Alberta
TDF expresses concern over Election Canada’s new mis/disinformation policy
From The Democracy Fund
Written by TDF’s Legal Team
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
- Election Integrity and Security Including Foreign Interference
- ElectoFacts
- Supra, note 1.
- Agreements with social media platforms to address inaccurate information
- Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] 2 SCR 1120
- Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9
- Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONSC 1224
- 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
- Criminal Code, RSC , 1985, c. C-46
- R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731
- 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.
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
Alberta oil sands projects poised to grow on lower costs, strong reserves
As geopolitical uncertainty ripples through global energy markets, a new report says Alberta’s oil sands sector is positioned to grow thanks to its lower costs.
Enverus Intelligence Research’s annual Oil Sands Play Fundamentals forecasts producers will boost output by 400,000 barrels per day (bbls/d) by the end of this decade through expansions of current operations.
“Existing oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-breakeven oil in North America at WTI prices lower than $50 U.S. dollars,” said Trevor Rix, a director with the Calgary-based research firm, a subsidiary of Enverus which is headquartered in Texas with operations in Europe and Asia.
Alberta’s oil sands currently produce about 3.4 million bbls/d. Individual companies have disclosed combined proven reserves of about 30 billion barrels, or more than 20 years of current production.
A recent sector-wide reserves analysis by McDaniel & Associates found the oil sands holds about 167 billion barrels of reserves, compared to about 20 billion barrels in Texas.
While trade tensions and sustained oil price declines may marginally slow oil sands growth in the short term, most projects have already had significant capital invested and can withstand some volatility.
Cenovus Energy’s Christina Lake oil sands project. Photo courtesy Cenovus Energy
“While it takes a large amount of out-of-pocket capital to start an oil sands operation, they are very cost effective after that initial investment,” said veteran S&P Global analyst Kevin Birn.
“Optimization,” where companies tweak existing operations for more efficient output, has dominated oil sands growth for the past eight years, he said. These efforts have also resulted in lower cost structures.
“That’s largely shielded the oil sands from some of the inflationary costs we’ve seen in other upstream production,” Birn said.
Added pipeline capacity through expansion of the Trans Mountain system and Enbridge’s Mainline have added an incentive to expand production, Rix said.
The increased production will also spur growth in regions of western Canada, including the Montney and Duvernay, which Enverus analysts previously highlighted as increasingly crucial to meet rising worldwide energy demand.
“Increased oil sands production will see demand increase for condensate, which is used as diluent to ship bitumen by pipeline, which has positive implications for growth in drilling in liquids-rich regions such as the Montney and Duvernay,” Rix said.
“If Ottawa had it’s way Albertans would be left to freeze in the dark”
The ineffective federal net-zero electricity regulations will not reduce emissions or benefit Albertans but will increase costs and lead to supply shortages.
The risk of power outages during a hot summer or the depths of harsh winter cold snaps, are not unrealistic outcomes if these regulations are implemented. According to the Alberta Electric System Operator’s analysis, the regulations in question would make Alberta’s electricity system more than 100 times less reliable than the province’s supply adequacy standard. Albertans expect their electricity to remain affordable and reliable, but implementation of these regulations could increase costs by a staggering 35 per cent.
Canada’s constitution is clear. Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy. That is why Alberta’s government is referring the constitutionality of the federal government’s recent net-zero electricity regulations to the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
“The federal government refused to work collaboratively or listen to Canadians while developing these regulations. The results are ineffective, unachievable and irresponsible, and place Albertans’ livelihoods – and more importantly, lives – at significant risk. Our government will not accept unconstitutional net-zero regulations that leave Albertans vulnerable to blackouts in the middle of summer and winter when they need electricity the most.”
“The introduction of the Clean Electricity Regulations in Alberta by the federal government is another example of dangerous federal overreach. These regulations will create unpredictable power outages in the months when Albertans need reliable energy the most. They will also cause power prices to soar in Alberta, which will hit our vulnerable the hardest.”
Finalized in December 2024, the federal electricity regulations impose strict carbon limits on fossil fuel power, in an attempt to force a net-zero grid, an unachievable target given current technology and infrastructure. The reliance on unproven technologies makes it almost impossible to operate natural gas plants without costly upgrades, threatening investment, grid reliability, and Alberta’s energy security.
“Ottawa’s electricity regulations will leave Albertans in the dark. They aren’t about reducing emissions – they are unconstitutional, ideological activist policies based on standards that can’t be met and technology that doesn’t exist. It will drive away investment and punish businesses, provinces and families for using natural gas for reliable, dispatchable power. We will not put families at risk from safety and affordability impacts – rationing power during the coldest days of the year – and we will continue to stand up for Albertans.”
“Albertans depend on electricity to provide for their families, power their businesses and pursue their dreams. The federal government’s Clean Electricity Regulations threaten both the affordability and reliability of our power grid, and we will not stand by as these regulations put the well-being of Albertans at risk.”
Related information
- Conference Board of Canada socio-economic Impacts of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan – (April 2025)
- Alberta Electric System Operator’s position on Canadian Energy Regulations
In Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada
Carney’s budget is worse than Trudeau’s
Governments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion
History in the making? Trump, Zelensky hold meeting about Ukraine war in Vatican ahead of Francis’ funeral
“Freedom of Expression Should Win Every Time”: In Conversation with Freedom Convoy Trial Lawyer Lawrence Greenspon
Low oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances
It Took Trump To Get Canada Serious About Free Trade With Itself
-
Business1 day agoTrump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoTrust but verify: Why COVID-19 And Kamloops Claims Demand Scientific Scrutiny
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change
-
Business2 days agoNew federal government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money than predecessor’s plan
-
Business2 days agoScott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal
-
International2 days agoJavier Millei declassifies 1850+ files on Nazi leaders in Argentina
-
Bjorn Lomborg2 days agoHow Canada Can Respond to Climate Change Smartly
-
Agriculture1 day agoLiberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk