Quebec, E.U., provide templates for AI rules: INDU committee told

Canada should look to other jurisdictions when it comes to regulating artificial intelligence, the House of Commons Industry Committee was told Thursday. The panel is examining Bill C-27, which encompasses the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA), the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act (PIDPTA) and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA). Five lawyers appeared as individuals, not as representatives of their respective firms. They said federal lawmakers should look at Quebec’s Bill 25, the Data Protection Act, and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as examples of how to get regulations right. Quebec’s law was influenced by the GDPR, which in turn had Bloc Québécois MP René Villemure as a consultant before he entered politics. Both the Data Protection Act and the GDPR set higher standards for data protection than what is currently found in C-27. Standards for consent are much greater. “To the extent that Canada can harmonize with other key jurisdictions where it makes sense for us to do so, we should,” Carole Piovesan of INQ Law told the committee. Her fellow witness, François Joli-Coeur of Borden Ladner Gervais, echoed those sentiments when he said provisions of the bill should be interoperable with the Quebec and EU legislation. David Young of David Young Law testified that anonymized data requires explicit explanations of what is and is not covered under the law. “In its law 25, Quebec got it right in this area,” he said. “I recommend aligning with Quebec’s approach which stipulates that the generally accepted best practices for anonymization should be those set out in appropriate regulations.” Alexander Max Jarvie of Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg stated that time is of the essence as advances in AI become commonplace. “Together these developments hold great promise for future innovation, but also carry significant risks such as risks of privacy, risks of discrimination and risks relating to other harms,” he opined. “I am therefore encouraged that a bill has been introduced that seeks to address these risks while supporting innovation.” He worried that the definition of AI contained in the bill is overbroad. He recommended using the same criteria as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Piovesan noted the urgency of new laws. “Complex as these systems are, they are not perfect and they are not neutral,” she said. “They are being developed at such a speed that those on the front lines of development are some of the loudest voices calling for some regulation.” One of the bill’s key failings is in its determination of exemptions for use of deidentified and anonymized data, according to Scott Lamb of Clark Wilson. Canada’s rather mild approach is to categorize them as stand alone rights. That’s not good enough, Lamb believes. “A stand alone right generally is not as restrictively interpreted by the courts as an exception to an obligation from a purely statutory interpretation point of view,” he explained. “In short, the legitimate interest exception is likely to be a narrower provision in scope than the GDPR’s legitimate interests provisions.” There was much comment on the legislation’s suggestion that the PIDPTA commissioner should be an employee of the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) rather than a Parliamentary Officer, like the Auditor General or the Privacy Commissioner. “However since the scope of what is being left to regulation is so extensive, the creation of an independent regulator to administer and enforce AIDA will counterbalance skepticism concerning the relative lack of parliamentary oversight and thereby help to install trust in the overall regulatory scheme,” Jarvie stated. Lamb said making the commissioner a parliamentary officer is necessary to reflect due process and natural justice. Joli-Coeur remarked that the bill should be more flexible to ensure reasonableness in its provisions. “Despite the criticisms leveled at the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, the bill has the advantage of advocating for a flexible approach over certain key notions that should be set out in the Act rather than by regulation,” he stated in a translation from the original French. He said regulations are going to cover specific AI applications. Without those protections, the bill could be outdated even as it passes into law. Lamb asserted that the legislation is needed because of global dangers in the AI world. Canada and its allies are regularly under assault from malicious players, some connected to other governments, others independent. Young called for risk analysis of the dangers of reidentification of data. All deidentified data should be considered personal information, he concluded. –Reporting by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca and editing by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca

Quebec, E.U., provide templates for AI rules: INDU committee told

News | November 10, 2023

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Quebec, E.U., provide templates for AI rules: INDU committee told

News | November 10, 2023

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telesat deal good for Canada, Champagne tells INDU committee

Coordinated effort is ‘essential’ in tackling AI policy issues, says Canadian Digital Regulators Forum

Competition summit hears regulation, keeping talent at home are key to Canada’s standing on artificial intelligence

Online harms and more in focus as Parliament returns

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us