Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Celestini, I'd like to start with you. Thank you for your testimony on conspiracy theories and all of your research on that. I can very much relate. I think every member of Parliament can.
To give you an example, in previous years I've tried to confront the conspiracy theory of chemtrails. You try your best to provide factual information to people who bring up these conspiracy theories. The problem is that we know that emotionally provocative content that reinforces what someone already believes almost always seems to win out against factual information. I was trying my best to provide all of the facts, even with links to scientific papers on what causes contrails and why they exist in certain atmospheric conditions, but that just would not convince people.
Do you have any thoughts on that? How do we get back to a place in Canada where factual information can have a hope of going over and winning when it's against emotionally provocative content? Do you have any thoughts on that and on what strategies might be able to work?