition of the schedule changes AIDA considerably, and that is the focus of this post.

The first two classes in the Schedule capture contexts that can clearly affect individuals. Class 1 addresses AI used in most aspects of employment, and Class 2 relates to the provision of services. On the provision of services (which could include things like banking and insurance), the wording signals that it will apply to decision-making about the provision of services, their cost, or the prioritization of recipients. To be clear, AIDA does not prohibit systems with these functions. They are simply characterized as “high impact” so that they will be subject to governance obligations. A system to determine creditworthiness can still reject individuals; and companies can still prioritize preferred customers – as long as the systems are sufficiently transparent, free from bias and do not cause harm.

There is, however, one area which seems to fall through the cracks of Classes 1 & 2: rental accommodation. A lease is an interest in land – it is not a service. Human rights legislation in Canada typically refers to accommodation separately from services for this reason. AI applications are already being used to screen and select tenants for rental accommodation. In the midst of a housing crisis, this is surely an area that is high-impact and where the risks of harm from flawed AI to individuals and families searching for a place to live are significant. This gap needs to be addressed – perhaps simply by adding “or accommodation” after each use of the term “service” in Class 2.

Class 3 rightly identifies biometric systems as high risk. It also includes systems that use biometrics in “the assessment of an individual’s behaviour or state of mind.” Key to the scope of this section will be the definition of “biometric”. Some consider biometric data to be exclusively physiological data (fingerprints, iris scans, measurements of facial features, etc.). Yet others include behavioral data in this class if it is used for the second identified purpose – the assessment of behaviour or state of mind. Behavioural data, though, is potentially a very broad category. It can include data about a person’s gait, or their speech or keystroke patterns. Cast even more broadly, it could include things such as “geo-location and IP addresses”, “purchasing habits”, “patterns of device use” or even “browser history and cookies”. If that is the intention behind Class 3, then conventional biometric AI should be Part One of this class; Part Two should be the use of an AI system to assess an individual’s behaviour or state of mind (without referring specifically to biometrics in order to avoid confusion). This would also, importantly, capture the highly controversial area of AI for affect recognition. It would be unfortunate if the framing of the class as ‘biometrics’ led to an unduly narrow interpretation of the kind of systems or data involved. The explanatory note in the Minister’s cover letter for this provision seems to suggest (although it is not clear) that it is purely physiological biometric data that is intended for inclusion and not a broader category. If this is so, then Class 3 seems unduly narrow.

Class 4 is likely to be controversial. It addresses content moderation and the prioritization and presentation of content online and identifies these as high-impact algorithmic activities. Such systems are in widespread use in the online context. The explanatory note from the Minister observes that such systems “have important potential impacts on Canadians’ ability to express themselves, as well as pervasive effects at societal scale” (at p. 4). This is certainly true although the impact is less direct and obvious than the impact of a hiring algorithm, for example. Further, although an algorithm that presents a viewer of online streaming services with suggestions for content could have the effect of channeling a viewer’s attention in certain directions, it is hard to see this as “high impact” in many contexts, especially since there are multiple sources of suggestions for online viewing (including word of mouth). That does not mean that feedback loops and filter bubbles (especially in social media) do not contribute to significant social harms – but it does make this high impact class feel large and unwieldy. The Minister’s cover letter indicates that each of the high-impact classes presents “distinct risk profiles and consequently will require distinct risk management strategies.” (at p. 2). Further, he notes that the obligations that will be imposed “are intended to scale in proportion to the risks they present. A low risk use within a class would require correspondingly minimal mitigation effort.” (at p. 2). Much will clearly depend on regulations.

Class 5 relates to the use of AI in health care or emergency services, although it explicitly excludes medical devices because these are already addressed by Health Canada (which recently consulted on the regulation of AI-enabled medical devices). This category also demonstrates some of the complexity of regulating AI in Canada’s federal system. Many hospital-based AI technologies are being developed by researchers affiliated with the hospitals and who are not engaged in the interprovincial or international trade and commerce which is necessary for AIDA to apply. AIDA will only apply to those systems developed externally and in the context of international or interprovincial trade and commerce. While this will still capture many applications, it will not capture all – creating different levels of governance within the same health care context.

It is also not clear what is meant, in Class 5, by “use of AI in matters relating to health care”. This could be interpreted to mean health care that is provided within what is understood as the health care system. Understood more broadly, it could extend to health-related apps – for example, one of the many available AI-enabled sleep trackers, or an AI-enabled weight loss tool (to give just two examples). I suspect that what is intended is the former, even though, with health care in crisis and more people turning to alternate means to address their health issues, health-related AI technologies might well deserve to be categorized as high-impact.

Class 6 involves the use of an AI system by a court or administrative body “in making a determination in respect of an individual who is a party to proceedings before the court or administrative body.” In the first place, this is clearly not meant to apply to automated decision-making generally – it seems to be limited to judicial or quasi-judicial contexts. Class 6 must also be reconciled with s. 3 of AIDA, which provides that AIDA does not apply “with respect to a government institution as defined in s. 3 of the Privacy Act.” This includes the Immigration and Refugee Board, for example, as well as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Parole Board, and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Making sense of this, then, it would be the tools used by courts or tribunals and developed or deployed in the course of interprovincial or international trade and commerce that would be considered high impact. The example given in the Minister’s letter seems to support this – it is of an AI system that provides an assessment of “risk of recidivism based on historical data” (at p. 5).

However, Class 6 is confusing because it identifies the context rather than the tools as high impact. Note that the previous classes address the use of AI “in matters relating to” the subject matter of the class, whereas class 6 identifies actors – the use of AI by a court or tribunal. There is a different focus. Yet the same tools used by courts and tribunals might also be used by administrative bodies or agencies that do not hold hearings or that are otherwise excluded from the application of AIDA. For example, in Ewert v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada considered an appeal by a Métis man who challenged the use of recidivism-risk assessment tools by Correctional Services of Canada (to which AIDA would not apply according to s. 3). If this type of tool is high-risk, it is so whether it is used by Correctional Services or a court. This suggests that the framing of Class 6 needs some work. It should perhaps be reworded to identify tools or systems as high impact if they are used to determine the rights, entitlements or status of individuals.

Class 7 addresses the use of an AI system to assist a peace officer “in the exercise and performance of their law enforcement powers, duties and function”. Although “peace officer” receives the very broad interpretation found in the Criminal Code, that definition is modified in the AIDA by language that refers to the exercise of specific law enforcement powers. This should still capture the use of a broad range of AI-enabled tools and technologies. It is an interesting question whether AIDA might apply more fulsomely to this class of AI systems (not just those developed in the course of interprovincial or international trade) as it might be considered to be rooted in the federal criminal law power.

AIDA Schedule:

High-Impact Systems — Uses

1. The use of an artificial intelligence system in matters relating to determinations in respect of employment, including recruitment, referral, hiring, remuneration, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or termination.

2. The use of an artificial intelligence system in matters relating to

(a) the determination of whether to provide services to an individual;

(b) the determination of the type or cost of services to be provided to an individual; or

(c) the prioritization of the services to be provided to individuals.

3. The use of an artificial intelligence system to process biometric information in matters relating to

(a) the identification of an individual, other than in cases in which the biometric information is processed with the individual’s consent to authenticate their identity; or

(b) the assessment of an individual’s behaviour or state of mind.

4. The use of an artificial intelligence system in matters relating to

(a) the moderation of content that is found on an online communications platform, including a search engine or social media service; or

(b) the prioritization of the presentation of such content.

5. The use of an artificial intelligence system in matters relating to health care or emergency services, excluding a use referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e) of the definition device in section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act that is in relation to humans.

6. The use of an artificial intelligence system by a court or administrative body in making a determination in respect of an individual who is a party to proceedings before the court or administrative body.

7. The use of an artificial intelligence system to assist a peace officer, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, in the exercise and performance of their law enforcement powers, duties and functions.

The government of the United Kingdom has published a consultation paper seeking input into its proposal for AI regulation. The paper is aptly titled A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation, since it restates that point insistently throughout the document. The UK proposal provides an interesting contrast to Canada’s AI governance bill currently before Parliament.

Both Canada and the UK set out to regulate AI systems with the twin goals of supporting innovation on the one hand, and building trust in AI on the other. (Note here that the second goal is to build trust in AI, not to protect the public. Although the protection of the public is acknowledged as one way to build trust, there is a subtle distinction here). However, beyond these shared goals, the proposals are quite different. Canada’s approach in Part 3 of Bill C-27 (the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA)) is to create a framework to regulate as yet undefined “high impact” AI. The definition of “high impact” as well as many other essential elements of the bill are left to be articulated in regulations. According to a recently published companion document to the AIDA, leaving so much of the detail to regulations is how the government proposes to keep the law ‘agile’ – i.e. capable of responding to a rapidly evolving technological context. The proposal would also provide some governance for anonymized data by imposing general requirements to document the use of anonymized personal information in AI innovation. The Minister of Innovation is made generally responsible for oversight and enforcement. For example, the AIDA gives the Minister of Innovation the authority (eventually) to impose stiff administrative monetary penalties on bad actors. The Canadian approach is similar to that in the EU AI Act in that it aims for a broad regulation of AI technologies, and it chooses legislation as the vehicle to do so. It is different in that the EU AI Act is far more detailed and prescriptive; the AIDA leaves the bulk of its actual legal requirements to be developed in regulations.

The UK proposal is notably different from either of these approaches. Rather than create a new piece of legislation and/or a new regulatory authority, the UK proposes to set out five principles for responsible AI development and use. Existing regulators will be encouraged and, if necessary, specifically empowered, to regulate AI according to these principles within their spheres of regulatory authority. Examples of regulators who will be engaged in this framework include the Information Commissioner’s Office, regulators for human rights, consumer protection, health care products and medical devices, and competition law. The UK scheme also accepts that there may need to be an entity within government that can perform some centralized support functions. These may include monitoring and evaluation, education and awareness, international interoperability, horizon scanning and gap analysis, and supporting testbeds and sandboxes. Because of the risk that some AI technologies or issues may fall through the cracks between existing regulatory schemes, the government anticipates that regulators will assist government in identifying gaps and proposing appropriate actions. These could include adapting the mandates of existing regulators or providing new legislative measures if necessary.

Although Canada’s federal government has labelled its approach to AI regulation as ‘agile’, it is clear that the UK approach is much closer to the concept of agile regulation. Encouraging existing regulators to adapt the stated AI principles to their remit and to provide guidance on how they will actualize these principles will allow them to move quickly, so long as there are no obvious gaps in legal authority. By contrast, even once passed, it will take at least two years for Canada’s AIDA to have its normative blanks filled in by regulations. And, even if regulations might be somewhat easier to update than statutes, guidance is even more responsive, giving regulators greater room to manoeuvre in a changing technological landscape. Embracing the precepts of agile regulation, the UK scheme emphasizes the need to gather data about the successes and failures of regulation itself in order to adapt as required. On the other hand, while empowering (and resourcing) existing regulators will have clear benefits in terms of agility, the regulatory gaps could well be important ones – with the governance of large language models such as ChatGPT as one example. While privacy regulators are beginning to flex their regulatory muscles in the direction of ChatGPT, data protection law will only address a subset of the issues raised by this rapidly evolving technology. In Canada, AIDA’s governance requirements will be specific to risk-based regulation of AI, and will apply to all those who design, develop or make AI systems available for use (unless of course they are explicitly excluded under one of the many actual and potential exceptions).

Of course, the scheme in the AIDA may end up as more of a hybrid between the EU and the UK approaches in that the definition of “high impact” AI (to which the AIDA will apply) may be shaped not just by the degree of impact of the AI system at issue but also by the existence of other suitable regulatory frameworks. In other words, the companion document suggests that some existing regulators (health, consumer protection, human rights, financial institutions) have already taken steps to extend their remit to address the use of AI technologies within their spheres of competence. In this regard, the companion document speaks of “regulatory gaps that must be filled” by a statute such as AIDA as well as the need for the AIDA to integrate “seamlessly with existing Canadian legal frameworks”. Although it is still unclear whether the AIDA will serve only to fill regulatory gaps, or will provide two distinct layers of regulation in some cases, one of the criteria for identifying what constitutes a “high impact” system includes “[t]he degree to which the risks are adequately regulated under another law”. The lack of clarity in the Canadian approach is one of its flaws.

There is a certain attractiveness in the idea of a regulatory approach like that proposed by the UK – one that begins with existing regulators being both specifically directed and further enabled to address AI regulation within their areas of responsibility. As noted earlier, it seems far more agile than Canada’s rather clunky bill. Yet such an approach is much easier to adopt in a unitary state than in a federal system such as Canada’s. In Canada, some of the regulatory gaps are with respect to matters otherwise under provincial jurisdiction. Thus, it is not so simple in Canada to propose to empower and resource all implicated regulators, nor is it as easy to fill gaps once they are identified. These regulators and the gaps between them might fall under the jurisdiction of any one of 13 different governments. The UK acknowledges (and defers) its own challenges in this regard with respect to devolution at paragraph 113 of its white paper, where it states: “We will continue to consider any devolution impacts of AI regulation as the policy develops and in advance of any legislative action”. Instead, the AIDA, Canada leverages its general trade and commerce power in an attempt to provide AI governance that is as comprehensive as possible. It isn’t pretty (since it will not capture all AI innovation that might have impacts on people) but it is part of the reality of the federal state (or the state of federalism) in which we find ourselves.

This post is the fifth in a series on Canada’s proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act in Bill C-27. It considers the federal government’s constitutional authority to enact this law, along with other roles it might have played in regulating AI in Canada. Earlier posts include ones on the purpose and application of the AIDA; regulated activities; the narrow scope of the concepts of harm and bias in the AIDA and oversight and protection.

AI is a transformative technology that has the power to do amazing things, but which also has the potential to cause considerable harm. There is a global clamour to regulate AI in order to mitigate potential negative effects. At the same time, AI is seen as a driver of innovation and economies. Canada’s federal government wants to support and nurture Canada’s thriving AI sector while at the same time ensuring that there is public trust in AI. Facing similar issues, the EU introduced a draft AI Act, which is currently undergoing public debate and discussion (and which itself was the product of considerable consultation). The US government has just proposed its Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, and has been developing policy frameworks for AI, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management Framework. The EU and the US approaches are markedly different. Interestingly, in the US (which, like Canada, is a federal state) there has been considerable activity at the state level on AI regulation. Serious questions for Canada include what to do about AI, how best to do it – and who should do it.

In June 2022, the federal government introduced the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) in Bill C-27. The AIDA takes the form of risk regulation; in other words, it is meant to anticipate and mitigate AI harms to the public. This is an ex ante approach; it is intended to address issues before they become problems. The AIDA does not provide personal remedies or recourses if anyone is harmed by AI – this is left for ex post regimes (ones that apply after harm has occurred). These will include existing recourses such as tort law (extracontractual civil liability in Quebec), and complaints to privacy, human rights or competition commissioners.

I have addressed some of the many problems I see with the AIDA in earlier posts. Here, I try to unpack issues around the federal government’s constitutional authority to enact this bill. It is not so much that they lack jurisdiction (although they might); rather, how they understand their jurisdiction can shape the nature and substance of the bill they are proposing. Further, the federal government has acted without any consultation on the AIDA prior to its surprising insertion in Bill C-27. Although it promises consultation on the regulations that will follow, this does not make up for the lack of discussion around how we should identify and address the risks posed by AI. This rushed bill is also shaped by constitutional constraints – it is AI regulation with structural limitations that have not been explored or made explicit.

Canada is a federal state, which means that the powers typically exercised by a nation state are divided between a federal and regional governments. In theory, federalism allows for regional differences to thrive within an overarching framework. However, some digital technology issues (including data protection and AI) fit uneasily within Canada’s constitutional framework. In proposing the Consumer Privacy Protection Act part of Bill C-27, for example, the federal government appears to believe that it does not have the jurisdiction to address data protection as a matter of human rights – this belief has impacted the substance of the bill.

In Canada, the federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law, trade and commerce, banking, navigation and shipping, as well as other areas where it makes more sense to have one set of rules than to have ten. The cross-cutting nature of AI, the international competition to define the rules of the game, and the federal government’s desire to take a consistent national approach to its regulation are all factors that motivated the inclusion of the AIDA in Bill C-27. The Bill’s preamble states that “the design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems across provincial and international borders should be consistent with national and international standards to protect individuals from potential harm”. Since we do not yet have national or international standards, the law will also enable the creation (and imposition) of standards through regulation.

The preamble’s reference to the crossing of borders signals both that the federal government is keenly aware of its constitutional limitations in this area and that it intends to base its jurisdiction on the interprovincial and international dimensions of AI. The other elements of Bill C-27 rely on the federal general trade and commerce power – this follows the approach taken in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which is reformed by the first two parts of C-27. There are indications that trade and commerce is also relevant to the AIDA. Section 4 of the AIDA refers to the goal of regulating “international and interprovincial trade and commerce in artificial intelligence systems by establishing common requirements applicable across Canada, for the design, development and use of those systems.” Yet the general trade and commerce power is an uneasy fit for the AIDA. The Supreme Court of Canada has laid down rules for the exercise of this power, and one of these is that it should not be used to regulate a single industry; a legislative scheme should regulate trade as a whole.

The Minister of Industry, in discussing Canada’s AI strategy has stated:

Artificial intelligence is a key part of our government’s plan to make our economy stronger than ever. The second phase of the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy will help harness the full potential of AI to benefit Canadians and accelerate trustworthy technology development, while fostering diversity and cooperation across the AI domain. This collaborative effort will bring together the knowledge and expertise necessary to solidify Canada as a global leader in artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Clearly, the Minister is casting the role of AI as an overall economic transformer rather than a discrete industry. Nevertheless, although it might be argued that AI is a technology that cuts across all sectors of the economy, the AIDA applies predominantly to its design and development stages, which makes it look as if it targets a particular industry. Further, although PIPEDA (and the CPPA in the first Part of Bill C-27), are linked to trade and commerce through the transactional exchange of personal data – typically when it is collected from individuals in the course of commercial activity – the AIDA is different. Its regulatory requirements are meant to apply before any commercial activity takes place –at the design and development stage. This is worth pausing over because design and development stages may be non-commercial (in university-based research, for example) or may be purely intra-provincial. As a result, the need to comply with a law at the design and development stage, when that law is premised on interprovincial or international commercial activity, may only be discovered well after commercialization becomes a reality.

Arguably, AI might also be considered a matter of ‘national concern’ under the federal government’s residual peace, order and good government power. Matters of national concern that would fall under this power would be ones that did not exist at the time of confederation. The problem with addressing AI in this way is that it is simply not obvious that provinces could not enact legislation to govern AI – as many states have begun to do in the US.

Another possible constitutional basis is the federal criminal law power. This is used, for example, in the regulation of certain matters relating to health such as tobacco, food and drugs, medical devices and controlled substances. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that this power “is broad, and is circumscribed only by the requirements that the legislation must contain a prohibition accompanied by a penal sanction and must be directed at a legitimate public health evil”. The AIDA contains some prohibitions and provides for both administrative monetary penalties (AMPs). Because the AIDA focuses on “high impact” AI systems, there is an argument that it is meant to target and address those systems that have the potential to cause the most harm to health or safety. (Of course, the bill does not define “high impact” systems, so this is only conjecture.) Yet, although AMPs are available in cases of egregious non-compliance with the AIDA’s requirements, AMPs are not criminal sanctions, they are “a civil (rather than quasi-criminal) mechanism for enforcing compliance with regulatory requirements”, as noted in a report from the Ontario Attorney-General. That leaves a smattering of offences such as obstructing the work of the Minister or of auditors; knowingly designing, developing or using an AI system where the data were obtained as a result of an offence under another Act; being reckless as to whether the use of an AI system made available by the accused is likely to cause harm to an individual, and using AI intentionally to defraud the public and cause substantial economic loss to an individual. Certainly, such offences are criminal in nature and could be supported by the federal criminal law power. Yet they are easily severable from the rest of the statute. For the most part, the AIDA focuses on “establishing common requirements applicable across Canada, for the design, development and use of [AI] systems” (AIDA, s. 4).

The provinces have not been falling over themselves to regulate AI, although neither have they been entirely inactive. Ontario, for example, has been developing a framework for the public sector use of AI, and Quebec has enacted some provisions relating to automated decision-making systems in its new data protection law. Nevertheless, these steps are clearly not enough to satisfy a federal government anxious to show leadership in this area. It is thus unsurprising that Canada’s federal government has introduced legislation to regulate AI. What is surprising is that they have done so without consultation – either regarding the form of the intervention or the substance. We have yet to have an informed national conversation about AI. Further, legislation of this kind was only one option. The government could have consulted and convened experts to develop something along the lines of the US’s NIST Framework that could be adopted as a common standard/approach across jurisdictions in Canada. A Canadian framework could have been supported by the considerable work on standards already ongoing. Such an approach could have involved the creation of an agency under the authority of a properly-empowered Data Commissioner to foster co-operation in the development of national standards. This could have supported the provinces in the harmonized regulation of AI. Instead, the government has chosen to regulate AI itself through a clumsy bill that staggers uneasily between constitutional heads of power, and that leaves its normative core to be crafted in a raft of regulations that may take years to develop. It also leaves it open to the first company to be hit with an AMP to challenge the constitutionality of the framework as a whole.