Canadian Policy Responses to Artificial Intelligence–Generated Threats to Democratic Elections

Canadian Policy Responses to Artificial Intelligence–Generated Threats to Democratic Elections

Authors: Chris Tenove, Spencer McKay, and Heidi Tworek

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is widely seen as a potential threat to election integrity and democratic participation. AI-enabled content creation and dissemination have not yet decisively changed election outcomes, but experimental evidence and real-world cases suggest that AI is likely to be a major challenge for democracy in Canada and globally.

This article uses a multiple-streams framework to analyze potential policy responses in Canada. First, we clarify the problem of generative AI as a threat to democratic elections by specifying three harmful uses: deception, information system pollution, and harassment. Second, we examine potential responses in the policy stream in Canada and globally, which we categorize as disclosure measures, content prohibitions and takedowns, and comprehensive regulations for AI systems. We argue that a governance ecosystem, rather than a single policy, must be created to achieve substantial accountability for AI-enabled harms. Third, our analysis of the politics stream suggests that some disclosure and content-focused policies are politically feasible in the near term but that more comprehensive regulation is unlikely without a significant change in the political context.

Read the full, open-access report here.

How Universities Can Better Address Online Harassment – Policy Brief

Online harassment of researchers and faculty members is increasingly common, and can seriously impact the psychological health and productivity of those who experience it. To address these personal and professional impacts, Canadian universities should provide robust and effective support to targeted individuals. Based on consultations with university staff and researchers, and reviews of institutional policies globally, we propose how to support researchers at individual institutions and nationally.

This work was supported by the Bridge Research Consortium.

Online harassment is an increasing risk as more communication and knowledge dissemination in post-secondary institutions occurs online. Technology-facilitated harassment includes doxing, threats of physical harm, cross-platform harassment, derogatory comments, and denigration of scientific work. These attacks are intended to intimidate researchers and discredit their work, creating a hostile work environment.

If universities want researchers to engage broader publics and conduct research freely, they need to provide organizational support and response mechanisms that ensure professional resilience. After highlighting our recommendations, this brief outlines the issues associated with online harassment and showcases a proposed framework to support researchers.

Report credits

Authors: Netheena Mathews, Chris Tenove, Heidi Tworek, Connor Guyn, Jaigris Hodson

Report design: Gladys We

Suggested citation: Mathews N, Tenove C, Tworek H, Guyn C, Hodson J. 2025. How Universities Can Better Address Online Harassment. Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, University of British Columbia.

This work was supported by the Bridge Research Consortium, part of Canada’s Immuno-Engineering and Biomanufacturing Hub (CIEBH). The BRC is funded by the Canada Biomedical Research Fund and Biomedical Research Infrastructure Fund (CBRF-2023-00122), and BC Knowledge Development Fund (BRIF#500122).

Dr. Heidi Tworek acknowledges the support of the Canada Research Chair programme (CRC-2020-00132).

Municipal Matters: Building Capacity for Local Climate Conversations

Over 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions are produced in urban areas, making local climate leadership critical. Since the 1990s, local government policies have advanced climate action, but today’s complex information environment poses increasing obstacles to the development and impact of local climate policies.

This report examines the challenges of communication around local climate action—especially when local policies face the spread of false or misleading information, whether intentional (disinformation) or unintentional (misinformation). We examine the actors involved, techniques used, and the impacts on policy development and implementation, and we propose a framework for local governments to respond.

Ultimately, we argue that robust communications around climate must go beyond providing accurate information, and should aim to promote public trust, foster dialogue with communities, and address their genuine concerns. Local governments must pair effective policymaking with proactive communication at every stage of climate policy development.

Local governments, working with communities, businesses, and civil society groups, have often taken the lead on tackling climate change. Now, they must do the same to build better climate conversations.

See the webinar of the report’s launch on March 19, 2025.

Report Credits

Authors: Divija Madhani, Ghassan Hamzeh, Madalen Sides, Nicolas Côté, Chris Tenove, Heidi Tworek
Additional Research: Nishtha Gupta, Mark Shakespear

Report Design: Oliver McPartlin
Graphic Design: Divija Madhani

Additional acknowledgments are available in the report.

Citation: Madhani, D., Hamzeh, G., Sides, M., Côté, N., Tenove, C., Tworek, H. (2025). Municipal Matters: Building Capacity for Local Climate Conversations. Vancouver: Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, University of British Columbia. https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0448244

Publication info: Copyright © 2025; Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions; University of British Columbia. This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

Research

CSDI’s research activities currently focus on two themes: platforms and media, and health.

News & Events

Stay up to date with CSDI by viewing our recent news and upcoming events.

About CSDI

Learn more about the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions

News

Stay up to date with CSDI by viewing our recent news.

Global Journalism Innovation Lab

The Centre for the Study of Democratic Institution’s contribution to the Global Journalism Innovation Lab (GJIL) focuses on the history of journalistic innovation and media policy. The team is exploring what earlier attempts to reach a wide audience using explanatory journalism have taught us; and, based on past experience, how policy can better support forms of evidence based journalism. The research moves through three sequential stages:

  1. How new communication modes cultivated new genres of explanatory content.
  2. How the historical evolution of intellectual property law first fostered, then effectively abolished the republishing of journalistic content.
  3. How new forms of explanatory journalism in the past, like investigative journalism, affected civic engagement, public understanding of issues, and public policy.

GJIL is supported by a SSHRC Partnership Grant.

Non-aligned News Research Partnership

The Non-Aligned News Research Partnership (NANReP) examines the largest organized intervention against the racial structure of global news to date: the Non-Aligned News Agencies Pool (NANAP, 1974-1990s).

NANReP’s international partnership spans three continents and seven countries to bring together historians, public policy analysts, digital humanists, journalists, archivists, communications scholars, and students, as well as an international organization, public institutions of higher education, and a private-sector agency. Funded by a 3-year (2022-25) Partnership Development Grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Project Director: Dr. Maurice Jr. Labelle) and based at the University of Saskatchewan, NANReP’s partners include: the UNESCO Archives, the Afro-Asian Networks Research Collective, the University of British Columbia’s Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, the University of Toronto’s Department of History, Resonator Agency Inc., and the University of Saskatchewan’s Historical Geographic Information Systems Lab.

Seeing the world through the eyes of Western news agencies troubled Third World communities and their supporters. Anti-imperial intellectuals, statesmen, and activists identified that news flows about – and in – the Third World were imbalanced, insufficient, underdeveloped, and racialized. Established in 1974 with the support of UNESCO, the Non-Aligned Movement organization, and some of their key member-states (such as India, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, and Indonesia), NANAP aimed to decolonize world news – a domain created by Western empires and racially-maintained by Western news agencies. Integral to NANAP’s early years was UNESCO’s 1978 declaration of a New World Information and Communications Order (NWICO), which called for the “decolonization of information” monopolized by the “Big Four”: Associated Press, Reuters, United Press International, and Agence France-Presse. Often ignored or forgotten since its dissolution in the mid-1990s, NANAP enabled free and open exchange between over forty national news agencies in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Europe.

NANReP’s goal is to analyze the formation, structure, operations, experiences, impacts, and legacies of NANAP as an international cooperative of news agencies predominantly from the Third World. In the process, NANReP seeks to shed new light on challenges surrounding systemic barriers in global news-making, the racial realities of international information networks, and anti-racist efforts to change media infrastructures in ways that amplify the voices and stories of marginalized peoples at home and abroad.

NANReP is supported by a SSHRC Partnership Development Grant.

Platform Governance in Canada: Essay Series

Série de rédactions

La version française est suivi.

Scroll down for the French translation.

While encouraging, the emerging discourse in academia and public policy on platform governance too often remains siloed by topic. Research and policy also remain largely disconnected. Here, we offer an introduction and set of 16 short pieces to address these two issues.

These pieces arrive at a timely moment in Canadian platform governance. Bills on content such as C-11 or C-18 have probably grabbed the most headlines. As has the government’s process of consultation on a potential online safety bill. So too much scholarship has focused on content topics, female Muslim politicians and political candidates more broadly, connected citizenship in Canada, and the origins of misinformation on Twitter. Elections have provided a particular focal point as did the infodemic during Covid-19.

But there is activity on many more fronts, including the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), potential online safety legislation, and reforms to the Competition Act starting with C-19 passed in June 2022. As the Canadian government undertakes a platform governance agenda, we need an overarching and synthetic framework to fit all these bills and regulatory efforts together.

This collection of pieces proposes one approach. Our framework suggests four interlinked domains of platform governance: content, data, competition, and infrastructure. While a knowledge base already exists in Canada on these four domains, it is lacking in some areas and is often not connected across these four areas.

This essay series has been jointly published by the Centre for Media, Technology, and Democracy at McGill University and the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI) at the University of British Columbia (UBC). You can also read the series on the website of the Centre for Media, Technology, and Democracy at McGill University here.

The pieces in this collection are available in English and French. You can scroll down within each piece to access the French version.

You can also download the English collection of essays here: Platform Governance in Canada – Essay Series

This project has been made possible in part by the Government of Canada.

Ce projet a été rendu possible en partie grâce au gouvernement du Canada.

 

La gouvernance des plateformes : Série de rédactions

Bien qu’encourageant, le discours émergeant dans le milieu de la recherche et les politiques publiques sur la gouvernance des plateformes reste trop souvent cloisonné par sujet. Les milieux de la recherche et de la politique restent également largement déconnectés. Nous souhaitons donc proposer un ensemble de 16 articles courts pour répondre à ces deux problèmes.

Ces articles arrivent à point nommé pour aborder les questions relatives à la gouvernance des plateformes au Canada. Les projets de loi C-11 ou C-18 sur le contenu ne sont pas passés inaperçus dans la presse. Il en va de même pour le processus de consultation du gouvernement sur un éventuel projet de loi sur la sécurité en ligne. Trop d’études se sont donc concentrées sur la question du contenu, les politiciennes musulmanes et les candidat·e·s politiques en général, la citoyenneté connectée au Canada et les origines de la désinformation sur Twitter. Les élections constituaient également un point central, tout comme l’infodémie pendant la Covid-19.

De nombreuses mesures ont également été prises, dont la loi sur l’intelligence artificielle et les données (LIAD, en anglais : AIDA), la législation potentielle sur la sécurité en ligne et les réformes de la Loi sur la concurrence, à commencer par le projet de loi C-19 adopté en juin 2022. Alors que le gouvernement canadien entreprend un programme de gouvernance des plateformes, il est nécessaire de définir un cadre global et synthétique pour intégrer tous ces projets de loi et efforts réglementaires.

Notre cadre propose quatre domaines interconnectés de gouvernance des plateformes : le contenu, les données, la concurrence et l’infrastructure. Bien qu’il existe déjà une base de connaissances au Canada sur ces quatre domaines, ces derniers sont rarement interconnectés, et les données parfois insuffisantes.

Cette série des redactions a été publiée conjointement par le Centre pour les médias, la technologie et la démocratie à  l’Université McGill et le Centre d’étude des institutions démocratiques (CSDI) à l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique (UBC). Vous pouvez également lire la série sur le site Web du Centre pour les médias, la technologie et la démocratie de l’Université McGill ici.

Les pièces de cette collection sont disponibles en anglais et en français. Vous pouvez défiler vers le bas dans chaque pièce pour lire la version française. 

Vous pouvez télécharger la série de rédactions en français ici: La gouvernance des plateformes – Série de rédactions

This project has been made possible in part by the Government of Canada.

Ce projet a été rendu possible en partie grâce au gouvernement du Canada.

Authors/ Auteurs