Information & Ethics Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Ms. Damoff, I have you next. Go ahead, please, for six minutes.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.

I want to talk a little bit about the way that online disinformation gets turned into real-world experiences for politicians—in particular, the role that politicians themselves play in that.

I've decided not to run in the next election largely because of the atmosphere that has developed here in Canada. When we were studying Bill C-21 at committee, I recall that the non-partisan officials were receiving threats, and the chair repeatedly had to warn Conservative Party members about the tone they were using with the witnesses.

Back in March at this committee, I brought up that when Mr. Barrett and Conservatives were bringing up words like “cover-up” and “corruption”, it ended up leading to my inbox filling up with just horrible messages, and I was called a “pearl clutcher”, yet last week, when Mr. Chiu was here talking about his experience on social media, I think Mr. Kurek called him a hero.

It speaks to the obvious views that politicians hold of, perhaps, women in politics, but I can't count the number of times I've been called a pearl clutcher. The new one is a “cry-bully” from the gun lobby, which seems to have spread repeatedly.

I wonder what responsibility you think politicians have to ensure they're not fanning the flames that lead to threats and real-world violence against politicians. I'd like to hear from all three of you on this.

Mr. Loewen, you can start.

[Peter Loewen]

I'm happy to say two things very quickly, Madam Damoff.

The first is that, personally—if I could say this—I was sad to see that you have decided not to re-offer; and the reasons you've given are, I know, very real, genuine and serious.

I think we're arriving at a place where the disinhibition that social media allows in turn allows people to come to views about politicians that are unfair and incorrect. Our House of Commons is not filled with people who are corrupt, looking for personal enrichment and set on selling out the country; and yet people in the public often hold that belief.

This rising cynicism and a lack of trust in government is a very serious problem, and it's a serious problem that's going to hurt any party when it is in government.

How you fix it is a whole other matter, and one on which I'd love to hear other people's views.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll go to Mr. Frank and then Mr. Al-Rawi, if that's okay.

[Dr. Richard Frank]

I'm very sorry that this circumstance has occurred; and the reactions to it by others, including other MPs, is not fair.

Given the situation and the ability for social media to spread information and give rise to voices that are untrue and have malicious intent, foreign or domestic, I don't know what the solution is.

I think this is going to become increasingly worse as our trust in government and the MPs is undermined. It could be foreign or it could be not; and that's one of the problems we won't know unless we really dig into it and develop some defences against this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Al-Rawi.

[Dr. Ahmed Al-Rawi]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very sorry, MP, for your decision, and I understand that this is a problem we are facing in Canada. In the research I have conducted with my team about the Canadian public's interactions with Canadian politicians, we've seen a lot of these examples. Whatever happens in Parliament will be directly echoed on social media and other sites.

Unfortunately, some politicians use what we call “edutainment”. They try to educate the public with entertainment. The result will be a lot of memes directed at a lot of politicians, unfortunately. The purpose, of course, is to belittle them with little respect, and maybe make fun of them. However, at the same time, it creates more divisions, unfortunately.

I believe there is a need for a more civil discourse, especially for you and the like, in representing all of Canada and the Parliament. This is the case.

Thank you.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

How much time do I have, Chair? I forgot to set my timer.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 45 seconds.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay. I didn't ask the question to....

I appreciate the kind comments from all three witnesses. I wasn't trying to make this about me. I'm one example of many, and I'm actually saddened by how many of my colleagues have come up to me since I did say this to share their own experiences in the public, and I do worry that we're dehumanizing politicians in a way that puts us all in danger.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Next we will go to Monsieur Villemure.

To the witnesses, please make sure that you are on the English interpretation channel if you don't understand French.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for six minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Frank, you said that disinformation is a sort of digital propaganda, which we completely agree with.

Since Mr. Bernays' time, a lot has happened.

You also mentioned that we do not know the purpose of propaganda.

When I look at the situation, it seems to me that the purpose of propaganda is to create chaos.

Do you agree with that?

[Dr. Richard Frank]

It's not necessarily to create chaos, but to undermine the trust of the recipient in their higher authority.

I'm reminded of the efforts by the U.S. government to drop leaflets onto army soldiers in Germany to—what's the word I'm looking for?—disenfranchise them of the war and make them give up more easily. It's not necessarily to create chaos, but there's a specific purpose to it.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much.

You also said that propaganda has a purpose and that disinformation does not seem to have a purpose. So it is difficult to defend against it.

What would you suggest to us as a defence based on the information you have at the moment?

[Dr. Richard Frank]

That's an excellent question, and I think that's the goal for the next couple of years: to figure this out in a lot of detail. We need to recognize that this is happening and develop counter-narratives against it.

This is an information-based war. We have an aggressor. We need to defend ourselves against it. The attack is information-based. The defence should be information-based.

When I say “we”, I mean that Canadians need to go into these communities and identify this content and counter it. If there is an effort to, say, attack an MP, we need people to come to their defence and say, “This is not true. This is not how it is”, and de-escalate the situation.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It used to be that the propaganda would come with a narrative. Then you could build a counter-narrative to somewhat replace it.

In recent years, however, we have observed that the era has tended to be one of violent disagreement. We see intemperate statements, often meaningless slogans as a substitute for policies, which is not effective in regaining public trust.

What can we do in the face of that?

[Dr. Richard Frank]

I recognize that there are communities that actively look for conspiracy theories and distrust government, and those people are going to be really difficult to reach, but for most people I would say that's not the case. They are reachable, and if we develop similar, very simplistic slogans and campaigns, I think we can reach them and counter that narrative that they are under attack from.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Would you go so far as to say that disinformation is a form of cognitive warfare?

[Dr. Richard Frank]

Yes, it's a war of ideas.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Loewen, do you think it is possible for certain political parties to use disinformation for partisan purposes in Canada?

[Peter Loewen]

I think it's a story as old as time. Politicians, even in Canada, have said things about what their opponents will do in office and what the consequences of their being in office will be that they either know to be untrue or could not know to be true.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I could not agree with you more.

However, do you think that, with modern means of communication, it can get much worse and that the damage is greater than it used to be?

[Peter Loewen]

That is possible.

The other serious related threat is that we don't know what's being said. With the way communication happens now, which is often over apps and other ways that don't allow us to keep track of what's being said, we have less of a window into what's being said. Related to this, there is less of an accountability mechanism, in that we have less journalism than we had in the past. We particularly have less local journalism, which follows what local candidates are saying.

Our capacity to see the whole conversation that's going on during elections and to see how much mistruth is present is more limited than it has been in the past. Even if politicians are no less dishonest and even if the share of the spread of misinformation is the same, our capacity to see it is arguably lower than it was before.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Commissioner Hogue said that there was foreign interference in the last election. It would not have changed the party that formed the government, but it might still have had an impact on the results in some ridings.

Do you agree that this interference, which had some effect but did not really work, is a major source of concern for parliamentarians?

[Peter Loewen]

It should be deeply so. No parliamentarian should have to wonder whether one of their colleagues was elected with the support of a foreign government.