An alarming number of Canadians worry they might not be able to distinguish fact from fiction in the upcoming federal election, according to a recent Ipsos poll that landed on my desk last week. The survey, conducted for Global News, reveals that 73% of respondents fear misinformation could influence their voting decisions.
I’ve spent the past decade tracking how digital manipulation affects democratic processes, and these numbers aren’t surprising – though they remain deeply concerning. The polling data shows nearly three-quarters of Canadians worry they might unwittingly consume false information that could sway their vote, reflecting a crisis of confidence in our information ecosystem.
“We’re seeing unprecedented levels of voter anxiety about being manipulated,” said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs, when I spoke with him about the findings. “This isn’t just about technical literacy – it’s about fundamental trust in the democratic process.”
The survey of 1,000 Canadians conducted between March 22-25 offers a troubling snapshot of voter sentiment. Beyond general concerns, 59% of respondents specifically worried about foreign interference in the election, while 65% expressed fear about domestic political actors deliberately spreading falsehoods.
These numbers align with what I’ve observed while investigating digital disinformation campaigns. Last year, I reviewed over 2,000 social media posts flagged by the Digital Public Square project at the University of Toronto, finding coordinated efforts to undermine electoral confidence through targeted false narratives.
The poll findings become even more significant when viewed alongside the Communications Security Establishment’s recent threat assessment report, which warned that Canada faces heightened risk of foreign information operations during elections. The CSE explicitly noted that foreign actors have grown increasingly sophisticated in their ability to blend legitimate criticism with manufactured controversy.
“The line between vigorous democratic debate and malicious manipulation has never been blurrier,” said Elizabeth Dubois, Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa specializing in digital media and political communication. “Voters are right to be concerned, but paralysis and cynicism are exactly what disinformation campaigns aim to produce.”
The demographics reveal something particularly interesting – contrary to common assumptions, younger Canadians expressed the highest levels of concern. Among those 18-34, 81% worried about encountering misinformation, compared to 66% of respondents over 55. This generational inversion suggests digital natives may have developed a heightened awareness of manipulation tactics rather than increased resilience.
I visited three community media literacy workshops in Montreal last month where participants practiced identifying deceptive content. The facilitators confirmed my observations, noting that younger participants often demonstrated sophisticated understanding of algorithmic amplification but still struggled with emotional manipulation techniques.
“Technology-focused solutions aren’t enough,” explained Michel Cormier, former executive director of News Media Canada, during our conversation about institutional responses. “We need a society-wide approach that combines regulatory frameworks, platform accountability, and public education.”
The Elections Canada website has expanded its resources on information integrity, offering voters guidance on verifying sources and recognizing manipulation tactics. However, when I tested their recommended verification workflow, I found it required time investments many busy voters simply cannot make.
The poll also identified specific content areas where Canadians feel most vulnerable to deception. Economic policy claims topped the list at 72%, followed by immigration policy (68%), and climate change measures (64%).
What makes these findings particularly troubling is that misinformation thrives in exactly these complex policy areas where simplistic narratives can oversimplify nuanced issues. Through my reporting on previous elections, I’ve documented how emotional framing of economic statistics consistently generated higher engagement than factual corrections.
“The problem isn’t just blatant falsehoods,” said Taylor Owen, Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications at McGill University. “It’s the strategic amplification of misleading but technically accurate information designed to distort public understanding of complex issues.”
The Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression, which released its
