Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The Current Transcript for May 28, 2019

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: There is unprecedented situation of having a corporation decide whether or not it will respect law. It's not good enough for them to blow us off and it's not good enough for them to tell us what laws they like and laws they don't like.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: A whole lot of politicians, Canadians, international, really do not like being stood up. So when the name plates for Facebook two top execs sat on used in hearings in Ottawa yesterday the fury was formidable. The government's sheer deep concerns over data collection privacy and the manipulation of fact particularly as it relates to elections and politics. And they were urged by other players to bring in tough regulations or even shut down social media for a while to force compliance. In a moment we'll hear from the Facebook Canada official who was in the room. And then our rotating panel of political watchers was watching this one we'll hear from Chris Hall, Susan Delacourt and Althia Raj on everything from Facebook to Facetime for these two politicians.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We are getting really tyred of hyper partisan politics.

VOICE 2: We need to do politics differently.

AMT: Former Liberal cabinet ministers Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott chose to announce their independent electoral status in tandem this week. We're looking for some insights into the impact of that when our panellists join me in half an hour. Also today, why is the U.S. Navy bringing in new regulations for its pilots to report sightings of UFOs?

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: My gosh. We're going against the wind. The winds are 120 nots to the west. Look at that thing. Wow. Look at it fly.

AMT: Well because lately credible pilots like the ones you just heard are seeing unidentifiable objects with sophisticated flying patterns that their own engineers cannot replicate. Are they drones? Are they aliens? Is it the invention of another country's military? We've got that story in an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Facebook's head of public policy says he'd welcome regulation, but warns it's easier said than done

Guests: Kevin Chan

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: If your goals are to protect democracy and personal liberty you have to be bold. You have to force a radical transformation the business model of Internet platforms. The most effective path to reform would be to shut down the platforms at least temporarily as Sri Lanka did. Any country can go first. The platforms have left you no choice. The time has come to call their bluff.

AMT: That is Roger McNamee. He was once an adviser and friend to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. He is now one of the social media giants biggest critics offering ways to rein it in as he did yesterday in Ottawa. Before the parliamentary committee on Access to Information Privacy and Ethics a committee that was super sized with the inclusion of people representing 12 countries which make up the international grand committee on Big Data Privacy and democracy. The committee also heard from representatives from a number of social media companies including my next guest Kevin Chan. He is the head of public policy for Facebook Canada and he joins me in our Toronto studio. Hello and welcome.

KEVIN CHAN: Thank you for having me.

AMT: What would happen if the U.S. and Canada heeded Roger McNamee's call and shut down Facebook for a little while?

KC: Well obviously I think that would be an unfortunate outcome for a lot of people. I'm not sure that that is something that that makes a whole lot of sense. I also personally think that be a violation of many different kinds of rights.

AMT: What if they did it anyway? What would you do? Would you sue them? What would you do?

KC: Well it's happened elsewhere in the world and obviously we live with that.

AMT: But you think that would be why that would be infringing on corporate rights?

KC: Well I was actually more thinking of a more broader rights. I I think that if it is far for me to say there are many very thoughtful Internet scholars that you should and your listeners should talk to. But I think at the core of what makes the internet free and open and this is core tenants of the Internet that people should be able to connect and associate with who they want to online.

AMT: I want to talk to you about that doctored clip of Nancy Pelosi where she's made to look through slowing down either drunk or ill with some kind of cognitive illness or issues. She's slurring her words. We know it's fake. Why is that video still available?

KC: So that video actually to mind to our understanding isn't is a video that has been slowed down to some extent and that is to our understanding the only change that has been done to that video in so for us that does raise broader questions in some respects. If this were a more manipulated video or it was a lie generated for example that would be a much easier thing to go at because it's a clear misrepresentation. This one has qualities that have just basically been slowed down. There are many videos as I'm sure you've seen online and on Facebook that are sped up or slowed down.

AMT: Well some of them are for fun though, right? This is like this has a nefarious intent.

KC: I think you're actually right the context is important. The problem was that when it was initially put on Facebook there was no caption or no context to it. It was just the slowed down video. We don't have a content policy that addresses this well. And so what we've done is we've had our independent third party fact Chequers look at it and they have rated this as being false and being misinformation. And so what happens when that happens is that we slow. We we drastically reduce the distribution of the video we inform anybody who has shared that video that it has been fact checked. And if someone tries to reshape the video then they have a very prominent prompt that appears that says it's been fact checked that they should read the fact checked article that that explains what has happened. The. But I do think. And Maria if I may. I think that does raise broader questions. We certainly are constantly evolving our content policies. And so this is somewhat of a novel case and so we will obviously look at this but we have also made commitments to build an external oversight board by the O 2019. It's this idea that Facebook shouldn't be making all of these important decisions with respect to content and what stays up and what goes down on the platform. And this independent oversight board will be the final board of appeal for these kinds of tough and novel content questions and they will be charged with governing speech on Facebook. And our view at this point and we've been doing consultations around the world on this including in Canada. But our view at this point is that the the the decisions made by this board would be public and they would be binding on Facebook. And so these are ways in which we think over time we're gonna to try to get to a better place where Facebook isn't making all these decisions about what stays on the platform.

AMT: By the end of 2019?

KC: Correct.

AMT: So after the Canadian election potentially we'll see.

KC: I mean that that's our commitment. The other thing that you know.

AMT: Instead of before the Canadian election. Like I guess what I'm asking you is how can you ensure this kind of manipulation, really simple manipulation with really nefarious intent that is hard to tell right away what you're seeing, doesn't happen in the Canadian election?

KC: Well so again I think we need to understand what the context is as you as you were saying and so intent is part of that context. And so as I was saying I think when it was first shown to Facebook there was actually no context to it. It was just someone had slowed down the video. On the election.

AMT: I think it was pretty clear right away, right? I mean Mr. Trump was making the point that we don't want we don't have to get into the back and forth of polarized American politics, but you know essentially this is an attack on a woman to make her look like she's somehow infirm and not worth and not able to be a leader. That is the context behind that clip. So what if you know and it can be done by a company or can be done by an individual working for a company that you don't know, but you got to deal with this. This is big stuff. This is the third most powerful person in the United States. And this you have just come out of a U.S. election where there's been manipulation of video and everything else. We are about to go into an election with that. So how do you deal with it?

KC: What we try to do is inform people. I think the debate is quite obvious. I think and clear to people who seised with this that this is actually not an accurate representation of Speaker Pelosi.

AMT: It might be obvious to me and you, but really, it's obvious to most people? I don't think so.

KC: I think the dominant conversation out there right now is that this is in fact not what she was, it was not an accurate portrayal of what she actually was like or what she actually said.

AMT: So it corrects itself in other words.

KC: Well I think the important thing is to give people information. We what we want to be doing is providing people with that accurate information which is why we have third party fact-checkers.

AMT: Because one of your colleagues in the States, Monica Riccard has made that point. You know we want people to I think you know decide for themselves. Be informed. But you're giving out false things so that we can be in, like what's the point? You want people to be informed, but you know something's fake. So what are we supposed to make up our minds about?

KC: We'll try it. Well let's go at it from a different perspective. I think what we tried to say at the committee yesterday, we were there to talk about how to meaningfully regulate or better regulate the Internet. I mean one of the things is that if lawmakers if parliaments around the world wish to draw clearer baseline standards about what should stay up and watch it come down on the platform what's permissible speech online. We would welcome that but I can assure you that they'll be seised with the equally challenging issues that we are.

AMT: Fair enough. But do you have, how nimble can you be? There is a difference between yeah a college spoof and something that affects the electoral fortunes of whole governments. Don't you have to be nimble?

KC: We are, but we also have to respect very clear principles. We don't want to be censoring legitimate speech, lawful speech, as I said.

AMT: So if someone did this to Mark Zuckerberg, that would be OK?

KC: Absolutely. We were very clear in committee. These policies don't exist for anybody other than anybody in particular or they don't exist for or there are no special rules for particular people. These are policies. They're binding on anybody who wishes to share anything they want on Facebook and we need to hold to that regardless of which direction the winds blow.

AMT: Are you comfortable with all that? Like are you comfortable with that video and what it represents?

KC: I think I'm comfortable with the principles that are at stake.

AMT: And what are they?

KC: Freedom of expression and the balance between freedom of expression and censorship and allowing people to be able to share what they want and with whom they want online. That is very different though if I may say, very different from our election integrity efforts because what we know in terms of elections and what we've seen play out around the world is that when there are bad actors that are out to sow division or to achieve some other strategic end they are going to do this in a manner that is coordinated. They are going to do this in a manner that is running fake accounts and we have investigative teams we have we have intelligence capabilities and we have technologies allow us to get at that and I can say you know when you look at the elections that we've had since we've had a dedicated cross-functional election team in place in Canada to protect elections in Canada. So we'll go back to about a year ago with Ontario. We've had about I think it's six provincial elections since then. We've had communications and coordination of Elections Commissioners across the country since that time. And all instances I don't think there's been any case where we haven't been able to arrive at a very good positive resolution on any issues that have appeared this has been very good practice for us. I can't guarantee that there won't be challenges as we move ahead to October. But I feel very good about our posture and our ability to go after bad actors.

AMT: I want to play a clip for you of Sarah Miller who is the deputy director of the Open Markets Institute speaking on The Current earlier this month. She is one of the critics who believes Facebook is too big and powerful and needs to be broken up. She's concerned about the content and how Facebook uses the content. Listen to her.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I think at this point it's become fairly clear that Facebook is really one of the world's most dangerous monopolies and they operate on a business model that's based on deep surveillance of its users and then taking that person formation and allowing actors to target private advertising towards them to change their opinions to force them to buy things to really manipulate their behaviour in ways that are far more sophisticated than we've really ever seen before.

AMT: How do you respond to what she says, Kevin Chan?

KC: I think what we're trying to do is give people radical transparency into all the things that she's mentioned. I mean let's just talk about advertising for a moment. We're talking about political advertising. As you may know coming by the end of June till next month we are going to have a system where every political advertisement whether it be from a political party or from a third party or from a regular individual will need to be put into an ad library. They'll be viewable by anybody online around the world. We are going to require people who want to run any political advertising to go through an authorization process where they will have to A, confirm that they're in Canada. B, we will verify that fact and C, we'll send you a code where that person who wants to run a political ad in Canada has to use to authenticate their identity before they're able to run an ad. These measures are to guard against foreign interference and these measures are to give people radical transparency so they know what advertising and what political advertisers are on the platform, even if you aren't the ones in the intended audience. You will see all of it. I don't know of any other platform that is doing that in Canada or quite frankly anywhere else in the world. And so I don't agree that at all we are going to go as far as we can to give Canadians the transparency that they need to be informed to make informed judgments about what's happening in our election.

AMT: Will you still allow fake advertising though? Fake information in those ads.

KC: No. Fake information advertising.

AMT: Or manipulated video in those ads?

KC: So ads are a very different kind of thing than speech on the platform. There is no, we don't allow for misrepresentation. We don't allow for anything that is manufactured in terms of ads that aren't factual and aren't real.

AMT: I want to ask you about the fact that neither Mark Zuckerberg or Sheryl Sandberg showed up at the committee hearings. The committee subpoenaed them. Why won't they come?

KC: Well you know we are actually called before many different governments as you can imagine, different legislatures around the world to engage with them. In every instance we do send people who are fully equipped an expert in the subject matter in this case the issues were about harmful content as you know and about Canada and our posture with respect to to to the election in October. And so in your pots and I were both directors at the company were were the experts that that were representing the company and fully invested and charged with the authority to speak on behalf of the company.

AMT: How much trouble is it to have them show up? This is not the only legislature they have refused to show up before.

KC: I think they've shown up at other legislatures as well.

AMT: Okay so why won't they show up in Canada? Why is that a snub? Like how should Canada respond to that?

KC: I think Canada should judge us by our actions, Anna Maria.

AMT: Well the action is they didn't show.

KC: Well let me give you some actions. Let me give you some actions. We've had a clean election integrity initiative two years before the next election. We have moved to my knowledge, we're the only platform that moved swiftly to deal and expeditiously to deal with hate figures hate organizations. We are the only platform to my knowledge that's complying with C-76 the elections Modernization Act and we are the only platform that's going to go over and above that. We're going to provide you with not only the transparency I talked about but all the ads you're going to see in the library. We're going to give you ranges in terms of the spend on each of these ads. We're going to give you demographic information about who was reached with these ads. And again we moved very quickly and swiftly to be part of the Canada declaration on electoral integrity online. And we will do more. And so Canadians should judge us by our actions. We are going to give contains radical transparency on political advertising and we are here to engage on how to thoughtfully and appropriately regulate the Internet.

AMT: You know before she was Foreign Affairs Minister, Chrystia Freeland wrote a book called Plutocrats. Did you read it?

KC: I have not.

AMT: It's about self-made millionaires and billionaires who think they're too big for governments. Has Facebook become too big for governments?

KC: I think what we're saying is governments should regulate us.

AMT: But how?

KC: Well so at the committee I talked about four different ways that at least we can start with, right. One is political advertising. One is harmful content. We talked about a bit earlier today. Right, just now. One is data portability and one's privacy.

AMT: Jim Balsillie also appeared before that committee and he says technology is disrupting governance and if left unchecked it could render liberal democracy obsolete. That's what you're up against. You're up against somebody who's very big in the industry who's responsible for a lot of where the industry is today with his own innovations and what he did. What does it say to you that even people who were at the vanguard of big tech are now seeing the nefarious side of this that you could be, that what your company does could be rendering liberal democracy obsolete.

KC: I just don't think that's the case. I think actually online platforms allow people to connect with each other. They allow people to connect with their elected representatives and they allow political parties and political leaders to connect with citizens. I can't think of a day when there isn't a political party in Canada or anywhere else in the world that doesn't put things out there online. On Facebook in particular to engage with citizens. This is a very important part of what it means to have a free and open Internet. And I think it just is the evidence would suggest otherwise.

AMT: You have a news feed that is controlled by algorithms. We've already talked about some of the things you want to put in place .your news feed is depending on who's talking about it, it's considered bias. Why should people trust Facebook going into this election?

KC: Because we are doing the hard work of ensuring that on every aspect of this election that we are going to be part of that we're doing what it takes to get this done. To ensure we have a free and fair election. I mean again as I've mentioned two years before the next election we had an induction terror initiative. We have a cyber crisis e-mail line for any MP or any senator any political party that can reach us directly in terms of any threats that they may see and we will take swift action. We are the only ones who are building and add transparency libraries so people can see all the ads that are running. We are going to have be very rigorous and friction intensive authorization process something that everybody will have to go through if they want to run a political ad in Canada during the election. And and we are we have we are in deep cooperation with the right lawful authorities to ensure that we have good coordination to go after the bad actors including the Privy Council Office including the commissioner of Canada elections. We are working in lockstep. I think though and really what you're raising is the more fundamental question is that we do need to move forward from an adversarial model to one of cooperation. This is not up to. It cannot be something that only Facebook can do alone. We need to work collectively. If we're serious about ensuring that there is no foreign interference in the next election to ensure that we do have a free and fair election.

AMT: OK. Kevin Chan thanks for coming in.

KC: Thanks so much.

AMT: Kevin Chan is the head of public policy for Facebook Canada. He's in our Toronto studio. Let us know what you think. You can tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. You can find us on Facebook or go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. Stay with us. The CBC News is next and then we will stay on this story as we convene our national affairs panel. They'll be talking about what we've just heard and what Mr. Chan has said, as well as sharing their thoughts on some of the other political news this week. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Wilson-Raybould, Philpott may have rejected Greens to keep Liberal door open, pundit says

Guests: Chris Hall, Althia Raj, Susan Delacourt

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, whether they're from outer space or not, the U.S. Navy will not deny that its pilots are seeing UFOs. Navy pilots have seen so many unidentified flying objects on their flights that the military wing has set down some new reporting policies. In half an hour, more on the Pentagon's thinking about UFOs and national security. And we're going to hear from a Ufologist in Winnipeg about what's been spotted darting around Canadian skies. But first our national affairs panel on well identified flying rhetoric.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: They have weaponized ambiguity, contradictions and a lack of credibility. I find it shocking. I find it amazing that they can still pretend to be answering seriously questions about their contradictions and the ambiguity about the truth, a false posting, real posting. I mean it's simply not credible. Only if there is a harmonized multilateral set of agreement on regulation, on law, that they will actually meaningfully respond.

AMT: Conservative MP Peter Kent speaking yesterday about Google and Facebook as elected officials from around the world gathered in Ottawa to discuss big data privacy and democracy. Those meetings continue on Parliament Hill today as legislators continue to question representatives of big tech firms. For their thoughts on what's next, as well as what we just heard from Facebook Canada's Kevin Chan before the news, I'm joined by this week's national affairs panellists. Chris Hall is a national affairs editor for the CBC. He's host of The House. Susan Delacourt is the Toronto Star's Ottawa bureau chief and national columnist and Althia Raj is the Ottawa bureau chief for HuffPost Canada. They're all in Ottawa. Hi everyone.

CHRIS HALL: Good morning.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Good morning.

ALTHIA RAJ: Good morning.

AMT: Chris Hall What stands out for you in what we just heard from Kevin Chan?

CH: Well a couple of things. I was struck by his his distinction between an ad versus content. So for example Nancy Pelosi, the image was slowed down to make it appear as though she was drunk and slurring her words. That's acceptable free speech according to Kevin Chen because it's not a noun but as soon as it would become an ad. It would have a different set of standards applied to it so there's an inconsistency there. He also didn't mention that Facebook has basically rejected the advice of Daniel Terrian to put in safeguards on the misuse by third parties of information and data that's collected by by Facebook. So he's inviting basically regulators governments around the world to begin to put in place the kinds of limits that Facebook can have without I think accepting any responsibility by Facebook for making sure that the content it puts on the air as true, puts on internet as true and that it's not been manipulated in some way.

AMT: Althia, what do you think?

AR: Well I was struck by what he said regarding people should be able to connect with whomever they want on the Internet because so much of what governments are trying to do is to prevent such things from happening. That's why Sri Lanka for example banned the social media platforms in the wake of the attacks there. And I think that people want to know that the information that they are reading on social media platforms is accurate. I actually agree with Kevin with regards to the Nancy Pelosi video. I don't think that because I think that because she's not being portrayed as saying something that she's not saying it's it's almost like you know if a video like that of Donald Trump or the president of China was on the social media platform should Facebook banning it. And I think that we always need to ask ourselves such questions. I have a lot of questions about how Facebook is going to police what exactly is a political ad. How do they fact check whether the claims the political parties are making are accurate or not. And the backlash that would happen if Facebook decides to pull an ad from the Conservative Party say because they think that they're misrepresenting what Justin Trudeau was saying.

AMT: Susan Delacourt.

SD: Yeah, those are both great points. I've been struck watching the Grand Committee or the Star Chamber as some people have been calling it this week by the difference in in how we're viewing these big companies in 2010 politically let's say in 2015 they were all about happy connecting to the grassroots democratizing the process and now it does seem that we are we're putting them you're your question at the end. Kevin was interesting and I think representative of of a changing mood in the public too which is now we see them as big shadowy corporations part of the the elite or the plutocracy as you said and the image up there was very similar to if you'd seen a whole bunch of bank presidents or something up there that that that we've now made in our minds. Now Facebook in these big social media giants are mysterious elite and scary to us and that's a big change from 2015 the last time we had a campaign.

AMT: Well it's no longer the little company in the dorm room right. I mean it is now this monolith.

SD: No, but it's no longer about just people trying to get their grassroots feelings on the internet either. It's about how it can be manipulated. And I think that's that's an interesting concern. My problem with this though throughout is I wonder if we are focussed on the wrong thing. Yes we should be focussed on on the manipulation of the message and everything but it is medium versus message. We're still going to have a hate speech in Canada. I'm. It's like the old question are you more worried about Donald Trump or the people who vote for him. I'm I'm more worried about Facebook or am I worried about the hate that people are pouring into it. And I think there's a temptation by the politicians at this committee to think that Facebook is responsible for hate speech in Canada. It's not and we may have a deeper problem than that people want to put it out there.

AMT: What do you think of that Chris?

CH: Well I don't disagree with Susan that it is a platform as opposed to generating content itself and as I said, I'm interested that both Kevin Chan and the others who appeared yesterday before this international grand committee, urged governments to set best practices to coordinate their action. But in the end it appeals me it occurs to me that what the United States might decide to do about Facebook and Google is very different than what Canada might be able to do. First of all because Google and these companies Facebook are not based in Canada. But secondly don't you invite different types of standards. So which one is the one that you you end up having to obey all all of this begs the question here that Facebook is setting itself up as different than other forms of media simply because it doesn't generate the content so it generates its own data which I would argue was content as well. But to Susan's point Yeah I suppose the real issue here is why are people using this platform to promulgate things that aren't true and in some cases hateful.

AR: Because they can

CH: That's the point isn't because thet can.

AMT: So Althia how likely are we to see concrete answers or changes coming out of these meetings?

AR: I think there's a desire from legislators around the world recognizing to Chris's point that we're not the United States and also that we all have the same problems that these issues are the same across different political party is in different countries and that the only way that they're going to get a force Facebook and companies like it to have change is if they all speak with a united voice. And that's the goal. Whether they get there I think is a question mark. I thought was very interesting yesterday. I think it was an Nathaniel it was Ken Smith The Liberal MP from Toronto. He said you know Facebook is all great about taking responsibility but we need to move from them taking responsibility to them accepting liability and Canada's very very weak privacy laws. The Government has signalled that they want to change them but changes are not coming before the next election and the penalties like the privacy commissioner has identified an incredibly weak when you think about the fines one hundred thousand dollars when the company makes you know more than 55 billion dollars in revenues every year. Peanuts. I mean it's less than peanuts. So there obviously is a need to force Facebook into action. And Facebook is not understandably interested in acting and in fact you know just listening to Kevin talk about oh we're going to have an arm's length panel. Well that's just a way for Facebook to create space between the company and that panel and not accept accountability and liability.

SD: Yeah I'm glad. It's Susan here. I'm glad Althea brought up privacy because this allows me to revive a now seven year old rant of mine.

AMT: Go for it Susan.

SD: It annoyed me again yesterday to see political parties members of political parties questioning these tech giants about their use of data when they are sitting on this goldmine of data themselves. All the political parties now are accumulating huge amounts of data about Canadian voters which they are going to use. They're probably already using now in the pre-election period working with Facebook to do some work. Yes. And and third party apps. Right. And they are they're not subject to any privacy legislation whatsoever. Seven years ago the Privacy Commissioner and the chief electoral officer called it a Wild West out there. I was listening a year ago on the house when Scott Brison said to our steam guest here and host Chris Hall, he said that no we need to consult more about whether this data applies Navdeep Baines, the Innovation Minister again said to you this weekend, I believe Chris that no you know we've got to go along with. We have to be careful about about regulating our free speech and on the way into the studio. I'll stop ranting soon. I ran into Charlie Angus who was very vociferous yesterday with the big data companies and I said to him I'm going to talk about your your privacy laws and lack of privacy laws and he said Well there is a legitimate reason we need to have data. So again I would like voters to that keep that mind when they see all of these politicians, what are you doing about privacy?

AR: Can I just mention briefly the B.C. privacy commissioner has actually raised us as an issue because political parties are mining that information. That the public should know what political parties have on them. You know it's really rather unfair that we're all in the dark about what information is gathered about us. And frankly Facebook and the political parties have an interest in not telling it.

SD: Exactly.

AMT: Well and Chris there's this story out of CBC news today about the federal government using micro targets on Facebook.

CH: That's right.

AMT: To do employment ads.

CH: Yeah. Targeting people of specific age group and in some cases of a specific gender, which is against human rights laws. But look it serves everyone's advantage to have this platform that allows you to ensure that you are getting your message to the people you want to target with it. So if it's Liberal targeting Liberals, New Democrats target New Democrats and I can go on. It is a venue for that and there's almost no oversight Daniel Terry and I mentioned earlier the Privacy Commissioner has complained about the lack of safeguards and his by the way his recommendations to Facebook in the light of the breach that had happened where people got access to Canadians data through the Cambridge Analytica was basically rejected by the company. There was nothing he could do about it.

SD: So yeah there's a lot of talk Anna Maria and again not a lot of action. I'll go back to the point I made earlier too. If people are feeling, if there's a feeling out there that these platforms are undermining democracy so too is the daily spectacle of Question Period. You know that places now where you can say whatever you want politicians are using it to to say some pretty horrible things. So I think rather than just blame the messenger, I think we should be talking about what's being said too.

AMT: You make a good point. I mean you have to fact check our political parties that you have to ask yourself why.

SD: Exactly, yeah.

AMT: Well let's just stay with that. This week Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott announced they would be running as independents in the October election. Here's a clip.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We need to do politics differently. Partisanship is trumping principle. Exclusion is trumping inclusion and there is too much power in the centre. With your support I am confident that running as an independent is the best way to transform our political culture.

VOICE 2: Being a member of parliament for the people of Markham-Stouville has been an enormous privilege and when I did ask you for your advice, people said we are getting really tired of hyper partisan politics. Can't we get beyond partisan politics?

AMT: Chris Hall, let's talk about politics. What do you make of the way they both took aim at traditional party politics?

CH: Well I thought it was really interesting. I'll give them, I'll get both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott credit for keeping themselves in the news and keeping the message in the news. Like the fact that we're still talking about this two days after they made their announcement that they were running as independents is proof of that. You know partisanship, I spoke about this on Monday on the air and was crucified on on Twitter for suggesting that political parties have worked as aggregators to bring in people with different viewpoints and to meld them together in order to be able to put forward policies that they believe Canadians want them to enact and that's why they kept campaign elections being an independent. I suppose you can work on issues that you agree with and not others but somebody at some point has to be able to decide who is going to form a government. And if we're all independent that's going to be pretty hard. But that said on the partisanship side this is a place that over the years I've been here 20 something years now it has become a more partisan place. We only have to look south of the border to understand where the influence might come from. It's no longer good enough to disagree with people you have to sort of make sure that people who are listening and watching understand that they are not only wrong but they're probably doing it for their own vested interests. So to that extent I agree with them. I'm just not sure what they're proposing is necessarily the cure.

AMT: And Susan, how much are voters looking for independent candidates who will do "politics differently."

SD: I think what Chris is saying is right and I feel it myself. I've been here maybe let's just say a little longer.

AMT: I think we got to the Hill together Susan.

SD: Yes we did. I watched Jody Wilson-Raybould last night saying to on Power in Politics that she was surprised by she regretted actually the turn that the whole scandal took that it it took on a life of its own. As Chris mentioned you know we're still talking about them. I think that what the SNC level Lavalas saga taught me was that this may be a rehearsal for the election and it was that in the absence of facts or voices in this people made their own stories out of it and they turned Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott into symbols of their disaffection with the Liberal Party and everybody found their own source of disaffection in it. If I were the prime minister and the Liberals, I'd be worried about that because there are multiple ways in which people felt dissatisfied. I think Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, in as much as they I think the election could be as unpredictable too and what that independence is a symbol for is going to be interesting. But one of the threads for example that we're going to follow in the election. I'm sure everybody is is disaffection with the Liberal brand. Where is it going. And if they become symbols for that that could be very interesting. And if independence is a symbol for some kind of disaffection with business as it devolved into in Ottawa as I mentioned about question period every day that could be pretty powerful. What we've seen is politics is moving in unpredictable directions these days and on highly emotional volatile directions. And I think they could be on to something. How it gets organized as Chris said into something tangible in the election, I think SNC though taught us that this is a strange unpredictable time in Canadian politics.

AMT: Althia there was a lot of speculation that both Wilson-Raybould and Philpott would join the Greens. Why do you think they didn't do that?

AR: Because they are keeping the door open to rejoining the Liberal Party. There is no reason listening to them speak on Monday that they would not run under the Green Party banner. Elizabeth May does not whip her caucus. In fact you recall Andreas Hyder who is a New Democrat who became an independent who don't think Greens voted often act in ways that were not the same as Elizabeth May when they were sitting next to each other in the House of Commons for a very short period of time because he wasn't re-elected as a green so they would have been able to do everything that they say that they can do as an independent. And when you heard you know Jane Philpott give a shout out to her friend Elizabeth May or Jody Wilson-Raybould talked about the biggest issue of our time really being climate change. It is somewhat puzzling that they decided not to join the Greens. So I think that that is because they're keeping the door open to possibly rejoining the Liberals. And frankly when Jody Wilson-Raybould was asked yesterday on Power and Politics she did not close that door.

SD: Exactly.

CH: I'd also say that if you're talking about doing politics differently, crossing the floor to join the other party isn't really all that different. We've seen that throughout history. But to Athia's point it is interesting, both of them have been saying that they wouldn't want to see Andrew Scheer, the Conservative leader become prime minister, but they haven't been able to say the same thing about Justin Trudeau. So one expects that they are keeping all options open.

AMT: So as we look at the election issues, let's go back to what we were talking about earlier. Could the role that social media and big tech companies play in our lives become an election issue?

AR: I think of course. Yeah I mean that's the whole point I think of the innovation minister coming out with this digital charter. I mean I think political parties are signalling that they know people are concerned about what's going on on social media but they don't really want to do anything about it but they want to signal that they care and that they want to put something in the window.

SD: I don't see any distinction between the political parties. I'm not going to rant again don't worry, but I don't see any distinction between Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats or Greens really fundamentally about on this issue. They all make the I'll say a lot of things about their concerns about it, rightly, but I you don't see a Liberal position on big data versus a Conservative position for example.

CH: I would also suggest that the recent experience in the United States and when the Brexit vote is that there will be attempts to try to manipulate voters in this campaign. There have been safeguards put in place. There's a committee that's supposed to bureaucrats are supposed to oversee this. But in the end it is the platform that's making this possible in part. So I expect that you'll hear promises during the campaign about how the various parties would position themselves to deal with some of the issues confronted by by these Internet service providers.

SD: But my point againm, if you hate bad behaviour on the internet, stop doing the bad behaviour.

AMT: Yeah. Look for the issue is not who enables it, but who wants to be enabled.

SD: Exactly.

AMT: Well but, so how do we deal with that? Or maybe we just keep reporting on it.

CH: Well I think that you know from the standpoint of of us hero parliamentary journalists, we are holding the government and others to account for this. The Democratic Charter though, the digital charter that Navdeep Bains as Innovation Minister introduced last week are principles, they're not actually regulations. There are obviously efforts already underway to try and make sure both privately through Facebook but also by government to try and ensure that that election is run fairly and that there isn't this kind of mischief that we've seen in the past. But you know it's how do we deal with it just people being aware of kids. Caveat emptor buyer beware hero dependent. If you're if you're getting stuff in your Facebook feed make sure you check it make sure you realise it's true because that one is that they're targeting aren't just the partisans they're targeting people who can be influenced and presumably it's a vast majority the population in an election.

AMT: Go back to the Nancy Pelosi thing, Althia. I want to know more about how you see that and the debate around it and then the push to get rid of it.

AR: Well the video is her basically being slowed down so that she looks impaired or drunk. Right. And I take your point, you know the assumptions that lie beneath sharing that video. But I just think that you need when you're thinking about principles and how you're going to apply things evenly you need to think about how it would apply to other circumstances. And I see a difference between an accurate video that is manipulated to slow down its content as opposed to a video where it Nancy Pelosi is saying words that she has never actually uttered. That to me is far more concerning and I would have trouble with anybody anywhere, dictator otherwise, being portrayed as saying things that they have not said.

SD: Chrystia Freeland, this is Susan again. Chrystia Freeland said something interesting about a month ago at a forum on populism. She talked about the idea of a publisher's responsibility for the big tech giants. And she pointed out that traditional media such as the ones that most of us here represent have been doing a pretty good job for centuries. Oh come on. Making sure that hate speech and things don't get out there and she said by the way it's expensive. But the last time I checked they have a lot more money than the old fashioned media guys do. So is there a responsibility is there a publishers responsibility out there if if they're not just a vehicle if they are actually in the business of publishing. Why not the same standards. You can't you can't put stuff in the Toronto Star that you can put on Facebook. Maybe we should be seeing them as the same things.

AMT: Chris, what do you think?

CH: I don't I don't agree with Althia. I think that as I said, if it's a political ad, it's apparently according to Kevin Chan unacceptable. If it's not then it is acceptable because you don't want to interfere with free speech. It's not what she said or how it was manipulated, it's the intent behind doing so. The intent was to make her seem impaired or infirmed as you put it and I don't see how that's different than putting words in people's mouths.

AMT: It's interesting, it does speak to the sort of the dirty tricks politics that exists now. How to try to manipulate people by suggesting someone is not well enough to be there.

AR: But then where do you draw the line on like people using content and manipulating it just for creative purposes? And who makes those calls?

AMT: Yeah, I hear your question.

AR: The question needs to be like why didn't Facebook flag this faster? And why isn't the disclosure available on every part of Facebook's platform and why isn't the disclosure more obvious?

AMT: And why is that question.

AR: That news stories that appear to be for example from cbc.ca, but are not from CBC and they're factually inaccurate not flagged faster. Why is the publisher not acting in a more immediate response way on things like that?

AMT: All good questions. Why is the music coming up? Because we're out of time. Thanks everyone.

CH: Thanks Anna Maria.

AR: Thank you very much.

AMT: That's Chris Hall, national affairs editor for the CBC, host of The House. Susan Delacourt, Toronto Star's Ottawa bureau chief and national columnist. Althia Raj, Ottawa bureau chief for HuffPost Canada. They're all in Ottawa. Stay with us. In our next half hour we'll get to some feedback from our story about teaching climate change in the classroom. And we're talking UFOs because the Pentagon is. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

UFO sightings by U.S. Navy should be taken seriously — but not too seriously, says astronomer

Guest: Chris Rutkowski

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current. We're going to get UFOs in just a minute, but we want to take some time to share some of the feedback we got to a story earlier this week. After our discussion over how teachers should approach the topic of climate change in the classroom, we heard from a lot of you. Environmental education advocates say there should be more climate change content in the curriculum. They argue it should not be limited to subjects such as science and geography. Others say some teachers are crossing the line that they're encouraging political advocacy or activism without allowing any room for dissenting views about the possible solutions to climate change. Part of our discussion focussed on whether teachers should be taking students to climate protests. Here's Steinbach, Manitoba teacher Michael Zwaagstra who's also a local politician in Steinbach, speaking and then he'll be followed by Pickering, Ontario teacher Mathieu Morin.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: If a teacher took their students to a let's say a pro-life rally on abortion, I suspect there'd be some pushback, even if the teacher said, well you know I'm just taking them to a rally to show them what activism looks like. There'd be an immediate reaction going you're indoctrinating students into a particular perspective and I think as teachers, we need to be careful about making sure that our role is to help provide information to help students learn how to think, not teaching them what to think and not pushing something that we may be passionate about upon them.

AMT: Mathieu.

VOICE 2: This is a different issue than something like a pro-life rally. Abortion is a controversial topic. There are two sides the argument that have their own beliefs. Climate change is a scientifically proven fact. We teach students at a very young age for example that smoking causes cancer. We can teach them at that young age because that's a societal value that we want to hold and our governments have decided that's a value that we want our education system to push forward. I don't see climate change and environmental education as being any different. Even at a young age students can understand why climate change is an issue and what the impacts of that are and what has caused it.

AMT: Well now we've got some of your responses read by The Current's producers Alison Masemann and Peter Mitton.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER MITTON: Here's an email from John D. in Victoria B.C. It seemed like the teacher Michael Zwaagstra was refusing to recognize that innate intelligence and informed opinions and character of his own students. I pity them. While he procrastinates, his students are informing themselves and making decisions. The debate is over. The youth of our country are involving themselves in this issue whether we like it or not.

ALISON MASEMANN: Susan E. from Kelowna, BC wrote, I say kudos to the students and teachers who are grappling with this issue. Examining the scientific evidence and then doing whatever seems within their power to demand urgent, concerted and evidence-based government action, as well as to adjust their own lifestyles. They are up against an enormous and longstanding government, corporate and societal inertia, not based on lack of evidence, but based on short term and self-serving goals.

PETER MITTON: We received this email from Andrew K. with regard to attending a rally, which is pro-action on climate, this form of teaching has a pre-decided outcome. As the rally itself has a specifically designed position. I think most people in general have surpassed the anti-science position and the existence of climate change is a moot point. However, the solutions to the problem are completely socio-economic and this discussion must take priority for real solutions to be found.

ALISON MASEMANN: Val S of Mission, B.C. said she could sympathize with both sides of the debate. She wrote, I agree that school sponsored protests assume everyone is on the same page and has the effect of creating conformity. Teachers are in a position of power and the student who doesn't agree or who finds the topic emotionally stressful, cannot opt out safely or anonymously. But she added, I also agree that students need to be taught the many sides to an issue: political, economic and scientific. However the most important thing we can teach children is how to research properly. That is who to trust. The majority of trustworthy climate scientists say we're in a climate crisis and need to start transitioning now big time, if there is any hope. That doesn't include expanding oil production, it means reducing production.

PETER MITTON: Meanwhile from Tom D of Boston Bar, B.C. this comment: I was entertained by the teachers fuming and fussing over what they should or shouldn't present to their students about climate change and activism. They seem oblivious to the reality that kids are constantly bombarded by information from television, the Internet and social media. Teachers seem overly impressed by the influence they think they have.

ALISON MASEMANN: On Twitter Paul E. wrote I'm not sure how one would teach chemistry, biology, physics, math, history or social studies without spilling over into climate change. Climate change is all of those things.

PETER MITTON: Donna F. had this to say on Twitter. Yes, teach climate change, but the anxiety portion is key as well. Creating fear where young people feel helpless and hopeless is not what is needed. Young people need to feel inspired and supported to make a difference.

ALISON MASEMANN: And an account called Climate Watcher tweeted: students are looking at the science and news independently from class content and deciding to climate strike. They don't need teachers to show them the stark reality. They don't need to debate the nuances. They can see that adults are not reacting appropriately, especially policymakers.

AMT: The Current's producers Alison Masemann and Peter Mitton reading some of your e-mails in response to our story on climate change education in the classroom.

[Music]

AMT: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. Let's talk UFOs.

SOUNDCLIP

[Recording of US Navy pilots discovering unidentified flying objects in Jacksonville, Florida]

VOICE: There's a whole spleen of them. My gosh. They're all going against the wind. The wind's 120 knots to the west. Look at that thing. It's rotating.

AMT: Well that's the excited chatter of U.S. Navy pilots flying high above Jacksonville, Florida in 2015 and if you're wondering what they are excited about seeing in the air, the answer is nobody knows. They were encountering unidentified flying objects or in the parlance of the Navy, UAPS, Unexplained Aerial Phenomena and that encounter was far from being an isolated experience. In a story published by The New York Times this week, a 10 year veteran Navy pilot said he was spotting UAPs throughout 2014 and 2015. In fact the sightings have become so frequent that the U.S. Navy set down new guidelines for its pilots who have close encounters with darting high flying objects. That in turn has set off what some are calling a new golden age for UFO enthusiasts. Now it's worth remembering that the Pentagon in 2007 created the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification program that looked at unidentified flying objects or UAPS, unexplained aerial phenomenon. It was set up at the urging of a Democratic senator from Nevada by the name of Harry Reid. It lasted for about five years and Harry Reid just happened to be friends with a billionaire by the name of Robert Bigelow, the owner of Bigelow Aerospace who also was very into this subject. Listen to a bit of this 2017 interview with Robert Bigelow on 60 Minutes.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Do you believe in aliens?

VOICE 2: I'm absolutely convinced. That's all there is to it.

VOICE 1: Do you also believe that UFOs have come to Earth?

VOICE 2: There has been and is an existing presence, an eating presence. I spent millions and millions. I probably spent more as an individual than anybody else United States has ever spent on this subject.

VOICE 1: Is it risky for you to say you know in public that you believe?

VOICE 2: I don't give a damn.

VOICE 1: UFOs and aliens?

VOICE 2: I don't care.

VOICE 1: You don't worry that some people will say did you hear that guy? He sounds like he's crazy.

VOICE 2: I don't care.

VOICE 1: Why not?

VOICE 2: It's not going to change reality of what I know.

AMT: So according to people who have talked to the pilots who have seen these objects they see them moving at speeds and making manoeuvres that their own engineers have not seen rising 80,000 feet above an ocean and then dipping down even into the ocean and back up at 80,000 feet. This is the kind of thing they're reporting and Top Gun fighter pilots are not the only ones spotting strange things in the night sky. For 30 years, UFO research or Ufology research has tracked UFO reports across Canada. Here are some of the numbers from the group's 2018 report.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Last year was a relatively quiet one for sky watchers on this side of the border. In total 937 UFO sightings were reported in Canada in 2018. That's the lowest number on record since 2004. Quebecers have the keenest eyes when it comes to night sky industries. The province accounts for 23 percent of the population, but 41 percent of all Canadian UFO reports. Ontario was second with 24 percent of sightings. The typical sighting lasted about 16 minutes and they vary wildly. Everything from bright balloon shaped objects in the sky to firsthand interactions with aliens at home. Five percent of all UFO reports are true mysteries, classified as unexplained.

AMT: Those were numbers from the Winnipeg based organization Ufology Research. The group released its annual report into UFO sightings earlier this month. Chris Rutkowski is a researcher with the group. He's the author of several books on UFOs. He's in our Winnipeg studio. Hello.

CHRIS RUTKOWSKI: Hello.

AMT: Am I saying that right? Ufology? How do you say it?

CR: Ufology, yes.

AMT: Ufology, OK. Well first of all are they aliens? Could they be drones? Like what do you think those pilots are seeing?

CR: Well that's a good question. You have to look at the perspective that these are pilots who are you know protecting the borders of the United States and they've flown many many hours and if they're saying they're seeing things that they have never seen before and defy explanation then you have to give it that a little bit of credence at the same time we know that a lot of experiments are being done. There are classified programs even above the pay levels of some of these pilots and it's possible that it's some classified program.

AMT: Or maybe if not by the U.S. by another, or China. Who knows, right?

CR: Absolutely. In fact every every week there are incursions by the Russians for example into United States airspace. And those are reported on very widely and they're acted upon. And when you hear about some of these pilots saying well these things have been pacing our planes for a couple of weeks when you wonder well if that's true then how come those incursions aren't being acted upon. So as these stories and the story coming out of the New York Times and others raises a few questions more than supplying some answers and it's certainly fascinating and I think we have to be cautious about fully accepting the possibility that aliens are invading Earth or something. But I think the idea is that these are very interesting and they're serious. I mean incursions into our airspace is something we have to take very seriously both the United States and in Canada.

AMT: So we heard some of the numbers. Can you tell us some of the stories of Canadian sightings? What stories have stood out for you?

CR: Well I mean over the years we've been looking at almost a thousand cases in Canada for at least you know about 10 years or so and they dipped down a little bit last year, but where there are reports of translucent triangles that people are seeing flying over their farmlands. Off to the east coast there was some very well witnessed objects like a round balloon like object was flying against the wind and was seen by several people, including some very good and experienced investigators. Then we have reports made with Transport Canada by experienced pilots flying over various parts of Canada. So we know that there are some well witnessed and well reported investigations of cases that are ongoing and some make it into a military case books and some don't.

AMT: Is there a way to track what what the Canadian military pilots might be saying?

CR: Now unfortunately we don't have full access. We're a civilian organization, so we don't have full access to a lot of the information, but we do have reports that are filed through North Bay through NORAD. So we do know that reports are going in there. That's something we don't have or the United States doesn't have apt after the United States Air Force is Project Blue Book which looked into UFOs finished in about 1969. There's been sort of a black hole we don't know exactly what's been seen until these recent reports from pilots we don't have the official reports we have pilot testimony so we don't have the investigations but we do know that if you know reports are we've been constantly being reported in Canada we have a very good record National Archives in Ottawa has a very thorough record of UFOs being reported in Canada five or six thousand cases going right up to the present time and we continue to monitor them.

AMT: They they used to be collected by the National Research Council, didn't they?

CR: Right. And fact that was how this all started. The RCMP made a deal or sorry NRC made a deal with the RCMP to investigate UFO reports and they came into the NRC through the Pittsburgh Institute of Astrophysics and that program was terminated in about 1995. Meteoritics was sort of phased out people are interested in that. Went on to other things are retired and now in our series and you know the CSA focussed more on things like the Canada Arm. And yet the reports continue to be filed and those are what we continue to get today.

AMT: So for 30 years your group has released annual reports. Why do you compile them?

CR: Out of sight of a curiosity. My background is in science and in education. And when I was at university a my professors are insisting that UFOs are nonsense. But of course the UFO reports kept coming into the department from people who wanted explanations of what they had seen. I took them on as a as a undergraduate student at first and thought I would get in good with my profs and I after talking with people I found at most cases could be explained but people just wanted some reassurance that they weren't being considered crazy and there were some cases that I couldn't explain and that kept me going. I know that the possibility that interstellar travel well is real and yet the distances are so vast it's unlikely we're being visited. But at the same time we have this paradox that people are reporting some very unusual objects in our skies. So out of scientific curiosity, I'm wondering well what exactly is going on? And that's kept me going.

AMT: Interstellar travel. It's been happening for so long. You think we would that one of those things we'd figured out? Well then again somebody might argue that somebody has and it's on a Pentagon base somewhere.

CR: Exactly. And is it you know it certainly could be some advanced tech from Earth, but we don't see any evidence of that in terms of the literature we don't see a consistent pattern in that regard. You know we still are flying heavy lift rockets to get satellites into orbit. Even Elon Musk had to use a Falcon 7 to get these 100 or 60 satellites in orbit just this past week. So you know we're still using some very antiquated tech. So if there's something a little more advanced out there we'd be very interested indeed.

AMT: Have you ever seen one?

CR: No never. You know I've been out for.

AMT: That doesn't seem fair that you wouldn't see one.

CR: Exactly it's just they're just teasing me I suppose. No I've been out with many people I've talked to pilots who've seen things. I've talked to people from all walks of life, young and old. Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, everybody and they're very sincere and what do you do. They're admittedly there are some people who are making light of this. There's a giggle factor involved. There's people who are hoaxing. There's people who are in it for money, for fame and glory and so forth to get their name in the paper or on CBC. But at the same time you know we can explain the vast majority and there are some cases which are truly puzzling. That's not to say that the aliens are here, but it is saying that there's an interesting phenomenon that I think science has to take a closer look at.

AMT: Well some of the reporting suggests that just the the sophistication of whatever they're seeing and that's something that would go from 80,000 feet to the surface of the ocean or below and then back to 80,000 feet in short time. That defies physics that their pilots are reporting.

CR: Indeed that would defy physics, if that's what was really happening and remember these are observational capabilities and a lot of what was being reported are things that are seen on radar tracks and also on some cameras on some of the aircraft.

AMT: So that's different than the naked eye obviously.

CR: That's different than naked eye. Some pilots are reporting some naked eye sightings but some are reporting things that are seeing technically through other other observational tactics. And it's just a matter we have to get more information. I know these are fantastic. But the trouble is they're truly fantastic and what are they bending physics are they breaking physics laws or just seem to be bending physics. I mean I I've watched a magician saw a woman and a half and you know that seems to defy physics to me. But I'm I know that there's probably more to it than that. So is it is it something that's visual is is something that's a trick of the eye or is there something real going on.

AMT: I had to smile when I saw that Raytheon, the big defence contractor has actually boasted about its radar systems because it caught something on video.

CR: Absolutely.

AMT: There you go.

CR: There you go.

AMT: But what is it about UFOs that inspire so much curiosity so much wonder even fear like the concepts?

CR: Well there's two things. One is that we live in the Steven Spielberg or perhaps the James Cameron generation now where you can look on in films and movies and it's sort of we're used to seeing aliens visiting Earth. You know Thanos you know was probably the best example. But at the same time we have this innate quest within us are we alone in the universe and ever since we started looking up at the stars. Many many generations ago we have this idea are we alone. Is there something up there greater than us that that's helping us along or hindering us in some ways. And people are in fact looking to the stars as saviours in fact to the aliens as saviours motif has been around for quite some time and when you have a situation like a planet that seems to be in turmoil economically climate as well and politically, people will look to other solutions rather than coming up with ways of fixing it themselves.

AMT: And how do you think what people want to believe affects how they interpret what they see?

CR: Oh very much so in fact we can have two people side by side. One is a believer in UFOs and one is a definite disbeliever and they'll have two different interpretations of what they're observing. And the religious beliefs also play an important part in fact some would say that UFOs are a new religion and there's been a number of interesting books published actually over the past five years or so documenting this. And it's a really interesting aspect of sociology and larger studies now that have UFOs become the new religion and it's a matter of belief. But at the same time if you have tangible witness testimony and instruments detecting UFOs that seemed to defy physics. That's beyond belief. And one has to take a look at that very seriously so what I'm saying is that some of these reports in the news stories in media are absolutely riveting and fascinating at the same time we should exercise some caution we have to look at who's speaking who's making the statements and what actual physical evidence is there. I'd like to see some additional data provided and move forward from there.

AMT: And how do you interpret the Pentagon response then to pilot sightings and the creation of guidelines for navy pilots? What does that say about this moment in research of this this area?

CR: Well I don't think we've entered a new era necessarily because the Pentagon has been interested in UFO is for quite some time I mentioned Project Blue Book which existed in the 50s and into the late 1960s studying UFOs and collecting UFO report not just for military personnel but from the general public. So there have been studies like that before in Canada we had our own versions of that there was a project second story and before that a Project Magnet which investigated and looked at Canadian UFO reports and there have been a number of organizations looking at these. Certainly you followed your research has taken over some of this mantle over the past little while looking at both official reported UFO was and also reports coming in through civilian organizations and you have organizations themselves. So there have been organizations looking at this. So the fact that the Pentagon is coming up with new guidelines for dealing with the reports that are flooding in from some of their pilots it's not surprising but it would be interesting to know more about what's going to be done with those reports in fact there's some suggestion that the Pentagon will in fact be looking at those reports studying those reports collecting those reports but we'll never hear from them because they've been they will be classified certainly because some of the were the pilots that are making the sightings or in classified missions and one would not expect that we will hear more information about those cases.

AMT: And I guess the other thing that I've been reading is that the stigma around reporting is less now. That pilots might have been seeing things that they thought were questionable for a while, but they didn't think they could talk about them. That's kind of an interesting.

CR: It is interesting although we've had reports from pilots for quite some time. There are many reports from pilots on record over the years. In fact Navy pilots have been reporting things and they think there is some cases in the 1970s from Navy pilots that did manage to leak out. So we do have records of military pilots. There's actually a directive on the books in Canada and the United States called the service and what it does it's it's regulations for reporting UFO is and there's actually a directive for all pilots military and civilian to report what is described as unidentified flying objects. That's actually the term used in the official manual for the flight procedures to authorities. So there's something on the books for all pilots to report these things and it's true if more people come forward. The stigma is lessened. It's no longer something to be ashamed of. I mean everybody seems to have a story at the same time our studies have shown and other studies show this is congruent that around 10 percent of the Canadian population in fact 10 percent of the North American population believe they've seen UFOs. That's a significant number of people in Canada alone we're looking at three to four million people. So if you've seen a UFO you're in very good company indeed. And as I say we have reports from all walks of life very many professions and so forth.

AMT: And you still call them UFOs as opposed to Unexplained Aerial Phenomena? You're not bending to the U.S. military phraseology?

CR: No and the reason is because UFO was once the phrase that was taboo for the longest time because it used to be flying saucers and then the military decided we should call them UFO so people don't think they're flying saucers from another planet and over time UFO became to know that. So I think changing the term won't make it any different from in people's minds what we're talking about.

AMT: Fascinating stuff. Chris Rutkowski, thanks for speaking with me today.

CR: No problem. Thank you.

AMT: That is Chris Rutkowski. He's a researcher with the organization called Ufology. Why can I not say that? Ufology Research and he joined us from our Winnipeg studio. Let us know what you think of what he's saying. You can tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. Find us on Facebook. Send us an email from our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. That is our program for today. Stay with Radio One for Q. Weird Al Yankovic is on the program to talk about staying relevant as the musical industry has changed around him. And since we've been talking about UFOs, we're going to leave you with a song penned by Woody Guthrie back in 1950. This is "My Flying Saucer" performed by Billy Bragg and Wilco. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thank you for listening to The Current.

[Song: "My Flying Saucer" by Billy Bragg and Wilco]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

May 29, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This