Welcome to our series on examining different political party platforms in Canada. We are starting with the Green Party.
It is election season once again. As a result, we are going through the different political party platforms through the lens of digital rights and technology. This is the third election we are doing this on as well. We previously did that in 2019 and again in 2021. This election has been short and there has been a lot going on in the world, but we are at least keeping our promise for this election as well.
We begin our series of platform analysis by checking out the Green Party. Their platform can be found on their website. Alternatively, you can check out their platform here (PDF).
So, with that, we dive right in to see what the party says.
On page 26, we do see this:
We believe that fostering technological innovation and leading-edge research is vital for Canada’s future. If we hope to overcome the many challenges we’re facing — including the climate crisis, the nationwide crunch in healthcare, and the evolving landscape of international competition — we’ll need to rely on a healthy and robust community of scientific researchers and technologists. Fortunately, government can have a hand in nurturing these communities. Our Innovation Policy prioritizes a return of support for Canadian research and development.
At the very least, this is a good start. Bonus points for mentioning “technologists” at least since this is basically the field we are in. If that sound patronizing, well, don’t feel too offended because we’ve learned from previous election years to set the bar REALLY low as concerns people like us raise so frequently get left behind and forgotten even though our concerns concern a huge part of our daily lives.
On page 27, we see this:
Develop flexible IP licensing tools and provide discounted federally funded IP for Canadian firms to strengthen Canada’s innovation ecosystem.
Honestly, I have no problem with this. If the Canadian government is using taxpayer’s money to conduct research, this should be readily accessible to the public afterwards since it was the taxpayers funded this stuff in the first place. For example, licensing content under a Creative Commons license would be huge for others.
What’s more, this was later echoed with this bullet point:
Mandate open access for publicly funded research, following Europe’s “Plan S” model to make science freely available.
On page 28, we also note this bullet point:
Require Statistics Canada to conduct an annual technology survey to track innovation trends and investment needs
This is similar to the previous two points and, like I said, I think it’s a fine thing.
On page 29, we see the following:
Our policy is focused on building a more resilient and equitable economy for all by supporting small business. We will expand access to capital for startups and small- and medium-sized enterprises. We will reduce the paperwork burden on small businesses and streamline tax reporting. Our policies will encourage the continued transition to a green economy through financial support for local startups and clean tech adoption. And we’re committed to an equitable economy — one that lifts up every Canadian. Through training and funding initiatives, our policies nurture businesses run by Indigenous,
Black, and women entrepreneurs. And we’ll make sure that small business gets a bigger piece of the federal pie. Under the Green Party, a significant portion of federal contracts will be awarded to small businesses, and businesses owned by underrepresented groups will receive their fair share.Canadian small businesses are the core of our communities. It’s time we gave them the support they deserve, and begin building a more inclusive, green, and prosperous future for all Canadians.
I don’t see anything really wrong with that. I’m OK with this as well.
On Page 30, we see this:
- Invest in Digital and Rural Business Infrastructure.
- Ensure affordable, accessible internet nationwide with investments in broadband expansion for rural businesses.
This has long been a major problem in the world of the telecom industry in Canada. Expanding broadband access in rural and indigenous communities have been long called for, but routinely under-delivered. So often, the providers barely lift a finger when it comes to expanding broadband access. The barrier to connecting to the broader network is often really high. Even when some of these communities band together and pay for the costs of the infrastructure themselves and just require the carrier just flip a switch to activate it as part of the network, there is still resistance. It’s messed up how resistant carriers are to connect the less heavily populated areas. So, I’m glad this got acknowledged that this needs to change in the party platform.
With respect to the first point, this has also been something that has been needed for a while. Many programs out there have a traditional store front in mind. You have a physical location and you sell a physical product or service. If you are online, that’s when the programs start to fall apart. You get the attitude about how the programs weren’t really designed for that. As a result, digital entrepreneurs quickly realize that we have to go it alone. I’ve seen this first hand with the Canada Media Fund as they set ridiculous requirements for online creators and flatly refuse to answer messages from Canadian creators after telling parliamentarians that they are actively looking for them. I don’t know if the Green Party specifically had this in mind when they wrote that, but it’s a broad recognition that this needs to change.
On page 39, we see the following:
Our policies focus on forming diplomatic and economic alliances with democracies around the world. We can no longer rely on America; it’s time to forge partnerships that will protect us from U.S. economic pressure. We must also re-engage in the UN system and increase funding for peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. A stable world is good for Canadians — it protects our economy and ensures our own ongoing peace. And we need to protect ourselves from meddling by hostile nations who would undermine our free and fair elections. The ever-present danger of foreign interference is a real threat to Canadian sovereignty. Our policies introduce measures to protect ourselves from online disinformation campaigns and mandate more transparency in media ownership. We need to know where our news is coming from — and that it reflects Canadian values.
It’s hard to really determine whether this is good or bad. This is because fighting disinformation has always been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there are obvious disinformation campaigns designed to push lies and distort the truth to achieve a nefarious purpose. On the other hand, this starts getting into the territory of the government determining what is true and what is not.
With respect to the latter, we’ve seen how horribly wrong this sort of thinking goes. In the US, Trump is, of course, in power. To that end, he’s been trying to dictate what is truth and what is false (and almost every single time, he’s distorting the truth or outright lying to try and serve his own personal interests). A student, at one point, wrote an op-ed arguing that if students are paying tuition to fund investments of the universities, then they should have a say on where that investments should go. She argued that they should be allowed to say, for instance, that students should be able to say that maybe students should have their input when it comes to investing in firms that are responsible for killing Palestinians.
In response, the Trump administration got a bunch of masked ICE goons to track her down on the streets in an unmarked vehicle and disappeared her for her thought crimes. The Trump administration later vaguely waved their hands and called it “antisemitism”. The mainstream media, being the typical mainstream media, didn’t even bother looking at her writings and just took Trump at face value without questioning it (even though they have damn good reason to double check the claims). It was Orwellian what happened and showcases how the fight to tackle disinformation on the governments part can so easily be corrupted to turn a nation into a fascist state.
On the same page (39), we did see this:
Form a common diplomatic and economic alliance (“economic NATO”) with democracies including EU, UK, Japan, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Mexico, Brazil, and ASEAN nations to counter US economic pressure.
This is exactly what I proposed back in February. It’s really cool seeing my idea making its way into a political party platform. Obviously, I’m happy with that.
On page 40, we saw this:
Mandate transparency in media ownership, requiring full disclosure of foreign interests in major Canadian media outlets.
It’s not a bad proposal, though I would also argue that there should be disclosure for domestic ownership as well. sometimes, that is difficult to determine. I don’t have a problem what is here, just think that it could have gone further.
Then we get this:
Establish a National Cyber Defence Agency, centralizing Canada’s response to digital warfare, cybercrime, and disinformation campaigns.
Again, this is a very difficult needle to thread since we are touching on the government determining what is truth and what isn’t. After all, Trump has repeatedly called for his political opponents to be thrown in jail. This as Trump is cracking down on journalists for not being pro-Trump enough.
So, I would say this as an exercise to determine if this is a good idea or not: picture the political party you hate the most having access to such power. Are you comfortable with that? I would imagine that is, at minimum, an uncomfortable prospect. For example, when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives were in power, there was a push to brand environmental activists as “eco-extremists” and add them to the list of terrorist organizations. Is it really the smartest idea to establish an agency to determine what is and is not “disinformation” that such a political party controls? Yeah, not such a great idea, there, after all.
Moving down to page 111, we see the following:
To safeguard Canadian cultural sovereignty, we will increase public funding for Canadian-owned media, strengthen regulation of digital platforms, and support local journalism with sustained and reliable funding for the Local Journalism Initiative. Finally, we will modernize the Official Languages Act to ensure linguistic equality across Canada
This is the very thing that got the previous government in so much trouble. Specifically, this is in relation to the regulation of digital platforms. The government tried to do this with the Online News Act, Online Streaming Act, and the Digital Services Tax. All three proved to be disastrous attempts. The Online News Act caused considerable damage to the journalism sector with bankruptcies, steep financial losses, and less access to audience. The Online Streaming Act, while currently going through the CRTC, is threatening to soft censor Canadian creators and violate their constitutional right to freedom of expression. Moreover, all three have weakened Canada’s trade position with the US as it violates the USMCA/CUSMA.
It was terrible policy and seeing this mentioned in the platform at all is deeply concerning.
On page 113, we did see this:
Develop a public, community-oriented online service through CBC/ Radio-Canada, offering essential local updates including emergency alerts, fire notifications, and community events, providing an effective alternative to commercial social media platforms.
This is not a bad idea. There’s no reason that the CBC can’t do this. In all honesty, the CBC should be doing this in the first place. The fact that government has been relying on social media to get out warnings and not developing infrastructure to get the word out besides the cell phone alert system (which has been a pretty big mess on implementation for the last few years) is kind of ridiculous.
On page 114, we see the following:
Restrict foreign ownership of Canadian media, introducing clear legislative measures to protect cultural sovereignty, promote ownership diversity, and limit exposure to foreign propaganda or misinformation campaigns.
My immediate question here is what the party means by limiting the exposure of misinformation campaigns. Are we talking about trying to police the internet because that is a fools errand at best (not to mention the pitfalls I’ve already mentioned above). This point is, unfortunately, vague.
Further down on page 114, we see this:
Strengthen CRTC regulation of digital streaming platforms (as outlined in Bill C-10), mandating contributions to Canadian content production and cultural programming.
While the Green Party is referring to Bill C-10, I think what they meant to say is Bill C-11 because Bill C-10 was an earlier prototype of this legislation in the 2019 government. If you believe in digital rights, this point should be a dealbreaker for you. This is because the Online Streaming Act is threatening to implement censorship on online platforms that includes censoring Canadian creators deemed “not Canadian enough”. Trust me, most independent creators fall into that category. With this pledge, the Green Party is basically endorsing the censorship of Canadians online. This over top of making Canada vulnerable to trade retaliation from the US as this bill violates the USMCA/CUSMA as I described earlier.
Also on page 114, we see this:
Modernize and maintain Canadian Content (CanCon) regulations, ensuring they effectively sustain domestic creative industries and Canadian storytelling in a rapidly evolving digital environment.
This is a major crux of the censorship problem of the Online Streaming Act. While this, on the surface, sounds like it clarifies the position, it really does not.
The reason it doesn’t clarify the situation is because there are two trains of thought driving this. On the one side is the establishment media entities who are pushing to make it much more difficult for Canadians to qualify as “Cancon”. They want to further restrict the ability for Canadian to have their voice so they can work towards that captive audience they so highly crave. On the other side are independent creators like me who are calling for the regulations to be loosened so someone like me, a Canadian citizen, can have their content be considered “Cancon”. Which way is the Green Party going with that point? It doesn’t say.
Moving on to page 118, we did see this:
We will protect Canadians by implementing a bold, national framework for artificial intelligence, setting clear standards for ethical use, transparency, and accountability. We will ensure that AI respects the environment, upholds privacy, and is developed with the well-being of all people in mind. No one will be left vulnerable to the unchecked power of technology.
At the very least, there is vague support for better protection of privacy, so that is a plus.
Also on page 118, we see this:
In the digital world, we will hold social media companies accountable, redefining them as publishers and forcing them to take responsibility for the harmful content they allow to spread. We will protect our youth, banning platforms from targeting minors and investing in mental health and digital literacy.
That first sentence in that paragraph is undeniably a train wreck. It shows very vividly that the Green Party doesn’t understand technology.
First of all, such a suggestion violates the USMCA/CUSMA. As explained by CIPPIC in 2020, Canada doesn’t necessarily have a Section 230 protection, but have similar protections under that trade agreement. Unless there is a court order to take down content, then platforms are not automatically liable. It doesn’t mean platforms are automatically immune from all liability, but labelling them automatically liable for the content is legally out of the question.
By redefining the platforms as publishers, then it makes it extremely questionable whether or not the platforms can even operate in Canada at all. As Meta previously showed, platforms can easily live without Canada. The problem is, Canadian’s can’t so easily live without the platforms and the platforms pulling out of Canada would cause considerable damage to the overall economy, let alone what connectedness people have with each other.
The problem here is that moderating user content on the scale seen by platforms is impossible. There’s no waving a magic wand and making “the bad stuff” go away (the fact that different people have different opinions on what constitutes “the bad stuff” alone should be a dead giveaway of this). Can you implement laws that requires platforms to take down obviously illegal content? Sure. The problem is that the Green Party seems to think that the platforms are just not caring about moderation at all and have no intention even though they can make all “the bad stuff” on their platforms magically go away. So, by making them publishers of user generated content, the Green Party thinks that the platforms can finally wave that fabled magic wand and magically disappear all that is bad with the platforms. The only logical response to this idea is to use this meme:
No matter the drivel of some self-proclaimed “experts”, redefining the platforms as publishers of the content that users post is going to solve nothing. Anyone with real knowledge of the internet knows that you aren’t going to somehow manually sift through all the content being posted on an hourly basis and make sure the content is somehow “good”. For YouTube alone, numbers peg the total amount of content being uploaded to 360 hours of video content every minute. If you got a magical solution to manually review every single second of that material, then by all means, propose it in nice painstaking vivid detail. Go ahead, I’m waiting.
As for the second sentence in that paragraph, all I can do is give a heavy frustrated sigh to that. Once again, the green Party is presenting itself as technologically clueless. What the banning of targeting children for advertising touches on is a need for general privacy reform. General privacy reform that deals with this very issue is a more appropriate measure. That way, you can have provisions in law that says that you can choose to consent to online trackers or not. Violators will be heavily fined. If you have something like that, then the proposal of banning targeted advertising to children becomes completely irrelevant because minors can’t give consent to such things. It’s really that simple.
So, as a result of just that proposal, you create two tiers of citizens. Children, who have slightly stronger privacy protection, and adults, who have to put up with even less privacy protection. That doesn’t make any sense at all. I don’t know what the Green Party was thinking when putting that in, but it’s really badly thought out.
On page 119, these horrible ideas were reiterated:
- Legislatively redefine social media companies and digital platforms as “publishers,” making them accountable under common law for content they publish, allowing legal recourse for libel, slander, misinformation, and interference in elections.
- Hold social media platforms accountable for harmful content, ending the protection from liability that platforms currently enjoy, thereby incentivizing responsible moderation and reducing misinformation and harmful algorithmic content.
So, ultimately, doubling down on their stupidity here and showcasing how they don’t understand how the law or technology works in the real world.
There was, however, this point right after:
Require online platforms to enforce clear content moderation standards, ensure transparency in how their algorithms rank and recommend content, and submit to regular independent audits as a condition of operating in Canada
I’m not really sure how requiring online platforms to publish their content moderation standards really changes anything. Platforms have, for decades now, have community guidelines online as well as their terms of service. So, the Green Party is seemingly mandating what the platforms are… already doing?
With respect to the mandates for algorithmic transparency, this has always been a cluster of an issue between the government and the platforms. For years, now, politicians have been whining and complaining about how the algorithmic transparency is so horribly opaque and that there is a need for transparency. So, some of the platforms have long responded by inviting them to their headquarters so they can show them how this all works. The politician’s response? An outright refusal (in some instances, that is laced with accusations of the platforms manipulating the politicians… somehow). Suddenly, they have no interest in platform accountability at all. In that scenario, it is actually very understandable that the platforms are just throwing their hands up in the air on this topic and giving a collective “WTF?” I remember that happening with TikTok specifically. What good are the demands for accountability when you have zero interest in understanding the platforms in the first place?
Further down on page 119, I saw this:
Enshrine digital rights in Canadian law, including protections against online profiling, mass surveillance, and algorithmic discrimination, ensuring that Canadians’ rights are upheld in digital spaces as they are offline.
In this case, while the wording is a little odd, I do agree with this point. We need privacy reform badly in this country. That has been the case for more than a decade now, yet politician’s refuse to pass such legislation in the past multiple governments now. I think the Green Party should have gone further in this regard and say that violators of such privacy laws should be faced with fines from the government. That is a massive weakness in the system where the government can’t issue fines for obvious violations or privacy laws. The only repercussion is a strongly worded letter from the privacy commissioners at most and a “don’t do that again” message. That’s a big reason why Canada has it so bad on the privacy front these days because platforms know they can operate with impunity when it comes to the handling of Canadian’s private information. There are no real consequences of that in Canada.
Also, there was this:
Expand federal investment in civic media and digital literacy programs to equip all Canadians with the critical thinking skills needed to identify misinformation, resist online manipulation, and engage safely in the digital public sphere.
I have no problem with education programs with regard to digital safety and misinformation. So, that’s fine as far as I’m concerned.
On page 120, we see this:
Our national Right to Repair legislation forces manufacturers to provide consumers and independent repair businesses with affordable replacement parts, tools, and repair information. This transformative policy will reduce electronic waste, extend product lifespans, and challenge the built-in obsolescence of modern goods. To support this, we will introduce a federal sustainability index for household appliances and electronics, allowing Canadians to choose products based on repairability, durability, and environmental impact.
One of the few good things to come out of the government in recent years is the passage of right to repair legislation. I know it isn’t perfect, but getting that was like pulling teeth. It’s better than nothing at the very least. Requiring transparency on what can and cannot be repaired would also be useful, so I’m OK with that.
This was further elaborated on page 120:
Enact national Right to Repair legislation requiring manufacturers to provide consumers and independent repair businesses with affordable replacement parts, tools, and repair information, significantly reducing electronic waste and extending product lifespan.
I think this would be music to the ears of the repair community. This especially when combined with this:
Reform Canada’s copyright and intellectual property laws to allow Canadians to bypass digital restrictions for the purpose of repairing, modifying, or repurposing products they own — including US- manufactured devices subject to restrictive firmware or software locks.
DRM has long been an unnecessary barrier to repairing devices. Companies have long been using things like this to make it all but impossible to fix devices and forcing consumers to always buy new. It costs consumers more and contributes to e-waste. It’s very unnecessary and it shows just how greedy manufacturers continue to be. Being able to circumvent a DRM to repair a device should have always been a thing in the first place and I do like the idea that this is being pushed.
The platform also reiterated the transparency proposal:
Introduce a federal sustainability index for household appliances and electronics, enabling consumers to choose products based on repairability, durability, and environmental impact
On page 121, there is, surprisingly, a whole section devoted to digital rights:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND DIGITAL RIGHTS
- Enact regulations ensuring affordable universal internet access and increased competition in cellular and broadband services.
- Require clear, transparent contracts from telecom providers, with enforceable penalties for misleading or unfair contract terms.
- Enforce strict data privacy protections against misuse by foreign corporations.
I have no problem with any of those points. It’s a little vague as to how the heck the Green Party intends on accomplishing these things, but it’s something.
Universal access to the internet an cellular service has long been something that needed to happen. Cracking down on unfair contracts from telecom providers has long been needed as well. Privacy reform, again, has long been badly needed in general. So, at least those points were good.
Conclusions
So, there you have it. Our rundown on what we’ve seen in the Green Party platform for 2025. Here are the quick points that we found:
The Good
- Supports strengthening privacy laws through privacy reform (they don’t say privacy reform specifically for some reason)
- Supports strengthening right to repair laws
- Supports broadband access to rural and indigenous communities
- Increase affordability for cellular and internet services while cracking down on misleading contracts from providers
- Reduction of e-waste and requiring transparency for manufacturers to not only document how technology can be repaired, but also requiring manufacturers to supply replacement parts
The Mixed
- Modernizing what “Cancon” actually is (they don’t say it it’s in support of Canadians in general or if they mean tightening the definitions to protect the media establishment
- Creation of a government apparatus to regulate speech online (can be weaponized by parties who don’t like you if you think that’s a good thing)
The Bad
- Supports Internet censorship of Canadians through the Online Streaming Act (they mislabelled it as “Bill C-10”)
- Redefining platforms as publishers which will drive the platforms out of the country, causing significant harm to Canada in the process
- No plan on helping digital first creators that are currently driving economic growth in the online space
- No plan to break up advertising monopolies of tech giants
- No plan to increase competition in the cellular and internet space
- No plan to crack down on scam calls
- No plan to fix the Online Streaming Act
- No plan to fix/abolish the Online News Act
- No plan to fix the problem of the Digital Services Tax
- No plan to combat digital frisking at the border (US border patrol demanding passwords to devices, etc.)
Overall, I’d say this platform gets an “F” overall as it is very clear in many places that they don’t really understand how online technology works in the real world. Even on the good points, it is clear that the party has a very general and loose understanding of how things work at the best of times. It’s good to see digital rights at least mentioned this year, but they need a much better understanding about how all of this works. The only area that they had a good knowledge was the area of e-waste, but that’s about it. The support for internet censorship was really what drove that rating in the first place since their proposals are completely in the realm of “I have no idea what is going on”.
Overall rating: F
