Ottawa AI Transparency Consultation Closes Sept. 23 Amid Deepfake Fraud Surge
Canadian organisations have until September 23, 2026 to tell Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada how artificial-intelligence systems should disclose what they are and what they can do. The federal consultation, opened in July by AI Minister Evan Solomon, covers five tracks: detecting AI-generated content, signalling when a person is speaking to a machine, standardising model documentation, recording serious incidents, and tracking what AI agents do when they act on a user’s behalf.
Filed under Policy and dated September 16, 2026, this AI4Canada briefing treats the closing window as governance news rather than finished statute. ISED’s discussion paper cites a KPMG survey in which nearly three-quarters of large Canadian businesses reported losing between one and five percent of annual profits to AI-powered fraud, with deepfaked documents and executive voice clones among the most common attacks. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre similarly notes generative tools in investment scams.
Why it matters: Canadian firms already run customer chatbots and agentic tools that can spend money, while voluntary codes remain hard to enforce. A transparency regime can raise the floor—but only if labelling, incident logs, and agent audit trails are practical for mid-market operators, not just hyperscalers.
What it means in practice
Canadian compliance and product leaders should inventory customer-facing AI and agent workflows before the deadline; confirm whether submissions would disclose sensitive architecture; assign an owner for deepfake and disclosure playbooks; run time-boxed gap analyses against the five consultation themes; and prefer vendors who accept logging export. Place the debate beside Canada’s Responsible Data Centre Development Principles and the National AI Literacy Initiative rather than treating transparency as a standalone slogan.
Caveats come first. Consultations can yield voluntary codes instead of binding rules; Bills C-36 and C-34 remain separate tracks; and “What We Heard” timing is uncommitted. AI4Canada therefore presents the September 23 close as directional policy context until concrete instruments appear.
What to watch next: volume and themes of published submissions; whether ISED signals legislation versus standards; and how deepfake-fraud metrics move in the next KPMG cycle. Readers tracking Carney’s global technology stability board pitch can continue on the AI4Canada homepage, or browse the Newsroom for additional briefings.
Bottom line: treat this update as orientation, not instruction. Canadian AI transparency talks are real, urgent for fraud-hit firms, and still early. Organizations that benefit most will file precise feedback now, measure disclosure costs honestly, and refuse to confuse a consultation deadline with settled law.