Canada is at the forefront of addressing the proliferation and pace of artificial intelligence (AI) development, but as the government seeks to regulate this rapidly advancing technology, concerns are growing over the need for an independent AI Commissioner. Civil society organizations and researchers have expressed the importance of establishing an independent officer to oversee AI technology’s use in the private sector, separate from the government’s Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) department. This move comes in response to Bill C-27, also known as the Digital Charter Implementation Act, which includes new regulations for businesses’ use of AI.
Challenges with Bill C-27
In an open letter addressed to François-Philippe Champagne, the Minister responsible for ISED, a coalition of civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, expressed their concerns about Bill C-27. They highlighted the bill’s definitional gaps and the lack of consultation before its tabling.
Privacy and AI regulations
One of the key issues raised in the open letter was the amalgamation of privacy and AI regulations within the same bill. The signatories argued that these two crucial areas should be considered separately, emphasizing the need for a distinct process for AI regulation. They also recommended recognizing privacy as a fundamental human right and expanding AI regulation to include the public sector, including government agencies.
Code of conduct for AI in Canada
Minister François-Philippe Champagne introduced a voluntary code of conduct for the use of advanced generative AI systems in Canada to address growing concerns about AI development and usage. This code complements Bill C-27 and aims to build safety and trust as AI technology advances. Tech companies in Canada, including OpenText and Cohere, pledged to adopt these self-imposed guardrails.
Government vs. private sector legislation
Benoit Deshaies, Director of Data and Artificial Intelligence for the Office of the Chief Data Officer of Canada noted that Bill C-27 does not apply to federal government operations, distinguishing how AI is regulated in government versus the private sector. Christelle Tessono, a technology policy researcher, argued that this discrepancy should be addressed to ensure accountability across all sectors.
Tackling AI commissioner independence
One of the central concerns regarding AI regulation in Canada is the independence of the proposed AI Commissioner. The level of independence granted to this officer will significantly impact their ability to conduct audits and enforce the AI regulations effectively. Currently, the bill does not detail the commissioner’s powers, leading to opacity in the accountability system.
Comparative approaches
Tessono highlighted that both the United States and Europe are developing independent approaches to AI regulation. The United States is empowering the existing Federal Trade Commissioner to oversee policy with additional staff, while Europe is establishing the European Artificial Intelligence Board, composed of representatives from each European Union member state. In Canada, Tessono suggested that it would be most beneficial for the Privacy Commissioner to take on parts of the AI Commissioner’s role, with a dedicated office responsible for understanding privacy and human rights impacts related to AI usage.
Solutions for independence
Several solutions have been proposed to ensure the independence of the AI Commissioner role. One option is creating a new tribunal that enforces the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. Alternatively, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner could assume the role of regulator, provided they have the appropriate powers to investigate, conduct audits, and impose fines.
As Canada grapples with regulating artificial intelligence and its impact on privacy and human rights, establishing an independent AI Commissioner has become a pressing issue. Civil society organizations, researchers, and legal experts are advocating for the separation of AI oversight from government departments like ISED to ensure that the regulation of AI prioritizes human rights and transparency over private interests. As the House of Commons Industry and Technology Committee begins its study of Bill C-27, the call for an independent AI Commissioner remains a central point of discussion in shaping Canada’s AI regulatory landscape.
