Elections Canada policies to monitor and dissuade "disinformation" have prompted a letter of concern from a legal advocacy group.The Democracy Fund (TDF) senior litigation counsel Mark A. Joseph sent a four-page letter of concerns to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Dominic LeBlanc over the policy. TDF expressed fears the ambiguous language and the apparent lack of legislative authority to engage in such an endeavour will lead to an expansion of the program. In January 2024, Elections Canada launched its ElectoFacts website to provide "correct information about elections Canadians can easily access." Elections Canada claims it does not intend to establish itself as "the arbiter of truth" that will actively monitor the accuracy of statements and information distributed by parties and candidates. Elections Canada has also contacted social media companies to remove "inaccurate" information. It says 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 said in a press release.In the letter, Joseph wrote, "Elections Canada may not have 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."Section 91(1) of the Canada Elections Act bans false statements about candidates during elections, but the courts ruled in a previous case that the act breached freedom of speech provisions in the Charter."Importantly, the legality of prohibiting the publication of 'false news' has been adjudicated by Canadian courts and the relevant Criminal Code provisions have been struck down," Joseph explained.Joseph said the question of whether something is true or not and how it can be established is the "Epistemic Problem" which remains unsolved."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," he wrote.Besides, TDF said the language used by Elections Canada on "false information" was 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," Joseph wrote."It is not clear that Elections Canada could implement any process that would be better at ascertaining truth than citizens using normal human discernment."Joseph told Elections Canada to stick to the facts and leave shooting down falsehoods to someone else."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."
Elections Canada policies to monitor and dissuade "disinformation" have prompted a letter of concern from a legal advocacy group.The Democracy Fund (TDF) senior litigation counsel Mark A. Joseph sent a four-page letter of concerns to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Dominic LeBlanc over the policy. TDF expressed fears the ambiguous language and the apparent lack of legislative authority to engage in such an endeavour will lead to an expansion of the program. In January 2024, Elections Canada launched its ElectoFacts website to provide "correct information about elections Canadians can easily access." Elections Canada claims it does not intend to establish itself as "the arbiter of truth" that will actively monitor the accuracy of statements and information distributed by parties and candidates. Elections Canada has also contacted social media companies to remove "inaccurate" information. It says 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 said in a press release.In the letter, Joseph wrote, "Elections Canada may not have 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."Section 91(1) of the Canada Elections Act bans false statements about candidates during elections, but the courts ruled in a previous case that the act breached freedom of speech provisions in the Charter."Importantly, the legality of prohibiting the publication of 'false news' has been adjudicated by Canadian courts and the relevant Criminal Code provisions have been struck down," Joseph explained.Joseph said the question of whether something is true or not and how it can be established is the "Epistemic Problem" which remains unsolved."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," he wrote.Besides, TDF said the language used by Elections Canada on "false information" was 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," Joseph wrote."It is not clear that Elections Canada could implement any process that would be better at ascertaining truth than citizens using normal human discernment."Joseph told Elections Canada to stick to the facts and leave shooting down falsehoods to someone else."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."
