Back
McInnes Cooper Key Lessons
webmcinnescooper.com·mcinnescooper.com/publications/the-demise-of-the-artifici...
Relevant to AI governance practitioners and policymakers studying why national AI legislation fails; offers Canada-specific lessons applicable to other jurisdictions attempting comprehensive AI regulatory frameworks.
Metadata
Importance: 42/100organizational reportanalysis
Summary
This legal analysis examines the failure of Canada's proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which died when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025. It draws five key lessons from AIDA's collapse about the challenges of legislating AI governance, including the need for stakeholder engagement, regulatory clarity, and adaptive frameworks.
Key Points
- •AIDA failed to pass before Parliament's prorogation, leaving Canada without dedicated federal AI legislation and creating regulatory uncertainty.
- •Lesson: Early and meaningful stakeholder consultation is critical; AIDA faced criticism for insufficient industry and civil society engagement during drafting.
- •Lesson: Overly broad or vague definitions in AI legislation create compliance uncertainty and invite opposition from both industry and rights advocates.
- •Lesson: AI legislation must balance innovation promotion with risk mitigation, as perception of bias toward either can doom political support.
- •Lesson: Adaptive regulatory mechanisms (e.g., delegated regulations) are necessary given AI's rapid evolution, but must include sufficient accountability safeguards.
Cited by 1 page
| Page | Type | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) | Policy | 46.0 |
Cached Content Preview
HTTP 200Fetched Mar 20, 202642 KB
[Skip to main content](https://www.mcinnescooper.com/publications/the-demise-of-the-artificial-intelligence-and-data-act-aida-5-key-lessons/#main)
Perspectives
# The Demise of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA): 5 Key Lessons
#### Published:
March 3, 2025
#### Author(s):
- [David Fraser](https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser/)
- [Sarah Anderson Dykema, CIPP/C, CIPM, AIGP](https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/sarah-anderson-dykema-cipp-c/)
#### Share
[](https://twitter.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcinnescooper.com%2Fpublications%2Fthe-demise-of-the-artificial-intelligence-and-data-act-aida-5-key-lessons%2F&text=The%20Demise%20of%20the%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20and%20Data%20Act%20(AIDA):%205%20Key%20Lessons) [Print](https://www.mcinnescooper.com/publications/the-demise-of-the-artificial-intelligence-and-data-act-aida-5-key-lessons/#)
On January 5, 2025, the prorogation of the Canadian Parliament effectively terminated all bills pending in the House of Commons – including Bill C-27 and the proposed and controversial Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) contained in it. The inclusion of AIDA in Bill C-27, which principally focused on privacy law reform, was seen as a big surprise to many. That AIDA wasn’t preceded by any significant consultation with industry or civil society groups was seen as a serious issue by many. But despite AIDA’s demise, it’s inevitable a future Canadian government will seek to pass legislation regulating artificial intelligence. There are lessons a future government doing so can learn from the, at times heated, debate over AIDA; here are five key ones.
**1\. Find Real Harmony**
The rhetoric around AIDA was that it sought to harmonize Canadian AI regulation with that of our international trading partners. But AIDA did not do that. For example, its definitions of high-risk/high-impact systems and their treatment didn’t align with what Canada’s international trading partners are doing. For example, deeming generative, general purpose AI products as automatically “high-risk” was radically out of step with what’s going on in the rest of the world, pulling Canada further away from developing international norms. Similar (but different) terminology and definitions doesn’t make laws compatible.
Future AI legislation should be compatible with legislation such as Europe’s Artificial Intelligence Act. Ideally, it should also allow mutual recognition of compliance so Canadian companies can easily enter the European market and vice-versa.
**2\. Don’t Exclude Government**
AIDA’s categorical exclusion of the government from AI regulation was dangerous. In stark contrast to relationships between citizens and private sector businesses, the relationships between citizens and their governments are non-voluntary. A citizen, if unsatisfied with the use of AI by their government, can’t choose an alternative. The “government” includes
... (truncated, 42 KB total)Resource ID:
d44db02ed7d5d717 | Stable ID: MzM2YjJjMj