The government’s consultation on AI transparency closed yesterday. My submission builds on appearances before the House of Commons Industry committee, the Senate Transport and Communications committee, and the Senate Social Affairs committee, and recommends an AI Transparency Act built on three pillars: mandatory public disclosure of AI corporate safety and escalation policies, an issue I raised in the aftermath of Tumbler Ridge, transparency on the works included in AI training data, and annual transparency reports on government and law enforcement demands for user data. It addresses each of the discussion paper’s five areas, including why Bill C-36 (the government’s privacy reform bill) is unlikely to facilitate better transparency in automated decision-making before at least 2030 and why Bill C-34’s synthetic content labelling obligation does not fully address the issue of identifying such content that can mislead. The full submission is posted below.
Post Tagged with: "ai"
From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India
The Delhi High Court has released what may be one of the most consequential copyright decisions yet on artificial intelligence, ruling in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI that OpenAI’s use of copyrighted news articles to train the models behind ChatGPT is prima facie fair dealing. The 135-page decision of Justice Amit Bansal, released last week, dismissed an Indian news agency’s application for an interim injunction, and while it is expressly not a final ruling on the merits, it features valuable analysis of the copyright implications of machine research, market harm and the public interest. The case is particularly notable from a Canadian perspective since it is the 2004 landmark CCH Supreme Court of Canada copyright case that provides the decision’s fair dealing foundation.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Bill C-36 Modernizes Canada’s Privacy Law, Then Delays It to 2030
Canada’s private sector privacy law is more than 25 years old and there is broad consensus that a modernization is long overdue. Bill C-36, tabled on Monday, is the government’s third attempt at updating the law, following the failed efforts with Bill C-11 in 2020 and Bill C-27 in 2022. My first post on the new bill focused on what I think remains both the most important development and the biggest mistake: the decision to push the Privacy Commissioner of Canada out of private-sector privacy and to place the file with an overloaded digital safety commission. For years, privacy critics have argued that, given the absence of order-making powers or serious penalties, Canada’s biggest shortcoming has been weak enforcement. Yet just as the government adds much-needed new rights and penalties to the privacy law framework, it undermines enforcement once again by introducing a new regulator that will take years to establish. The consequence is that, rather than updating the law for 2027, it is updating it for 2030 or later.
AI for All, Details to Follow: Government Releases a Big-Spending AI Strategy That Is Still Short on the Specifics That Matter
The government today released its much-anticipated national AI strategy, an ambitious plan featuring a myriad of new programs and initiatives to support AI adoption. The strategy emphasizes trust, framing its approach as “AI for All.” Spending dominates the announcement, with money sprinkled across the economy as the government bets on the economic returns that flow from widespread AI adoption. Yet spending money is the easy part. What stands out is the deferral of many of the hard policy choices. The government has no plans for AI-specific regulation, instead relying on updated privacy rules and a reintroduction of online safety legislation. AI Minister Evan Solomon started the process by noting that the prior government had “over-indexed” on regulatory plans, and that perspective remains largely unchanged. There are real risks in bad legislation (see yesterday’s reset of the Online Streaming Act), but the Canadian government will never outspend the market on AI. For the Canadian government, supporting AI development must primarily involve creating the legal and regulatory frameworks that facilitate investment, trust, and adoption, and deferring the hard choices to later does not help.
Why Social Media and AI Chatbot Bans for Kids Are Bad Policy: Making the Case at the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Tech Committee
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is one of several committees in the House and Senate conducting hearings on artificial intelligence. I appeared before the committee yesterday (my fourth appearance on the issue in recent months), but rather than reiterate previous testimony on privacy, copyright, and transparency, I focused on the big issue of the moment: bans on social media and AI chatbots for children. The committee had been hearing from many supportive witnesses who emphasized the risk of harm associated with AI. Indeed, one Senator asked the panel before mine to raise their hands if they supported a ban, and virtually all hands went up. I was unsure about how my comments would be received, but I found the Senators open to debate on the issue. A video of my opening remarks, together with the transcript, is posted below. A future Law Bytes podcast episode will delve into the discussion that followed.
Recent Posts
A Definition That Meets the Moment: Federal Government Recognizes Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism 
Nobody Can Say They Weren’t Warned: Canada’s Threat Assessments Predicted the Belleville Yom Kippur Attack 
An AI Transparency Act for Canada: My Submission to the Government’s AI Transparency Consultation 
Not If, But When: The Yom Kippur Terror Attack in Belleville 
A Canary’s Song: What Antisemitism Reveals About the Health of Canadian Democracy
