Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

TDF expresses concern over Election Canada’s new mis/disinformation policy

Published

1 year ago

10 minute read

From The Democracy Fund

TDF’s Legal Team

Written by 

The Democracy Fund sends a letter to Elections Canada and Minister LeBlanc.

Elections Canada has recently developed a policy to monitor and dissuade the publication of “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

In January 2024, it launched its ElectoFacts website to provide “correct information about elections that Canadians can easily access.” Elections Canada claims that it does not intend to establish Elections Canada as “the arbiter of truth” that will actively monitor the accuracy of statements and information distributed by parties and candidates.

However, The Democracy Fund (TDF) fears that the ambiguous language and the apparent lack of legislative authority to engage in such an endeavour will lead to an expansion of the program. Elections Canada has also contacted social media companies to remove “inaccurate” information: this is troubling because it is arguably an infringement of free speech rights, and there appears to be no judicial oversight of this censorship.

Canadians have the right to criticize their government and its processes – even if this criticism is wrong, inapt, trivial, unfair or unjustified. Efforts by the Western governments to constrain criticism using fashionable terms such as “misinformation” or “disinformation” are just state censorship rebranded for modern audiences.

TDF outlined its concerns in a letter to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Dominic LeBlanc.

Our letter is attached below.

February 9, 2024

via email

Stéphane Perrault
Acting Chief Electoral Officer
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Elections Canada
30 Victoria Street
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0M6

Dear Mr. Perrault,
Re: Elections Canada Misinformation/Disinformation Monitoring

We are a civil society organization and registered charity that defends and promotes civil liberties in Canada. We are writing to express our concerns regarding comments around election “misinformation” and “disinformation” on the Elections Integrity and 1 ElectoFacts website.2

On its Election Integrity website, under “Disinformation or Influence Campaign,” Elections Canada outlines several types of objectionable conduct, namely:

  • Elections Canada: Influence campaigns aimed at discrediting parts of the electoral process.
  • Political Parties/Candidates: Social media campaign to spread false information about a candidate.
  • Electors: Foreign online campaign aimed at specific diaspora communities to influence their vote.

In addition, Elections Canada purports to monitor the “information environment” (the news media, the Web, social media, etc.) to detect:

  • Incidents that could affect the smooth administration of a general election or by-election;
  • Inaccurate information on the electoral process, which could prevent people from exercising their rights to register, vote or be a candidate; and,
  • Social media accounts and websites that impersonate Elections Canada, which could lead to confusion.3

We note that Elections Canada has previously contacted social media companies – including Facebook, Twitter, Google, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Reddit, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram:

  • Elections Canada (EC) engages with digital platforms that have a significant Canadian presence as well as those that have reached out to EC.
  • For the 44th general election (GE44), EC worked with Facebook/Instagram, Google/YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat, and for the first time, TikTok and Reddit, to establish protocols for reporting cases of false information on the voting process and impersonation of EC.4

The purpose of this contact was to report online content to these platforms and, presumably, have them remove “false information.” This was done without prior judicial oversight and review.

There are a number of problems with this approach to monitoring online information.

First, it is not clear that Elections Canada has the legislative authority to report citizens or their online comments, or attempt to influence platforms to remove “false information.” Even if it did, doing so without judicial review and oversight is arguably improper.5 Where there was authority to regulate “false statements” in the Canada Elections Act6 (“the Act”), we note that the court, in Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), held that s.91(1) of the Act breached s.2(b) of the Canadian Charter or Rights 7 and Freedoms.8

Importantly, the legality of prohibiting the publication of “false news” has been adjudicated by Canadian courts, and the relevant Criminal Code provisions have been 9 struck down.10

Second, the ability to identify “misinformation” and “disinformation” requires resolution of one of the most difficult problems in epistemology. Simply put, an assessment of the truth of a statement engages the central questions of epistemology: what is meant by the claim that a statement is true, and under what authoritative conditions can one be certain that a statement is true (“the Epistemic Problem”). This Epistemic Problem has bedeviled philosophers for millennia, and remains unresolved. Until such time as it is resolved, claims to epistemic certainty are unfounded.

There is no evidence that Elections Canada has resolved the Epistemic Problem. It cannot, therefore, arrogate to itself the required certainty on matters of truth or falsehood.

Third, we note that the language used by Elections Canada regarding “false information” is ambiguous. Linguistic ambiguity allows for expansive regulatory powers. Further, the language used does not allow for “false information” that is comedic, parodistic or satirical. As a result, removal or attempted removal of “false information” will be overbroad and imprecise.

Fourth, given the concerns outlined above, it is not clear that Elections Canada could implement any process that would be better at ascertaining truth than citizens using normal human discernment.

Consequently, any removal or attempted removal of “false information” will be an exercise in either arbitrary or politically-motivated censorship. This is particularly troubling because the type of “false information” that attracts attention usually relates to contested or controversial political and moral statements, rather than trivial falsehoods.

Worse still, in our experience, punishment for contravening speech laws is typically inflicted upon minority communities, vulnerable groups and political dissidents: those with privilege avoid sanction.

Finally, attempts to remove “false information” will ultimately result in the erosion of civil liberties and democratic engagement. The reduction in exposure to moral and political information – both true and false – prevents citizens from engaging with complex arguments, and, thereby, diminishes their critical-thinking capacity. For, if the information expressed was correct, participants would have gained the benefit of exchanging their wrong information for correct information. If the information expressed
was wrong, participants would have gained the benefit of intellectual justification for their beliefs, without which they possess not knowledge, but dead dogma.11

For these reasons, we would respectfully recommend that Elections Canada restrict its conduct to publishing factual information about elections and the electoral process. It is safer and more practicable for the citizens as Canada to remain the arbiters of truth.

As always, we would be pleased to meet with you to discuss our concerns and any questions you may have about our position.

Regards,

Mark A. Joseph
Senior Litigation Counsel
c.c.: Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs

  1. Election Integrity and Security Including Foreign Interference
  2. ElectoFacts
  3. Supra, note 1.
  4. Agreements with social media platforms to address inaccurate information
  5. Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] 2 SCR 1120
  6. Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9
  7. Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONSC 1224
  8. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.7, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 a
  9. Criminal Code, RSC , 1985, c. C-46
  10. R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731
  11. Chicago. Mill, John Stuart. 2002. On Liberty. Dover Thrift Editions. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

About The Democracy Fund:

Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by the government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.

 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 5 hours ago

China’s economy takes a hit as factories experience sharp decline in orders following Trump tariffs

International / 5 hours ago

Javier Millei declassifies 1850+ files on Nazi leaders in Argentina

Business / 7 hours ago

Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal

Alberta

Preston Manning: Canada is in a unity crisis

Published on April 30, 2025

By

Preston Manning's avatar Preston Manning

A Canada West Assembly would investigate why

The election of a minority Liberal government on Monday, and the strong showing of the Conservative party under Pierre Poilievre, cannot mask the fact that Canada remains seriously fractured on many fronts. Thus, one of the primary tasks of the Carney government will be to unite us for the sake of our own national well-being — not simply for the sake of presenting a strong front in future dealings with the United States.

But how is that to be done? When parliament meets as scheduled on May 26, will the government’s throne speech acknowledge the main sources of national disunity and propose the immediate adoption of remedial measures? Or will it ignore the problem entirely, which will serve to further alienate Quebec and the West from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, and weaken Canada’s bargaining position vis a vis the United States?

The principal tactic employed by the Liberal party to unite Canadians behind it in the recent election was to employ the politics of fear — fear of U.S. President Donald Trump trying to “break us so that America can own us,” as Liberal Leader Mark Carney has repeatedly said.

But if the only way to unite Canadians is through the promotion of anti-Americanism fostered by fear of some alleged American takeover — if reaction to the erratic musings of an American president is the only way to motivate more Canadians to vote in a federal election — then not only national unity, but Canadian democracy itself, is in critical condition.

We need to pinpoint what actually is fracturing the country, because if we can clearly define that, we can begin the process of removing those divisive elements to the largest extent possible. Carney and the Liberals will of course declare that it is separatist agitations in Quebec and now the West that is dividing us, but these are simply symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

Here, then, is a partial list of what underpins the division and disunity in this country and, more importantly, of some positive, achievable actions we can take to reduce or eliminate them.

First and foremost is the failure to recognize and accommodate the regional character of this country. Canada is the second-largest country by area on the planet and is characterized by huge geographic regions — the Atlantic, Central Canada, the Prairies, the Pacific Coast and the Northern territories.

Each of these regions — not just Quebec — has its own “distinctive” concerns and aspirations, which must be officially recognized and addressed by the federal government if the country is to be truly united. The previous Liberal government consistently failed to do this, particularly with respect to the Prairies, Pacific and Northern regions, which is the root of much of the alienation that even stimulates talk of western separation.

Second is Ottawa’s failure to recognize and treat the natural resources sector as a fundamental building block of our national economy — not as a relic from the past or an environmental liability, as it was regarded by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Will the throne speech announce another 180-degree turn for the Liberal government: the explicit recognition that the great engine of the Canadian economy and our economic recovery is not the federal government, as Carney has implied, but Canada’s agricultural, energy, mining, forestry and fishery sectors, with all the processing, servicing, manufacturing and knowledge sectors that are built upon them?

A third issue we’ve been plagued with is the division of Canadian society based on race, gender, sexual preferences and other identity traits, rather than focusing on the things that unite us as a nation, such as the equality of all under the law. Many private-sector entities are beginning to see the folly of pursuing identity initiatives such as diversity, equity and inclusion that divide rather than unite, but will the Liberal government follow suit and will that intention be made crystal clear in the upcoming throne speech?

A final issue is the federal government’s intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction — such as natural resources, health, municipal governance, along with property and civil rights — which is the principal cause of tension and conflict between the federal and provincial governments.

The solution is to pass a federal “act respecting provincial jurisdiction” to repeal or amend the statutes that authorize federal intrusions, so as to eliminate, or at least reduce, their intrusiveness. Coincidentally, this would be a legislative measure that both the Conservatives and the Bloc could unite behind if such a statute were to be one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Carney government.

Polling is currently being done to ascertain whether the election of yet another Liberal government has increased the growing estrangement of western Canada from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, notwithstanding Carney’s assurances that his minority government will change its policies on climate change, pipelines, immigration, deficit spending and other distinguishing characteristics of the discredited Trudeau government.

The first test of the truthfulness of those assurances will come via the speech from the throne and the follow-up actions of the federal government.

Meanwhile, consultations are being held on the merits and means of organizing a “Canada West Assembly” to provide a democratic forum for the presentation, analysis and debate of the options facing western Canada (not just Alberta) — from acceptance of a fairer and stronger position within the federation based on guarantees from the federal government, to various independence-oriented proposals, with votes to be taken on the various options and recommendations to be made to the affected provincial governments.

Only time will tell whether the newly elected Carney government chooses to address the root causes of national disunity. But whether it does so or not will influence the direction in which the western provinces and the proposed Canada West Assembly will point.

Preston’s Substack is free today.

But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Preston’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.

Pledge your support

Continue Reading

Alberta

Premier Danielle Smith hints Alberta may begin ‘path’ toward greater autonomy after Mark Carney’s win

Published on April 30, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Alberta’s premier said her government will be holding a special caucus meeting on Friday to discuss Alberta’s independence.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith hinted her province could soon consider taking serious steps toward greater autonomy from Canada in light of Mark Carney and the Liberal Party winning yesterday’s federal election.

In a statement posted to her social media channels today, Smith, who is head of Alberta’s governing United Conservative Party, warned that “In the weeks and months ahead, Albertans will have an opportunity to discuss our province’s future, assess various options for strengthening and protecting our province against future hostile acts from Ottawa, and to ultimately choose a path forward.”

“As Premier, I will facilitate and lead this discussion and process with the sincere hope of securing a prosperous future for our province within a united Canada that respects our province’s constitutional rights, facilitates rather than blocks the development and export of our abundant resources, and treats us as a valued and respected partner within confederation,” she noted.

While Smith stopped short of saying that Alberta would consider triggering a referendum on independence from Canada, she did say her government will be holding a “special caucus meeting this Friday to discuss this matter further.”

“I will have more to say after that meeting is concluded,” she noted.

Smith’s warning comes at the same time some pre-election polls have shown Alberta’s independence from Canada sentiment at just over 30 percent.

Monday’s election saw Liberal leader Mark Carney beat out Conservative rival Pierre Poilievre, who also lost his seat. The Conservatives managed to pick up over 20 new seats, however, and Poilievre has vowed to stay on as party leader, for now.

In Alberta, almost all of the seats save two at press time went to conservatives.

Carney, like former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before him, said he is opposed to new pipeline projects that would allow Alberta oil and gas to be unleashed. Also, his green agenda, like Trudeau’s, is at odds with Alberta’s main economic driver, its oil and gas industry.

The Carney government has also pledged to mandate that all new cars and trucks by 2035 be electric, effectively banning the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-only powered vehicles after that year.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.

Smith: ‘I will not permit the status quo to continue’

In her statement, Smith noted that she invited Carney to “immediately commence working with our government to reset the relationship between Ottawa and Alberta with meaningful action rather than hollow rhetoric.”

She noted that a large majority of Albertans are “deeply frustrated that the same government that overtly attacked our provincial economy almost unabated for the past 10 years has been returned to government.”

Smith then promised that she would “not permit the status quo to continue.”

“Albertans are proud Canadians that want this nation to be strong, prosperous, and united, but we will no longer tolerate having our industries threatened and our resources landlocked by Ottawa,” she said.

Smith praised Poilievre for empowering “Albertans and our energy sector as a cornerstone of his campaign.”

Smith was against forced COVID jabs, and her United Conservative government has in recent months banned men from competing in women’s sports and passed a bill banning so-called “top and bottom” surgeries for minors as well as other extreme forms of transgender ideology.

Continue Reading

Trending

X