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.
Post Tagged with: "solomon"
New Privacy Rights in the Morning, Mandatory Metadata Retention in the Afternoon: How Bill C-22 Undercuts the AI Strategy Before It Launches
The government unveils its long-awaited national AI strategy this morning. AI Minister Evan Solomon has made it clear that the strategy will emphasize trust, noting that Canadians will only embrace the technology if they are confident their privacy is protected and safeguards are in place against potential harms. The privacy assurances are likely to take the form of a new private-sector privacy bill that includes European-style rules, stronger penalties, and recognizing privacy as a fundamental right. The government has proposed as much before, adding fundamental-rights language to the Consumer Privacy Protection Act in Bill C-27 before that bill died on the order paper. But the government is, at the same time, pressuring the public safety committee to pass Bill C-22, whose mandatory metadata retention regime is the single largest privacy risk in Canada in years and one that comparable countries have already struck down as a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The disconnect is dizzying: the government cannot claim privacy as a fundamental right in the morning and enact mandatory metadata retention that overrides it in the afternoon.
Digital Self-Sabotage: Why Canada’s AI Strategy Is Set to Fail Before it Even Launches
The Canadian government’s long-awaited and much-needed AI strategy is finally set to be unveiled this week, with AI minister Evan Solomon promising a plan that prioritizes AI adoption, investment, and regulatory guardrails to enhance trust, privacy and safety. My Globe and Mail op-ed argues the strategy seems doomed to fail, even before it is released, with the government’s own digital policies working against it. An astonishing series of developments in recent weeks amount to digital self-sabotage, leaving global technology giants alarmed and Canadian tech companies openly considering leaving the country.
Why the Online Harms Act is the Wrong Way to Regulate AI Chatbots
In the wake of reports that AI Minister Evan Solomon may press AI companies such as OpenAI to more aggressively report potential safety risks identified in private chats to law enforcement, attention has quickly turned to the Online Harms Act as a potential regulatory solution. The Online Harms Act or Bill C-63, died on the order paper last year, but is expected to return in some form in the coming months. Given that the Act is tailor made to address online harms, it isn’t surprising that some would suggest that it could be expanded to cover AI chatbots.
Yet the law was deliberately designed to avoid doing what politicians want the AI companies to do as it expressly exempted private communications and proactive monitoring from its scope. Indeed, applying the Online Harms Act to AI chatbots would not simply extend existing online safety rules to a new technology. It would require dismantling core privacy safeguards which were added after the government’s earlier online harms proposal faced widespread criticism for encouraging platform monitoring and rapid reporting to law enforcement. In effect, proposals to use online harms to regulate AI chatbots risks reviving many of the same surveillance concerns that forced the government back to the drawing board just a few years ago.
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots
My Globe and Mail op-ed begins by noting that AI Minister Evan Solomon summoned executives from OpenAI to Ottawa last week to explain why the company declined to alert police that it had flagged the account of Jesse Van Rootselaar, the Tumbler Ridge shooter who killed eight people earlier this month. The company stopped short of warning authorities, concluding that the account activity did not meet its standard of an “imminent and credible risk of serious physical harm to others.” After the meeting, Mr. Solomon expressed disappointment with OpenAI, saying the company had not presented “substantial new safety protocols.” Justice Minister Sean Fraser said it expects OpenAI to make changes, or else the government would step in to regulate artificial intelligence companies.
The desire to hold someone responsible for the potential prevention of the Tumbler Ridge tragedy is understandable. Add in the mounting pressure for AI regulation, and OpenAI makes for a perfect target for blame and threats of government action. Yet holding AI chatbots liable for reporting to police what users privately post in their conversations creates its own risks, undermining privacy and effectively encouraging heightened corporate surveillance.
Recent Posts
Everything All At Once: Bill C-34 Combines Platform Duties, a Kids’ Social Media Ban, AI Chatbot Regulation, and a Powerful Digital Safety Commission Into a Risky “Trust Us” Bet 
Yet Another Trade Battle Brewing: Why a Kids’ Social Media Ban Could Put Canada on a Collision Course With the U.S. 
Everything You Wanted to Know About a Kids’ Social Media Ban (But Were Rightly Afraid to Ask): A FAQ on Age Verification and Mandated ID for Everyone 
Bill C-22’s Clause-by-Clause Problem: The Government Includes Agencies Seeking Lawful Access Powers But Blocks the Privacy Commissioner’s Return 
You Can’t Put the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Why the Government’s Reported “Temporary” Plan for a Kids’ Social Media Ban Would Mean Mandated ID for Everyone
