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
Thank you, Ms. Khalid and Mr. Caulfield.
Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for six minutes,
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today, particularly Ms. Lalancette from the Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières, which is in the riding of Trois‑Rivières. I always like to be able to invite people from my constituency.
Ms. Lalancette, I'll start with you.
In your opinion, is the disinformation targeting parliamentarians the work of foreign actors or domestic actors?
Professor, Political Communication, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, As an Individual
I would say that disinformation can come from both.
Right now, I'm quite struck by what's happening within Canada and how people are able to spread false information. As your colleague was saying, it seems that responsibility, accountability and truth are no longer important.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to come up with a set of rules, so that people can't change the names of the parties or associate them with false information in the House, for example. People must be able to discuss the real issues, rather than having debates where everything comes down to personality or turns to personal matters, because that's where things start to go sideways.
Certainly, everything related to truth, fake news and disinformation is currently becoming more central to the ethics that political actors will have. This plays a role in the way people will want to communicate with each other, as well as with voters, of course.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
You talked about a perfect storm at the beginning of your presentation. I've noticed that we're living in an era where truth doesn't get you very far. Because truth feels out of reach, people settle for likelihood, and it seems to me that is a breeding ground for disinformation.
Professor, Political Communication, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, As an Individual
Yes, if people keep hearing that something might be false, they will consider it to be false. We see this a lot with Trump, who denies having made statements, even though he's been recorded on video saying them. Because this information can easily be spread through digital social media, but also traditional media, people end up believing what's been repeated over and over, rather than the truth, of course.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
It reminds me of the slogan “Axe the tax”.
From your expert perspective, could you explain to the committee the difference between misinformation, disinformation and malinformation?
Professor, Political Communication, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, As an Individual
Disinformation is deliberately conveying false information. As for misinformation, in some cases, it's when someone shares false information, but unintentionally, without knowing that it's false. Malinformation is really when someone knowingly passes on information that is false to mislead the public and create mayhem.
Yes, there are a number of definitions. I'm giving you the most commonly used ones, but the wording can vary.
You may have seen the recent report about a centre at McGill University, in which Mathieu Lavigne and his colleagues spell out definitions for these terms. The report includes key references and recommendations for misinformation and disinformation in an electoral context.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much, Ms. Lalancette.
Mr. Caulfield, you talked a lot about politicians targeting the public with disinformation. However, it must be acknowledged that politicians are also victims of disinformation.
In your opinion, who is targeting politicians with disinformation?
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
That's a very good point.
Politicians live in the same information ecosystem that we all do, and one of the very best examples of it, I think—and I'm sorry I keep pointing to the United States, and my colleague has done the same, but there are just so many good examples emanating from that jurisdiction—was the misinformation we saw with the immigrants eating dogs and cats. That came from the community. It started on social media and then was adopted by politicians, J.D. Vance and Donald Trump.
By the way, a very recent report came out that found that over 80% of Americans have heard that misinformation and it plays to the illusory truth phenomenon, which my colleague spoke to. If you hear it enough, it starts to feel real, especially if the misinformation plays to your preconceived notions, plays to your ideological leanings. The confirmation bias kicks in and you believe it.
There has been some very interesting research that's come out by people like Stephen Lewandowsky and his colleagues that talks about the difference between belief speaking and truth speaking. This is this evolution of the notion of truth. Fact speaking is from the old school, in that it's rooted in evidence. Belief speaking is if you just say something earnestly enough—if you say something with enough conviction and it plays to your ideological beliefs—people will adopt it because they believe the gist of the point, even if they know in their hearts it's not literally true.
I think that's what's happening increasingly, unfortunately, in politics, and that's what's happened with that horrible example in the United States of the idea of immigrants eating cats and dogs. It becomes part of a political agenda, and that community adopts it, despite the fallacy that underlies the belief—and by the way, this happens across the ideological spectrum.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Villemure.
Thank you, Mr. Caulfield.
We're going to go to Mr. Green now.
Mr. Green, please go ahead for six minutes.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to welcome the witnesses here. It really is great to get back to work on what I think is a very important topic.
I want to begin with Mr. Caulfield.
In your article in the briefing note that we have here, “Politics and vaccine misinformation: A horrifyingly bad mix”, you've spoken a little bit about this in terms of political ideology. In this article, you identify that there is a bit of political partisan opportunism, but that political identity, in the case of COVID, was adopted by the right-wing online community and is associated with vaccine hesitancy.
Can you just comment a little bit about that briefly, and why you think that is the case here?
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
For sure, and I think this is incredibly important.
As I pointed out in that article, political identity has become.... Look, vaccination hesitancy is a very complex phenomenon. Access matters, needle phobia matters, past injustices matter. There are various culturally and socially complex phenomena.
Right now at the population level, you could argue that political identity has emerged as the single strongest variable of predicting vaccination hesitancy, and also the engagement with an embrace of vaccine misinformation. I think it's really important to highlight that history and context matter.
It hasn't always been like that. On the contrary, in the past, lots of the vaccine misinformation emanated a little bit from the left. It was kind of New Agey, right? It was whole foods and yoga and a distrust of anything that's not natural.
Now we see it very strongly on the right, and there is a large body of evidence to support what I'm saying. This isn't just me speculating. There's a lot of empirical evidence.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I want to help you on that, because I want to use an example that's closer to Hamilton. In fact, had you come into Ottawa, you may have come across some folks who still hold some conspiracy theories around the vaccine. Of course, that evolved into what was known as the Freedom Convoy and the political partisan connections there.
However, I want to reference in particular Paul Alexander, who is a Canadian independent scientist. For those who may not know, he is a former Trump administration official and was with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during COVID-19. His refrain was that we want them infected. He actively—or at least according to the Wikipedia article that I have here—sought to muzzle federal scientists and public health agencies to prevent them from contradicting the Trump administration's political talking points.
Those who followed the convoy and the occupation here in Ottawa would know, of course, that Pierre Poilievre marched alongside Mr. Alexander, and that was part of the rhetoric coming out of the convoy. There were lots of instances to see the leader of the official opposition walking in lockstep with this very high-profile Trump administration person.
Talk just a little bit about how this isn't necessarily just an American phenomenon, but that there seems to be a cross-pollination of conspiracy when it comes to this on the record.
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. I think this is incredibly important.
If you look at why people are justifying their position on COVID, you see that they point to misinformation, right? They don't point to being concerned about the conflicting data on who should get the COVID booster. No, they point to things like.... A very large percentage of individuals in Canada point to things like the idea that the COVID vaccine has killed more people than it has saved. To be clear, the COVID vaccine has saved many millions of people around the world. The COVID vaccine lowers your risk of long COVID. The COVID vaccine improves pregnancy outcomes and lowers the risk to your heart and cardiovascular system. It lowers the hospital costs. It lowers hospitalization rates, etc., but they believe the “died suddenly” myth and the turbo cancer myth, and they'll explicitly reference those. That is misinformation that is emanating from the alt-right. It's having a real impact on what's happening in our country, and I fear that if there is a pandemic, it could have a grave impact.
I'll give one very powerful, tangible example. It's from another survey that was done in Alberta shortly after our last provincial election. Of those who are completely unvaccinated for COVID, over 91% of them voted for the United Conservative Party, and only 3% to 5% of them voted for the NDP or another party. That is incredible.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm looking at this, and I'm seeing the way in which Erin O'Toole was cut out of his Conservative leadership at this time. I'm referencing a tweet from Pierre Poilievre that's before me. It says, “Today I walked alongside military veteran, James Topp, who has travelled the country by foot for free choice”, so again there are these libertarian ideas about what freedom is.
Then Poilievre goes on to say, “End all mandates. Restore our freedoms. Let people take back control of their lives.” In the same photo is this conspiracy wingnut, Paul Alexander, who was talking about herd immunity, which of course led to, I think, a whole bunch of confusion around this.
In your closing statements, how can you share information on pre-bunking this type of approach to political rhetoric?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to need a very quick response. You have five seconds.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Do you know what, Mr. Chair? I'll follow that question up in my second round.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I appreciate that, Mr. Green. It saves us a little bit of time. Thank you, sir.
That concludes our first round.
We're going to go to five minutes now for the Conservatives and Liberals.
Mr. Villemure and Mr. Green will each have two and a half minutes.
Mr. Cooper, you have five minutes. Go ahead, sir.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Caulfield, how much money have you received from the Trudeau Foundation?
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Personally?
Conservative
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
In 2012, I was honoured to receive a Trudeau fellowship, which is a peer-reviewed research award that is awarded.
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
In 2010, I think it was $200,000, and that was for research purposes.