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.
Alberta
‘Significant change’ in oil sands emissions growth while sector nears $1 trillion in spending
In situ oil sands project in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy MEG Energy
From the Canadian Energy Centre
‘The oil sands are Canada’s winning lottery ticket’
As Alberta’s oil sands sector reaches a major economic milestone, a new report shows that emissions growth continues to slow.
There is a clear “structural break” for the industry where production growth is beginning to rise faster than emissions growth, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. While last year’s oil sands production was nine per cent higher than in 2019, total emissions rose by just three per cent.
“It’s not driven solely by slower production growth because production growth has continued. This is a notable, significant change in oil sands emissions,” said Kevin Birn, head of S&P Global’s Centre for Emissions Excellence.
Birn said that in many cases oil sands growth is coming from optimization, where for example instead of companies building new equipment to generate more steam to inject underground, they have found ways to produce more oil with the steam they already have.
Emissions per barrel, or so-called “emissions intensity” is now 28 per cent lower than it was in 2009.
Earlier this year, S&P Global raised its oil sands production outlook, now projecting the sector will reach 3.8 million barrels per day by 2030, compared to 3.2 million barrels per day in 2023.
Analysts continue to expect total oil sands emissions to peak in the next couple of years, absent the federal government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap.
“Certainly, there’s potential for that to occur later if there’s more volume than we anticipate, but it’s also the time when we start to see the potential for large-scale decarbonizations to emerge towards the end of this decade,” Birn said.
Meanwhile, before the end of this year the oil sands sector will hit approximately $1 trillion of cumulative spending over the last 25 years, according to a joint report by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and Pathways Alliance.
That is, not profits or dividends, but investment in operations, building new facilities, and government payments including taxes and royalties.
“The oilsands are Canada’s winning lottery ticket,” wrote MLI’s Heather Exner-Pirot and Pathways’ Bryan Remillard.
They noted that oil sands producers have paid more than $186 billion in royalties and taxes to Canadian governments, representing more than the last five years of Canadian defense spending.
“Far from just an Alberta success story, the oilsands are a quintessentially Canadian sector. More than 2,300 companies outside of Alberta have had direct business with the oilsands, including over 1,300 in Ontario and almost 600 in Quebec,” wrote Exner-Pirot and Remillard.
“That juggernaut could keep Canada’s economy prosperous for many more decades, providing the feedstock for chemicals and carbon-based materials whenever global fuel consumption starts to decline.”
That is, unless companies are forced to cut production, which credible analysis has found will happen with Ottawa’s emissions cap – well over one million barrels per day by 2030, which Exner-Pirot and Remillard said would have to come almost entirely from Canada’s exports to the United States.
“If companies are forced to cut their production, they won’t be able to afford to aggressively cut emissions. Nor will they be able to make other investments to maximize and sustain the value of this resource.”
Alberta
51 new officers, 10 surveillance drones, and patrol dogs to help Alberta to secure southern border with US
A plan to secure Alberta’s southern border
Alberta’s government is taking immediate and decisive action to secure the Alberta-U.S. border from illegal drugs, migrants and firearms.
Alberta’s government is taking swift action that will curb illegal border activities and strengthen the nation’s border security. New measures will immediately crack down on illegal migrants and drug trafficking across the border.
“We cannot take concerns about border security lightly. By establishing this new team of sheriffs at our southern border, we are actively working to address security concerns and stop the criminals whose activities are destroying lives on both sides of the border.”
A new Interdiction Patrol Team (IPT) within the Alberta Sheriffs will crack down on drug smuggling, gun trafficking and other illegal activities occurring along Alberta’s 298-kilometre international boundary. IPT will be supported by:
- 51 uniformed officers equipped with carbine rifles (weapons for tactical operations);
- 10 support staff, including dispatchers and analysts;
- four drug patrol dogs, critical to ensure reasonable suspicion to search vehicles;
- 10 cold weather surveillance drones that can operate in high winds with dedicated pilots; and
- four narcotics analyzers to test for illicit drugs.
This team will patrol to detect and intercept illicit drugs, illegal firearms and unlawful attempts at illegal international border crossing.
Alberta’s government will also create a two kilometre-deep critical border zone, deemed critical infrastructure, to enable the sheriffs to arrest individuals found attempting to cross the border illegally or attempting to traffic illegal drugs or weapons, without needing a warrant. This critical border zone will be created by amending regulations under the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act. This will not apply to people travelling legally along Alberta highways and roads.
“Alberta’s government is ramping up border enforcement. We have long recognized the need for additional capacity to patrol Alberta’s vulnerable international borders, where any amount of illegal activity is too much. I look forward to working with our partners in law enforcement and across government as we send a clear message to prospective offenders that criminal activity, such as fentanyl trafficking, will not be tolerated at our borders or anywhere else in our province.”
“Stemming illegal cross-border activities at the source prevents their spread to the rest of the province later on, and the Alberta Sheriffs are proud to step up and take on this important role.”
“Regardless of what uniform we wear, or what agency we represent, law enforcement from across the province will aggressively target drug dealers, disrupt the fentanyl trade and keep our communities safe.”
Province “rewiring” Alberta’s electricity grid for growth
Kash Patel Reporting Most Media Missed
Verdict for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber coming next spring
As Trump 2.0 Scrutinizes Canadian Fentanyl Networks, British Columbia Advances Forfeiture on 14 Properties Linked to Alleged PRC Triad Associate
-
MAiD2 days agoSaskatchewan seniors say they were offered euthanasia when faced with increased hospice costs
-
Business2 days agoArgentina’s First Budget Surplus in 123 Years
-
Fraser Institute2 days agoCanada’s median health-care wait time hits 30 weeks—longest ever recorded
-
Alberta1 day ago
51 new officers, 10 surveillance drones, and patrol dogs to help Alberta to secure southern border with US
-
COVID-192 days agoHealth Canada received over a million reports of COVID vaccine adverse events: records
-
Business1 day agoThe “GST Holiday”… A Smokescreen For Scandal
-
Alberta1 day agoEmissions cap threatens Indigenous communities with higher costs, fewer opportunities
-
Business1 day agoGlobal Affairs Canada goes on real estate spending spree, taxpayers foot the bill