Evidence of meeting #20 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was groups.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Lead Research Assistant on Hate and Extremism in Canada, Carleton University, As an Individual
Discrediting the speakers is the prime way of doing that, by suggesting they are progressive or politically motivated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
Ms. Larouche, you have all of 90 seconds. Make the best of it.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
That's going to go by quickly.
Mr. Morin, to sum up, we discussed the growth of various movements over the past decade. More specifically, many experts have mentioned that the far right had used the pandemic as a way to connect with more people, get its messages across and become more popular.
If so, how can we benefit from this experience and build it into the impending legislation to combat online hate?
Co-Chair, Université de Sherbrooke, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalisation and Violent Extremism
Absolutely, Ms. Larouche. I agree.
There is consensus on that. The far-right and anti-government movements have managed to take over some of the monopoly that was protesting the health measures. The political opposition did not quite know what to do to avoid adding to the noise, and it's obvious that the movements benefited from this.
They succeeded in building a sort of movement, as was seen in Ottawa, moreover, and I think it's going to last. Among other things, they understood how to use their fundraising capacity to spectacular effect.
There is a final point I'd like to make in response once again to the previous question. There is a form of ambient confusion that needs to be investigated in greater detail. The concept is to create new analysis categories, in which the oppressors are trying to pass themselves off as the oppressed, and making an effort to blur everything. The debate over whether or not one is part of the far right is one such example. I believe, unfortunately, that this kind of confusion is not helping the situation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you.
I apologize. We just never have enough time. That's the way it is. It's the world we live in.
Mr. MacGregor, you have your 90 seconds whenever you are ready.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Morin, I'll start with you.
The director of CSIS appeared for the special joint committee that is conducting a review of the Emergencies Act. He has now confirmed that the agency is devoting roughly 50% of its attention and resources to ideologically motivated extremist violence. We know from what happened in Ottawa in February that there was a complete and total failure because of what resulted and how this city was occupied for nearly three weeks.
We've had an acknowledgement that CSIS needs to do more. In the 60 seconds I have left, do you have any suggestions on what specifics they should be engaging in? Is it more human-level intelligence and trying to get more informants into these groups, etc.?
Can you suggest anything to our committee for recommendations?
Co-Chair, Université de Sherbrooke, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalisation and Violent Extremism
I'd like to thank the hon. member.
I want to be careful to avoid lecturing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but I'm convinced that we need to reinvest in efforts to infiltrate far right organizations. It's an important point, and I also think that it's important to try to be transparent about the information and intelligence obtained, within the limitations of national security, of course.
I think that the fact that a committee like yours is considering these matters is an excellent start in making Canadians aware of these issues.
Co-Chair, Université de Sherbrooke, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalisation and Violent Extremism
I truly believe that the future lies in these questions and in this approach, by making Canadians more aware.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
Mr. Shipley, you have two and a half minutes in this round. Start whenever you're ready, sir.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you.
I'll start with Dr. Morin, please.
Dr. Morin, in your opening comments, you mentioned that there's been a loss of trust in institutions. Could you expand on that? More specifically, what institutions are you referring to, and what's created that loss?
Co-Chair, Université de Sherbrooke, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalisation and Violent Extremism
I'd like to thank the hon. member.
You'll see in the report that we are about to table, that there is a clear link between adherence to conspiracy theories and a loss of confidence in institutions, by which I mean mainly political and media institutions. It's obvious that what we have here is no longer just mistrust, but defiance.
I believe that there are many reasons for this, but in view of the time allotted to me, it it's difficult for me to go over all of them.
Lastly, dialogue and relations between citizens and elected representatives is a major issue. A form of distance has been created and I have the impression that some citizens no longer feel represented by their elected officials, which in my view is clearly a distortion that extremist groups can make use of. That's why the role of elected representatives is so important to preventing violent extremism. Rebuilding the relationship of trust and perhaps also having political representation, by changing the voting system for example, is an important aspect.
There is no silver bullet or miracle cure, but we might eventually be able to restore some of the connections that would make people feel they are better represented. However, I have an important warning for everyone. This discussion and this conversation about extremism cannot be partisan. It's essential for those in charge, and for elected representatives, to know that sometimes, trying to poach in dangerous areas is like playing with matches in a dynamite warehouse.
It's therefore essential for us to be able to debate complex and difficult subjects like immigration, because that is something being debated at the moment, but without ever descending into extremism. Otherwise, if we try to take advantage of the discussion for political purposes or to use debates as a means to an end, we will all become losers.
I believe that's one of the many things that we need to keep in mind.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
Mr. McKinnon, you will take us to the end of this round and to the break. You have two and a half minutes whenever you're ready.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Dr. Morin.
Dr. Morin, you mentioned in your remarks that it is essential that we have robust regulatory mechanisms to give teeth to our policies. You mentioned just recently the need to make evaluation mechanisms more robust. That kind of begs the question about where we draw those lines. I think we all have a sense of extremism. We'll know it when we see it, but that's a very subjective evaluation.
How do we recognize the essential DNA that we need to take note of in these kinds of regulations? Where do we draw those lines? How do we draw those lines?
Co-Chair, Université de Sherbrooke, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalisation and Violent Extremism
I'd like to thank the hon. member.
In my view, the first thing on which we all have to agree is that we need to ensure that whatever is illegal offline is illegal online. That's a major area in itself. As you know, this will not just happen on its own. Some unlawful acts are committed online and it takes a long time for the people committing them to be brought to justice. That's one of the first areas we can begin to work on right now.
In my view, the first thing upon which we must all agree is that we need to ensure that whatever is illegal offline is illegal online. That's a major area in itself. As you know, it will not just happen on its own. Some unlawful acts are committed online and it takes a long time for the people committing them to be brought to justice. That's one of the first areas we can begin to work on right now.
Confidence also requires transparency. No one is perfect and no one expects a regulatory framework to be perfect. The regulations will evolve as time goes by, but at the moment, the status quo is no longer tenable.
Those are the areas I would prioritize, hon. member.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you.
Colleagues, we're at the end of the second round of questions and of the time allotted to this panel.
I want to apologize to the witnesses for a rushed little session. That's the world we live in. We also had a late start—also the world we live in.
You have brought all kinds of wisdom and an articulate way of expressing difficult issues. On behalf of the committee and all members of Parliament, thank you very much for being with us this morning.
Colleagues, we'll now take a very short break to do some sound checks for the next panel. We'll be back in no more than five minutes.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Colleagues, we're ready to call the meeting back to order, so please take your seats.
Given the time constraints, colleagues, we'll ask our guests to take five minutes for their introductory remarks, and then we'll go one full round so every party has a chance for a full round. That will take us to the allotted time that has been given to us by the House of Commons, given the late start and the vote.
With us for this second hour, as an individual, is Dr. Carmen Celestini, post-doctoral fellow, the disinformation project, school of communications, Simon Fraser University. We have Dr. Diana Inkpen, professor, school of electrical engineering and computer science, University of Ottawa. She's here in person. We also have Dr. Christian Leuprecht, professor, Royal Military College of Canada, Queen's University.
I now welcome Dr. Celestini to make her five-minute presentation.
The floor is yours.
Dr. Carmen Celestini Post Doctoral Fellow, The Disinformation Project, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Thank you to the honourable chair and committee for this opportunity to discuss this important topic.
My area of research is the overlapping belief systems of apocalyptic religious thought and conspiracy theories and the influence these beliefs have on socio-political movements and within extremism. While much focus as of late has been on the role of disinformation and misinformation on the rise of extremism, the role of conspiracy theories and their adherents has been ignored, mocked and considered fringe beliefs, with no affect on society or politics. However, in fact, it plays an integral role in socio-political movements, as well as the spreading of extremism.
QAnon has leapt from the online world to violence in the real world and is at present a global phenomenon. The conspiracy is spread predominantly through social media platforms. Adherents of QAnon conspiracy are not limited to a geographic range, with adherents and supporters found globally, including Canada.
Current research on radicalization and violence shares many commonalities with those who are conspiracists and the theories in which they believe. Conspiracy theories may not have a mass radicalizing effect, but they are effective in leading to increased polarization in society. They also delineate who are the enemies and those who are unaware of the truth from the in-group, who prioritize their knowledge of the truth, their morality and, most importantly, their role as social heroes who will save the world. Conspiracy theory is effective when politics are interpreted through a conspiratorial lens by those individuals and groups for whom politics are inaccessible. This inaccessibility renders politics as something that is impenetrable or secret.
Although conspiracy theories can be wrong and appear simplistic in their presentation of answers, they may harbour a problem or issues that need to be discussed or addressed. Conspiracy theories, while often portrayed as being based in social and economic position and education, are used as a narrative for expressing injustice and are an articulation of fears, both real and imagined, which are then propagated as the basis for some social movements. The conspiracy could provide a response to these issues for the adherents when society as a whole or the social safety net does not.
Those who feel disenfranchised will seek out others who understand or feel the same and create a community or a social group of like-minded individuals. When the individuals begin to take conspiracy theories seriously, there is inherently less trust in the institutions of the nation. For the conspiracist, the conspiratorial plot is evident in the institutions: universities, governments, banks and the media. Due to these institutions not being trusted, the believer turns to the ideas and groups that are condemned by these very institutions.
Not all conspiracy theories lead to radicalization, nor do they spur political action or mobilization. These theories have provided a conduit for the expression and symbolic representation of the extreme right's fears. In defining the “extreme right” and the use of fear and conspiracy for mobilization, important commonalities need to be acknowledged. Commonly, there is a trope of making their nation more ethnically homogeneous and demanding a return to more traditional values. Descriptions of those in power and national institutions are seen as being under the control of elites who place internationalism before the nation. Elites or powerful individuals are described by the extreme right as putting their own self-interests ahead of those they represent.
This notion of fear and dread is an important component of the power of conspiracy theories and they can provide an answer or rationale as to why these fears manifest. Linked to politics, religion and racism, conspiracy theories have served as justification for political mobilization and activism and are usually connected in some cases to violence.
Political populism and conspiracy are usually connected. The most prevalent in the extreme right is improvisational conspiracism. This form can only exist when there are significant subcultures. Mainly rising or appearing during times of crisis, improvisational conspiracism is comprised of heterodox religion, esoteric and occult beliefs, fringe science and radical politics, and it has a potent power and influence on politics within the nation. What brings these various ideas like this together, like fringe science and heterodox religion, is stigmatized knowledge, which is the belief that secret hidden forces are controlling human destinies.
Conspiracy theories can delineate the attributes of a patriot or a social hero who can save the nation from the enemy, whether domestic or foreign. They also serve to formulate the components of the identity of the enemy, for example via religion, race, culture or political leaning. Their racist messages ensconced in the mainstream political allow them to create and produce fear.
Post Doctoral Fellow, The Disinformation Project, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Thank you.
This fear is a cultural threat and can lead to hostility. Conspiracy theories are often—
Post Doctoral Fellow, The Disinformation Project, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
All right.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
I'm sorry, but we have to strictly adhere to time limits. Otherwise, we lose control of what's available to us.
Dr. Inkpen, you're next. You have five minutes for an opening statement, please, whenever you're ready.
Dr. Diana Inkpen Professor, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you for the invitation.
My name is Diana Inkpen. I'm a professor of computer science at the University of Ottawa. My research area is artificial intelligence, natural language processing and machine learning with a focus on social media text processing. I'm going to offer a bit of what I know from a computer science perspective. I'm not sure if it will be that much use for this committee.
In our research we look at individual messages or groups of messages from certain users. For our methods, it's easier to have more than one message at a time. There is more information for text to be analyzed.
I looked at cyber-bullying messages to protect children while they are online, or at detecting signs of mental health or suicide ideation. There are some benchmarks of hate speech that we play with in some small projects. I didn't look particularly at extremist messages, but I think the same kinds of methods, AI tools, could be used.
Most of the time we need to, with classifiers and automatic methods, pick up on words and phrases associated with certain topics and certain very strong, negative emotions, for example. Most often they learn from data. Besides classifying a text, a set of messages or a user, we can also summarize texts. We can find similar things. We can identify bots and fake accounts, because the language they use is different and they have other behaviours.
I am more concerned about the accuracy of these kinds of tools. We work in computer science to improve accuracy with the latest deep learning methods.
Besides that, accuracy is what computer scientists try to provide. These tools are not perfect. In my opinion, there will always be a need for humans in the loop, not only to use these tools with a grain of salt but also to try to get an explanation of why the machine recommends such things. We work on explainable language classifiers and so on, even if it's a very...research area, so it's not easy to get an explanation.
Besides accuracy, of course, it's very important to use any AI tool in a very strong, ethical way. I know the government is putting in place regulations for how to use AI tools. That's what I'm more focused on increasing, the accuracy of these kinds of decisions and their explainability.
I think about the recent events—the protests, the trucker convoy. Maybe these users were known to relevant authorities. Their accounts could be automatically monitored to detect very specific extremist messages. If somebody, an unknown user, is preparing a hate crime, probably they will post relevant messages that could be detected, and warnings could be raised and so on.
To conclude, I want to say that AI tools could be useful for detecting extremism and dangerous ideologies, but only if they're customized properly in terms of accuracy and if they are used carefully in terms of ethics by relevant authorities.
Thank you.