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

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.

Related Topics:#ElectionCanada #ElectoFacts #Mis/Disinformation #TheDemocracyFund

Up Next

Trudeau’s carbon tax rebrand lipstick on a pig

Don't Miss

Federal government ratchets up ‘climate’ propaganda

Todayville

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

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 10 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 10 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on July 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on July 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.