Only 14 per cent of people believe social media influencers are a trustworthy part of Canada’s food system, says polling from the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity.

In comparison, about 73 per cent of Canadians say farmers are trustworthy players in the food system.

Canadians seem to have faith in people who work on a farm or have a job closer to the farm, says Ashley Bruner, director of research and stakeholder engagement with CCFI.

“Social media influencers, traditional media coverage…. The further you’re away from being part of the food system, it seems like trust goes down.”

On March 31, Bruner presented the results of an online survey from December and early January. A group of 3,067 Canadians shared their thoughts and opinions about the country’s food system.

Why it Matters: A lack of public faith in food production, can affect regulations and what technologies farmers can use.

The CCFI is a non-profit with a mission of increasing public trust in Canada’s food system.

The finding about Instagram superstars and minimal faith in what they say is a bit surprising, considering people younger than 35 get most of their information from online sources.

There are even lists of the top food influencers, who have hundreds of thousands of followers.

Nonetheless, the CCFI survey found that most Canadians turn to government agencies, dieticians, farmers and university experts for reliable information about food and agriculture.

Another key finding from the survey is that many believe agriculture is critical for Canada. On the other side of the coin, myths about food production do persist:

• Forty-nine per cent of respondents said agriculture and food is an important industry for Canada’s well-being, second only to health care.
• Forty-one per cent said traditional methods of farming produce healthier food.

Trust in innovation?

The CCFI asked Canadians about their views on agricultural innovation and if they support new technologies to push the industry forward.

A large chunk of people, 71 per cent, said new technology can help solve challenges in Canada’s food system.

“We found that Canadians are … pro-modernization,” Bruner said.

At the same time, 51 per cent support traditional ways of growing and producing food.

Canadians may be open to innovation in food production, but there’s one problem, Bruner said.

About nine in 10 people say they know little or nothing about modern farming practices, the CCFI found in previous research.

Most people make judgments about farming and food without the necessary facts and information.

The good news is that the public’s ignorance is also an opportunity.

Farm groups and agri-food organizations can fill the void with facts and reliable data. Bruner, in one of her slides, said this opportunity should be a priority.

“Knowledge building is not a side-task — it is a trust strategy.”

In addition to the news that people distrust social media influencers, Bruner shared another encouraging nugget — Canadians like other Canadians.

In 2025, the Pew Research Centre asked people in multiple countries to rate the morals and values of their fellow citizens.

Ninety-two per cent said other Canadians are very good or somewhat good, which is distinct from the United States, where 53 per cent of respondents said other Americans are somewhat bad or very bad people.

But two years ago, when they engaged with members of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency about the tool, they were told that they were using a wrong dataset in its development, she says.

“They told us, ‘why are you using the number of cases? You have to go back to the number of outbreaks,’ ” Dara said during a recent Canadian Centre for Food Integrity webinar.

If the team hadn’t realized the error and switched datasets, the tool could have caused major problems, Dara said, issuing false information, causing users to make decisions with potentially serious repercussions and decreasing trust in AI tools in the future.

This example highlights one of the key risks for the agriculture sector right now, she says, as it increasingly adopts new AI technology to drive efficiency, sustainability and trust across all levels of the value chain.

“Data is absolutely critical,” said Dara, an associate professor at the U of G and a co-director of the university’s Artificial Intelligence for Food initiative.

“Many of the risks (with AI) are rooted in the data — low quality data, biased data, attacked data, data that has been manipulated for a certain purpose.”

She says this is also why it’s so important for AI developers to work collaboratively with a team of experts when developing models for the agriculture industry, whether it be agronomists, veterinarians or food safety experts to ensure a sound foundation.

“Before you even start, ask ‘what is the question, do you have the right data, did I frame our question right to build this AI system so that the output is reliable?’ These are very major questions.”

Other groups have issued concerns along the same lines, warning that yield prediction tools in Canada rely too heavily on input from higher-yielding areas, and that tools for carbon credit estimation and disease detection can be trained on datasets that are too narrow in scope.

Beyond data accuracy concerns, however, Dara says there are also cultural, community and ethical risks that come with AI use, as well as ones related to data privacy and security, infrastructure security and even environmental harm.

One of the biggest risks in her mind are also the unknowns.

“The problem is we don’t know what the risk is, we cannot word it in a way that we can find solutions for,” she said.

For example, she says privacy risks didn’t become top of mind for smartphone and internet users until Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 that the U.S. National Security Agency was secretly collecting phone and internet data from Americans.

Another major risk for the sector right now is related to AI and public trust, says Dorothy Long, managing director of Canadian Food Focus, a farm literacy organization.

She says that generative AI is changing the way consumers find information, shifting away from keyword-based searches to more conversational, context-aware interfaces such as ChatGPT. This shift positions some of the industry’s credible sources lower on the totem pole in terms of importance or prominence, she adds.

“Now, just being on the front page of Google results isn’t enough anymore. If you aren’t feeding the generative AI the answer, and that shows up at the top, your information is potentially being lost,” she says.

“Some people put a lot of effort into websites that are not going to be used by generative AI.”

Dara said the industry needs to come together to address and identify risks associated with AI for the agriculture sector, but being proactive on risk management shouldn’t hold it back from capitalizing on the major opportunities the technology offers the sector.

“In Canada, we are risk adverse,” Dara said.

“If you don’t use AI, that’s a risk of its own. All the other countries are moving ahead. We cannot afford not to use it or we may lose markets, competitiveness, opportunities for innovation.”

Long says her biggest concern is that the industry could miss out on an opportunity to use AI to combat misinformation.

“It’s happening so fast. Nobody, I think, is really realizing that the whole landscape is changing.”

In the meantime, Dara and her team continue work on their avian flu predictive tool, using data they are collecting from social media and historical disease, land cover and wild bird population records.

She believes tools like these will be extremely important to the sector, not only generating benchmark data but also building and testing models that can be trusted by end users. She also hopes one day the project will include a component to measure the effectiveness of control measures for such outbreaks so that industry members can make more informed decisions.

“That’s where it becomes useful,” she said.

There’s the data that powers variable rate and section control.

There are yield monitors, bin sensors and increasingly sophisticated uses of data in the equipment cab.

There are agronomy prescriptions fed by a full spectrum of soil test results and other data gathered on the farm.

Companies have sprung up around the idea of farm data management. The big names in seed, chemical and machinery, from BASF and Bayer to Johne Deere, all have their own digital platforms, systems and apps. Data increasingly runs through the operational lifeblood of farms.

At the same time that farmers are being sold on the value of digital integration, however, the rise of big data in agriculture has also led to questions about data ownership, security and how much farmers actually trust the technology.

At least one study found that farmers may not feel like they’re getting the bulk of the benefit out of the data they gather.

Farmer attitudes on big data have a lot of nuance, depending on the type of data, who it’s being shared with and where the farmer is located, said researcher Emily Duncan.

Duncan, a postdoctoral research fellow with the University of Regina, studies the social consequences of digital agriculture, including the trade-offs, benefits, challenges and barriers to adopting digitalization on Canadian farms.

She shared insights from her work during the Digitalization in Crop and Beef Production conference in Edmonton in late May. The event explored challenges of data governance in agriculture and was hosted by the Simpson Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy.

Pointing to a cross-sector survey of 1,000 farmers (done as part of her doctorate in 2021), she noted a range of discomfort with how data sharing is currently handled in agriculture.

Prairie perspectives were well integrated in the study. The geographic spread of respondents, Duncan said, actually tilted study results more heavily toward Prairie farmers.

About 15 per cent of Quebec farmers who answered the survey said they were “extremely uncomfortable” with data sharing, Duncan said. In Saskatchewan, though, those numbers climbed to 30 per cent.

The regional differences produce questions about how production type and the involvement of producer groups and co-operatives might impact farmer trust in data sharing, she added.

Duncan also gauged comfort with sharing different categories of data, including weather, soil, inputs and production. Producers were generally comfortable sharing their weather and soil data, but less so when it came to input and production information.

“Even if you have a weather station on your farm or you do soil sampling, there are larger aggregated data sets of these, whereas more personal choices to producers, like the amount of inputs you put in or your production levels, are perhaps more sensitive,” she said.

Growers were also asked which format they would prefer when their data is published: raw, aggregated or summarized.

“Farmers are extremely uncomfortable sharing raw production data,” said Duncan.

“So when we think in terms of implementing data governance mechanisms, having levels of control of what is shared versus what isn’t shared is something that could be put into place in terms of technology development to ensure that farmers feel comfortable with the types of data that are being shared.”

Respondents were also asked about their comfort with four data scenarios:

• Technology and service providers have direct access to farmers’ data through the services they provide.
• Once farmers start using a platform, the company will have access to their data forever.
• Businesses are using data to make a profit without compensating farmers.
• Aggregated data is used by some businesses to influence markets, such as product prices or crop land values.

Producers overwhelmingly identified themselves as extremely to moderately uncomfortable with all four scenarios.

At the same time, all four are baked into today’s commercial agricultural data platforms to varying degrees, said Duncan.

“It’s not to say that those things are right or wrong, but if farmers feel uncomfortable with these things, how transparent are the data governance policies that are enabling these things to occur and are there other options out there for farmers?”

Another question focused on producer comfort sharing data with a range of actors, including research institutions, industry-based organizations, other farmers, government and technology or service providers.

Duncan was surprised by how many respondents — 44 per cent — considered themselves either extremely or somewhat uncomfortable with tech and service providers. She thought government, which also did not fare well in the poll, would be less trusted.

Respondents felt most comfortable sharing with research institutions, with 37 per cent answering that they were extremely or somewhat comfortable. Another 35 per cent said they were extremely or somewhat uncomfortable and 28 per cent were neutral.

“This is very interesting to me because we know that tech and service providers are the ones who they are sharing the data with because they are using those platforms,” said Duncan.

Perhaps the most significant results were seen when the survey asked farmers about who they felt benefited the most from aggregated farm data.

In most cases, it wasn’t the farmers. Only 16 per cent said producers benefit most.

“I think this is an important fact, that farmers don’t see themselves as benefiting the most from farm data,” said Duncan.

“And so, when we think about developing agricultural data governance policies, we need a farmer-first approach so that it isn’t businesses and technology and service providers who are at the forefront of capturing those benefits.”

One attendee asked Duncan about data trusts or co-operatives — which would allow farmers to own their data — and if they could help farmers better manage and benefit from their information.

There are a lot of opportunities for data co-operatives, said Duncan, but farmers need to be open to collaboration. However, farmers tend to use a diversity of platforms, presenting challenges to interoperability.

Research on producer tech adoption has identified the lack of consistent standards — or interoperability — across closed-source data platforms as a frustration among farmers.

“I think in terms of moving towards better data governance, we really need people to come together and be open to collaboration,” Duncan said.

Bill Oemichen with the University of Saskatchewan’s Canadian Centre for the Study of Co-operatives also noted barriers to interoperability.

Although a worthy goal, he said, interoperability may limit competition and, in the process, producers’ discovery of the platforms that work best for them.

“Competition … means that you probably aren’t going to be interoperable, that you’re not going to be sharing your data between all these different medium-sized businesses,” he said.

“And I think that’s fair, but farmers should be able to choose based on the data policies that they feel comfortable with what service provider that they’re going to go with.

“It doesn’t need to be a million choices, but there needs to be some choice there.”

The Canadian food system’s reputation has taken a significant hit in the last couple years, said Ashely Bruner of the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity (CCFI) during a recent webinar.

“For the first time in seven years, Canadians are quite polarized on whether the country’s food system is headed in the right or wrong direction,” said Bruner, CCFI’s director of research and stakeholder engagement.

The CCFI has conducted research every year since 2017 on the topic of public trust in the Canadian food system, and according to the 2024 data, the most recent available, only three in 10 Canadians believe the food system is on the right track.

“This is a tracking low for us,” Bruner said.

The 2024 survey also showed that fewer than half of Canadians (45 per cent) have a positive view of the food system, reflecting a sharp decrease from previous years, and that 18 per cent of Canadian consumers had a “negative” impression of the food system, an increase from 11 per cent the previous year.

“Earlier waves of research found that Canadians were largely indifferent to the food system, and a fair amount do remain as such, but we are losing ground on that mushy middle to pessimism and polarization,” Bruner said.

According to CCFI data, perceptions of the food system peaked in 2020, when nearly half of Canadians felt the food system was headed in the right direction, a number that reflects what Bruner calls a “COVID boost.”

“In nearly all of our tracking metrics, Canada’s food system was seen as doing very well in continuing to provide reliable and safe food for Canadians,” she said of the 2020 data.

“Grocery store workers were literally heroes. We were banging pots and pans outside every night. Everyone learned to make bread. We were told we were all in this together. People were engaged … and that engagement translated into improved perceptions.”

Bruner says the reason for the decline now is likely due to growing levels of pessimism in general, which is not unique to Canada or the food sector.

Public trust in Canadian sectors and institutions, such as the agriculture industry, federal and provincial institutions and mainstream media, is also on the decline, according to the CCFI data.

Furthermore, Bruner believes that farmers, along with other professional groups such as scientists and researchers, are losing their audiences to flashier and more accessible social media influencers, and that this needs to be addressed through collective action from the sector.

Some experts, however, question just how much value the sector should place in public trust.

John Gormley, a former broadcaster and MP with decades of experience shaping and analyzing public opinion in Saskatchewan, believes the agriculture industry should be critical of the issue of public trust as it relates to social license.

“I have real concerns about social license,” said Gormley, who currently practises law in Saskatoon.

“I think social license often confuses public education and public acceptance with a sense of permission. And I start from the point that nobody needs anybody else’s license, approval, consent, permission to carry on an already legal and regulated activity.”

He says that farming practices are already heavily regulated in Canada and shouldn’t be constrained by opinions of people who do not understand the industry and/or who are involved with special interest groups.

However, Gormley does believe that there is potential for the sector to capitalize on the inherent trust that the public has in farmers.

“Overwhelmingly, people regard farmers as being on the same page as they are. They’re trustworthy human beings, they adhere to science, they adhere to best practices. They’re ethical people who don’t want to cause harm … and those are some of the strongest hallmarks of trust, the sense of empathy and identity.”

“Could you take those individual trust metrics and to amplify them to a larger audience? That doesn’t hurt. There are lots of people in the larger audience who haven’t applied their mind to it. Maybe they don’t have that kind of affinity or exposure to a farmer. So, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.”

Bruner also believes there are opportunities to capitalize on public trust in farmers. Although those trust levels have declined recently, they still remain higher than, or on par with, that of other professions, she says.

“Farmers are historically and always the most trusted, but the alarming decrease in trust toward this group means they’re now tied with scientists, and university researchers are close behind.”

She also believes there are various other data-supported ways to engage the general public, including by sharing information through trusted sources and influencers, disseminating information to make it more emotionally resonant and cultivating media and science literacy.

Data also shows there are many aspects of the food system that could form emotional touch points with the general public, Bruner said, including in terms of the diversity of jobs available in the sector and collective efforts to grow sustainability efforts.

“As we move into this year, it’s clear that things need to be done differently,” she said.

“Canadians are paying attention more than ever, which is a great opportunity to tell our story.”

He’s right. But mistakes do happen, and I’ve made some doozies over the years.

The thing about a journalist’s mistakes, especially in the digital world, is that everyone can see them. In the “old” days, a reader sent a letter to the editor or called the writer. The issue was discussed and handled.

Today, the reaction is more likely to be an angry email or post on social media. They are often filled with expletives and a commentary on the intellectual capacity of the writer.

As if we didn’t feel bad enough!

Reporters don’t like to make mistakes, and when it happens our emotions generally run from embarrassment to anger.

Newspapers like ours have always tried to publish corrections as soon as possible, in accordance with our editorial code of ethics. It’s about building public trust and transparency.

During Media Literacy Week in October, the Canadian Journalism Foundation hosted a webinar about this and other topics featuring public editors from larger media organizations.

These editors deal solely with audience feedback. They take complaints, concerns and compliments to the newsroom.

One said talking to reporters about a complaint is a way to fix the problem, not lay blame for the error. This demonstrates the commitment to quality reporting and accountability.

Sometimes a perceived mistake isn’t a mistake at all and a conversation can lead to better understanding on both sides, they said.

Sometimes the headline doesn’t match the story underneath or a person has been misidentified in a photograph. In larger outlets, that’s often a function of too many cooks in the kitchen. As in, the reporter didn’t write the headline or the cutline under the photo.

One of the participants noted the tendency of some politicians to suggest that corrections are admissions of failure by the media outlet and a reason why that newspaper, radio or television station can’t be trusted.

I’d argue the opposite.

Public trust in media has been declining in recent years, stoked largely by unchecked online commentary. Credible news organizations recognize mistakes and address them as quickly as possible.

So if you, as a reader, notice a mistake, consider that reporters are human too, and they are willing to listen.

But it’s one thing to hear that and quite another to find time and do it properly.

Trent and Dena Lewis own One Mile Ranch, a beef and pork direct-to-customer operation in Pincher Creek, Alta. They have established their place on social media through an “educate, entertain and inspire” approach to content.

The strategy has paid off, they told attendees of the Farm Forward event in Edmonton Nov. 9. One slice-of-farm-life video starring one of their daughters garnered 5.8 million views.

“People want to feel something. They don’t want to be sold a product,” Dena Lewis said. “It doesn’t seem to work that way anymore.”

Instead, she said, emotional connection helps foster trust, which is key in turning members of the general public.

Farm Forward was linked to Farmfair International Nov. 7-9 in Edmonton. The presentation, featuring Trent and Dena Lewis, focused on tips for young and aspiring producers.

The Alberta family has built a significant social media presence, leading to corporate sponsorship and advertising pitches that would be the envy of other influencers. As of print time, their base on Instagram had grown to 61,700 followers.

The couple offered 10 tips to help producers upgrade their social media game.

1. Educate, entertain and inspire

This approach makes it less overwhelming to film videos for social media, Dena Lewis said. It’s easy to touch on at least one of those themes in a given video, but first determine the target audience.

Other farmers may be the hardest to attract, said Trent Lewis. Educational content geared for the general public may be old news for fellow producers.

For a non-rural audience, it is necessary to simplify various aspects of farming. The audience probably didn’t click the link to hear an in-depth agronomy lecture. They’ll engage more with something light and easily digestible.

“Everything you do is probably very crazy to them,” said Trent Lewis.

2. Feel no shame

The family social media channel draws a lot of clicks from sheer silliness. One video features Dena Lewis in the kitchen, ready to bake some pumpkin spice cookies, but instead she breaks into a dance. Others show the family riding horses, playing and generally living life on the farm.

The family’s online success eventually attracted Toyota. The automobile maker offered a deal to promote its Tundra truck, a milestone Dena Lewis doubts they would have drawn had they worried about what their family, friends or fellow farmers thought about their posts.

“You had to get over that one pretty quick. It is cool when you start posting and you start not caring and you just do it for fun.”

3. Being authentic is uncomfortable, but necessary

A big key to gaining an online audience is authenticity, Trent Lewis said, but that’s not always easy.

“You feel like you need to fit the mould, but not fitting the mould is probably the best thing you can do. Each of us is unique in our own way. We have something that’s maybe a bit weird or whatever, but those are the things that kind of make you who you are and it’s really what people connect with.”

4. You can’t be scared to fail

The biggest fail is not trying at all, said Dena Lewis.

“You’d be amazed how many videos we put up (that) I only put up because I think they’re funny and I really don’t think they’re going to do good. And those ones often do the best.”

Added Trent, “You miss every shot you don’t take.”

5. Consistency is key

Whether you decide to post once a week or several times per week, it’s important to be consistent for your audience, said Trent Lewis.

“We all start out being ambitious and (having) big hope and when things maybe don’t do what you hope, it’s hard to keep going. But that’s kind of the name of the game. It’s a long-term investment that pays you down the road in ways you don’t really even know.”

6. A hundred people in a room versus 100 views

It’s easy to get discouraged if you only see single-, double- or even triple-digit hits. Farm influencer hopefuls should avoid falling into that trap, attendees heard.

There were only about 100 people in the room of the Edmonton Expo Centre that hosted their presentation. In clicks, that number might have looked paltry. Visualized as people, that impact looks much more significant.

“Even one person caring about what you’re saying, when you think about it as a person, that’s cool,” Dena Lewis said. “That’s a conversation.”

7. Respond to your audience

If the audience has questions, answer them, she said.

“You can learn so much. I always find questions are valuable conversation. It becomes more personable. It’s not just an online thing anymore. It feels like you really know people and you learn what people are interested in quite fast.”

It also presents a chance for feedback and ideas for further content, she noted.

8. Build a community of trust

When you build trust with your audience, they’re more likely to listen to you, she added. That can open opportunities to brand deals like the one the couple made with Toyota.

“And, in Canada, the market is not saturated at all. It doesn’t take very many people to build a community. And when you do that, there’s so much that can come from it.”

9. Create your own market

It’s a “pain point” for many farmers that no matter what you do — whether that’s new farm practices to improve the health and welfare of animals or just producing a better product — the farmer is always a price-taker rather than a price-maker, said Trent Lewis.

Creating your own market dodges that pitfall. You foster customers who decide to buy from you because they can see what you’re doing.

10. Society is disconnected from the food system: show them

The idea that most Canadians do not know where their food comes from can either be a recipe for discouragement or opportunity, the couple said.

Most Canadians don’t know a farmer, Trent Lewis noted.

“They don’t have a connection to who’s producing their food. And I guess it’s kind of a crazy thing and I know, in our little world, that seems far-fetched, but it is the truth. So, it’s great to be able to put that in perspective.”

The Canadian Food Sentiment Index, released Oct. 10 by Dalhousie University’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab, said Canadians have changed shopping habits significantly in the face of food price inflation.

The report was based on responses from more than 3,000 Canadians, and the university plans to repeat the effort bi-annually. It provides a picture of food issues across the nation, said Sylvain Charlebois, the institution’s senior director and food system commentator. The lab has done several surveys over the years, but the October effort was the most expansive.

“A lot of factors can actually impact sentiments, like prices, for example. But we explored a lot of different things in this report — values, beliefs, trust,” he said.

Dalhousie University connected with Purdue University in Indiana to create the survey, Charlebois added. The U.S. school conducts a consumer sentiment overview every month but Dalhousie saw less value in a month-by-month analysis.

“Frankly, when you look at theirs, things don’t really change all that much from month to month. That’s why we’re doing every six months.”

Food prices have increased by 27 per cent since 2019, and 84 per cent of respondents cited food as the expense that has surged most within the past year. Nearly half — 48.2 per cent — reported looking for more sales and discounts, while also using coupons, shopping at less expensive stores or switching to generic brands.

Twenty-two per cent said they are buying fewer non-essential foods, such as ice cream, and others are opting for bulk or staple foods like pasta and beans.

“A lot of people are struggling at the grocery store,” Charlebois said.

Per capita spending on food has shown only a modest increase. There was a notable spike at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, but expenditures have since stabilized at just above pre-pandemic levels.

Restaurants suffered during COVID-19. The report noted restaurant spending dropped to less than $40 per capita in early 2020 due to pandemic-related closures and restrictions. Today, that spending has largely bounced back, Charlebois said, even with the surge in grocery prices.

“People are still going out to the restaurant. That surprised me.”

Food insecurity is a growing challenge, especially among younger Canadians. Nearly half of generation Z — 46 per cent — reported drawing from savings or borrowing money to afford groceries, the most of any age class. Only 13 per cent of the oldest generation, those born before 1946, said they needed financial help to buy food.

Affordability was reported as a main concern for 47.3 per cent of respondents. Nutrition, at 24.9 per cent, and taste, at 16.7 per cent, also scored highly. Many reported checking nutritional labels, opting for local foods and taking steps to reduce food waste.

Farmers still enjoy a lot of consumer trust, according to survey results. They rated as the most trusted in the food system, with a score of 3.69 out of five. They were closely followed by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

“The farmers are number one, but that wasn’t surprising,” Charlebois said. “People tend to trust farmers, and Health Canada as well.”

Grocers had a far less sunny perception among consumers. Major grocery chains received the lowest trust scores.

The report also showed that most Canadians believe food prices are rising faster than government estimates. Over 54 per cent of respondents said they think food inflation is higher than official reports.

“(It) surprised me … how many people don’t believe Statistics Canada and inflation data,” Charlebois said.

He added that updates to the sentiments report should be tracked to see how they shift in relation to market fluctuations.

“That’s basically what we’re trying to do with all these metrics, all these aspects (that are) included in the survey. There’s a lot of questions.”

The next survey results will be released in April.

One takeaway from the current report is a more confident and positive outlook among Canadians. Charlebois said he’ll be interested to see if that trend continues, since that will likely affect consumer behaviour.

“When we release our second one, we’ll actually see an evolution. We’ll see exactly how Canadians feel about certain things.”