Evidence of meeting #129 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. I have Mr. Caputo for two and a half minutes. Mr. Housefather will conclude for two and a half minutes.
Mr. Caputo, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you to the witnesses. I appreciate your being here on this very important issue.
I've reviewed testimony on this issue from the past. Professor Caulfield, I think you'd agree with me that government has what we would call a positive obligation to act when it comes to disinformation and misinformation. Is that correct?
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I think so, given the gravity of the issue.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Certainly.
That positive obligation goes right down to the bottom person working the line at Elections Canada, and it goes right up to the top, to the Prime Minister.
Would you agree with that?
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I would agree with that.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
If the government fails to act when it has what I certainly would call a moral duty—and I would actually say is a legal duty—to act, that is what we in law would call an omission. It's a duty to act and a failure to act.
We have common ground there, I take it.
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I think so. I'm not sure of the context. I anticipate that there's more to come.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Yes, there's certainly more to come.
My point is this: We have a situation where one of our former colleagues, Kenny Chiu, is no longer here, and there is clear evidence of misinformation. We also know that 11 people have been either wittingly or semi-wittingly—those aren't my words, but the words of a report—assisted by hostile states. I'm paraphrasing here.
In situations when the Prime Minister knows or Elections Canada knows, obviously a failure to act by them is propagating the very thing that we should be shining the light on, is it not?
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
This is what I'll say.
I feel so passionately about this issue. I agree that we need an incredibly high standard for public officials and for politicians when it comes to issues of misinformation, for explaining when it has happened or when misinformation perhaps has not been clarified for the public in a way that can ensure trust.
I think that we are on the same page. I think it's very important for public trust—
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I'm sorry. I just have 20 seconds.
My point is this: When the government has information, it should act. When it doesn't act, it not only fails the people who've built their lives on running for office, but it denigrates and degrades the very democracy that we are standing here purporting to defend.
Would you agree?
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I'm not sure of the exact context of that comment, but it sounds like I agree with the spirit of what you're saying.
I apologize if I don't know specifics to which you refer.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's hard, Mr. Caulfield, in two and a half minutes, to get to any sort of substantive stuff. Hopefully Mr. Housefather can do that.
Go ahead, sir, for two and a half minutes. You're going to end this.
September 26th, 2024 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thanks very much to the witnesses.
I am not going to use my time in any partisan way to try to dig in. I don't consider either of you to be hostile witnesses or witnesses needed to meet political points. I actually have a real question that I would like to ask. I'm going to try to divert it away from Canadian to U.S. politics so that I don't feel that I'm acting in a partisan way here.
Donald Trump is probably one of the biggest liars in the world. Donald Trump, for example, said that he won the 2020 election and that it was rigged.
When I get to my question, you'll understand it. I want to understand where misinformation comes.
Certainly that high-level comment is not true, but he may, for whatever reason in his head, believe it to be true. However, when he gets to saying that Dominion Voting machines switched the votes; when he gets to claiming that in Georgia, this number of people who voted were dead, which he knows isn't true; and when he starts claiming that people in the voting stations were taking boxes and taking ballots out of boxes when they were handing each other candy, this is where you really get into misinformation, because it's a direct lie.
Professor Caulfield, at what point is it misinformation?
All of these things to me are misinformation, but is it only when you get to the linear, direct lies that you're at a misinformation point that we should be fighting against—because otherwise you're taking away a larger idea that they may believe in—or is the larger idea that the election was a fraud also clearly a lie and we should be handling that as well?
I hope you understand.
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I do understand. I think it's important to recognize that 60% to 70% of Republicans believe the big lie, which is absolutely astounding. It's going to have an impact on the election.
I think there is a way to deal with the big lie at a meta level—in which case you point out that the big lie is wrong—and also to carefully outline all of the things that you highlighted and why they're factually in error. This really goes to that idea of belief speaking versus fact speaking. I actually think that many people don't believe that it was stolen, but they believe the gist of the point. They're very willing to accept the broader lie.
You have to do both. You have to talk about the error of the meta lie and then you have to unpack each specific lie.
By the way, again, this happens across the ideological spectrum. I can give you examples from the left.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Caulfield and Mr. Housefather.
We've had other witnesses here. We've been studying this for several meetings now. I've asked this question of the other witnesses, and I'm going to ask each of you to answer the question.
We've seen Facebook pull back on the application of links on their website. Oftentimes, people would rely on Facebook. It would be simply a copy and paste of a story, whether it was to The Globe and Mail, whether it was to BarrieToday, or other newspapers. That's been lost, so that source of credible information, fact-checked information, has also been lost.
In your opinion, given the fact that Facebook has taken this action as a result of a dispute with government, do you believe it fills in a vacuum of misinformation, or the potential of a vacuum of misinformation, that could be put online in absence of this fact-checked information from credible news organizations?
I'll start with you, Mr. Caulfield.
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I actually wrote a short piece on exactly this. I think it highlights how challenging it is to regulate this space.
My short answer is that I am worried. I am worried that a vacuum was created by removing reputable sources and it's been filled with information that is less credible, and I think that is a real problem. However, the larger goal of that policy, of supporting journalism, is so important.
The value of journalism to a liberal democracy can't be overstated, and it's in jeopardy, as my colleague pointed out in her opening statements. We've seen how this played out in other jurisdictions, such as Australia. I am worried about how it's playing out right now. I wish I had a better answer for you, other than saying this is complex.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's good. That's helpful.
Ms. Lalancette, do you have an opinion on this issue?
Professor, Political Communication, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, As an Individual
Yes, of course.
As I explained in my opening remarks, this situation is the result of a perfect storm. Social media forced traditional media to go to these platforms in order to survive, and they used their content for free. Now that the government is trying to save traditional media by charging digital social media platforms, we're no longer able to transmit credible information from media.
This does create a huge problem. As research shows, it was thanks to digital social media platforms like Facebook that people read The Globe and Mail, The Gazette, Le Devoir or the National Post, for example. Now that this content is no longer available, people don't read it. Instead, they rely on influencers, who don't have a code of ethics, media code or code of conduct like journalists do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Lalancette. On behalf of the committee, thank you for your testimony today.
Mr. Caulfield, thank you for being with us today. The information that you've provided has helped the committee.
I am going to—
Sorry, Mr. Green, you did have something to say. Go ahead.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes.
It's often the case, Mr. Chair, as you will know, that these conversations provide an opportunity for witnesses to perhaps respond in writing for answers that they may not have been able to put into their brief time.
Through you, to the witnesses, I would like to encourage them that if there were topics raised—facts, figures, studies, recommendations—they feel would be for the good and public welfare, to put it to us in writing for consideration at the report-writing stage.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for that, Mr. Green.
Mr. Caulfield, Madam Lalancette, if there's anything at all, in addition to what you've spoken about today—I know an hour goes by really quickly—that you can provide the committee to help in its deliberation and presentation of this report to government, I would appreciate if you could send that to us.
Typically I like to put a deadline on things, so if you could have it here by next Friday at five o'clock, that would be helpful for the clerk, and the parliamentary analysts as well, to possibly include that information into whatever report we come up with. Thank you.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
No, I'm talking about Friday of next week. Tomorrow would be too quick.
