Recent debates over federal carbon pricing may suggest that politicians are increasingly accusing each other of spreading falsehoods. However, this political communication strategy is far from being new, note experts, who however observe a very specific context in recent years.
The use of social networks and the influence of American politics are part of the current portrait, according to Olivier Turbide and Marie-Ève Carignan, who teach respectively at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) and the University of Sherbrooke.
For the first of these two experts, the political strategy of accusing his rival of lying amounts to a personal attack which distances the discussions from the debate on the substantive issues.
“When we say that we say the true things, we always accuse the other of lying. And that’s a fairly strong, effective attack, at little cost,” says Mr. Turbide.
In addition to discrediting his opponent, the offensive requires little justification in his opinion. “Traditionally, we have tried to contradict, for example, an actor with what he has said in the past or through his actions. But there, we don’t even need to say that,” believes the professor in the department of social and public communication at UQAM.
Over the course of the invectives, the facts can even be relayed to the background, explains Marie-Ève Carignan.
“We are a bit in this strategy where, ultimately, we replace the fact with an opinion as if it were one point of view versus another while, however, there are facts behind which confirm or refute the things,” says the woman who co-wrote the book The White House seen from Quebec.
The professor focused in particular on the resonance, in Canada, of certain American communication strategies.
“ [Des intervenants] told us to what extent certain ways of doing things […]notably republican and during the era of [Donald] Trump, also influenced our ways of doing things in Canada, therefore of speaking more directly to the public through digital social networks. »
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre regularly addresses Canadians through videos or texts published on his X pages (formerly Twitter) or Facebook.
Mr. Poilievre is also accused by the Liberals as well as the Bloc and New Democrats of misleading people. However, the leader of the official opposition is far from being the only politician to insist on his own interpretation of the facts and to pose as a defender of the truth, experts agree.
Justin Trudeau’s troops, since they are in power, are more vulnerable to this line of attack, believes Mr. Turbide.
“It’s quite a difficult position for the government, especially […] that there is a question of attrition of power,” he asserts. According to him, the ethical questions which have been raised in turn during the three mandates of the Trudeau government weigh in the balance.
Lately, the issue of the Prime Minister’s holiday vacation to Jamaica has been attracting attention due to expenses that were given to him for free.
Mr. Trudeau defended himself by maintaining that he had consulted the Ethics Commissioner beforehand and obtained his approval. The latter, Konrad von Finckenstein, is expected by a parliamentary committee which wishes to question him.
“Common sense”
In recent months, the issue of carbon pricing has been central as political parties have pitted their different visions of the facts against each other.
Mr. Poilievre, who vigorously opposes the federal carbon tax, accuses the Bloc Québécois of forming a coalition with the Liberals which “costs dearly” to taxpayers since the political party, it is said, wants the price on pollution increases significantly.
However, this “tax” does not apply in Quebec. The Conservatives also consider that the Bloc supports the clean fuel regulations. They associate this policy with “a second tax” which will increase the price of gasoline by 17 cents per liter by 2030. They rely, in their argument, on a vote in the Commons that the Bloc Québécois rejected, deeming the motion on which they were to vote misleading.
“I have a question for the conservatives: what is your problem with the truth? » notably retorted the Bloc leader, Yves-François Blanchet.
The Liberals, for their part, insist that this “tax” provides for rebates to households.
The New Democrats also regularly accuse Mr. Poilievre of manipulating the facts, whether in advertisements or in communications to the media bearing the heading “fact check”.
According to Mme Carignan, the Conservatives’ communication strategy “is so clear and organized” – marked by shocking phrases like “the Trudeau-Blanchet tax” or even “common sense” – that “the other parties are more in reaction”.
Thierry Giasson, professor at Laval University, recalls for his part that the idea of discrediting one’s political rival by accusing him of lying is a classic strategy of which we could find examples dating back to Antiquity.
“One of the registers of basic political rhetoric is to attack the adversary, to discredit him – whether personally or by talking about his achievements – and then to highlight himself and explain how we are going to do things differently,” he sums up.
The principal researcher of the Political Communication Research Group specifies that criticism can be very personal. “I think Stephen Harper was the target of targeted attacks. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin too. Brian Mulroney also a lot during the free trade period, [où] he was personally accused of wanting to sell Canada to the United States. »
According to Mr. Giasson, the population’s “disenchantment” with politicians is more specific to the current era and today’s elected officials wish to respond to this feeling. “People are suspicious of the political class. I think they will tend to give credence to the thesis that politicians lie, that they do not listen to them, that they are in politics first and foremost for their interests,” he says.
In this context, the deputies are trying to get out of the game, but at the same time, they are thereby fueling this “disenchantment”, believes the expert.
“When they are on the attack, when they constantly demonize themselves and when they constantly call themselves liars, they maintain that too,” he concludes.