The $2.4 billion artificial intelligence (AI) package included in the 2024 federal budget is a positive step for Canada's AI ecosystem, but maintaining a competitive advantage in this space will take more than dollars. is required. It is important that funding is aligned with the federal AI regulatory landscape. If passed, Canada's proposed AI bill (Part 3 of Bill C-27) would unintentionally limit corporate investment and adoption.
And at a time when Canada's productivity lag and global competitiveness have reached such an extreme that the Bank of Canada has declared the situation a national emergency, Canadian businesses cannot afford to sideline the adoption of artificial intelligence.
While there is no question that governments have a clear role to play in protecting the public through thoughtful AI legislation, Bill C-27 provides Canada with a clear mandate for AI regulation that balances the risks and benefits of AI. We need to provide a clear legislative model. Currently, this is not the case.
In March, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Industry submitted a letter on behalf of its members to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology with recommendations for amendments to Bill C-27. Here are his five recommended fixes.
Provide a clear definition of a “high impact system”
It is important that the bill include a definition of “high-impact system” rather than using a broad classification approach that relies on scenarios and use cases. Some of the scenarios and use cases involve “low-impact” systems.
Clear definitions provide companies with certainty about their obligations.
The bill defines high-impact to focus on consequential uses that result in significant, legal, or similarly significant harm to housing, employment, credit, education, health care, criminal justice, or insurance. There is a need to.
Don't regulate general purpose AI (GPAI) systems based on your understanding of their current capabilities.
Because the risks of GPAI systems are context-dependent, mitigation strategies must also be context-dependent.
Developers of GPAI systems cannot foresee all possible uses of their products and the associated risks. Downstream users are in a better position to comply with obligations that arise. Bill C-27 should regulate her GPAI based on its role in the supply chain.
It is important that our laws recognize that the full scope of AI and all of its possible applications is not yet known. By designing technology-neutral, risk- and principles-based legislation, we can create sustainable regulations that apply equally to emerging technologies, even in times of rapid change.
What does “principled” mean?
Using high-level general statements/principles — rather
It is not a specific rule, but applies to a wide range of areas.
Understand the situation and focus on the outcome.
Ensure collaboration with international trading partners
Work on AI is happening at a global level. It is in Canada's best interest not to rush into enacting legislation that could put it out of step with its major trading partners.
Bill C-27 would ensure that future regulations comply with international AI governance standards and improve interoperability (where a product/system can collaborate with, exchange with, or utilize information from another product/system) for Canadian companies abroad. It should be clearly stated that it should be promoted.
Clarify the scope of criminal liability
Canada is the only country to include criminal liability in its AI laws.
This is a significant departure from international standards. Bill C-27 should make clear that there will be criminal liability for intentional and malicious use of AI systems for bodily harm or serious fraud. This will not only allow Canada to take the lead in addressing the use of AI systems for intentional harm, but also ensure that investments in AI are not inhibited by perceived and increased operational risk. You can
Remove remote access privileges
Minister Champagne's amendments to Bill C-27 propose provisions that would give the government broad powers to remotely access the IT systems of companies in Canada and abroad.
This provision raises serious concerns regarding corporate espionage and cybersecurity. Regardless of the Canadian government's intentions with this legal power, if passed, the law would set a worrying precedent for governments overseas, especially those with problematic human rights records.
What does this mean for your business?
If Bill C-27 is not amended, it will unintentionally limit investment and adoption of AI by businesses of all sizes, further hampering Canada's already stagnant productivity levels.
At present, the bill does not provide sufficient certainty and clarity regarding definition, application, or even criminal liability, making it difficult, complex, and risky for companies to integrate AI into their operations. It has become.
AI, especially generative AI, has the potential to help solve Canada's productivity problems and provide direct business benefits, such as accelerating the development of creative content and automating tasks without reducing headcount. The federal government should not rush to enact AI legislation. I will pass it on as is. Especially if we have the time to get it right for the benefit of all Canadians.
Read the full text of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's letter here.
