Parliamentary Briefings - by The Audit
What if I gave you hours and hours of committee meetings in five minutes?
Check out the complete set of Briefings here.
While brainstorming early ideas for The Audit nearly a year ago, the ongoing catastrophic contractions in traditional journalism were top of mind. If all the powerful and well-funded newspapers and TV networks that once maintained serious parliamentary bureaus were effectively gone, then who’s watching the committees and ministries?
Let me illustrate the scope of the problem. Take “disinformation”. The raw transcripts from hearings covering this topic from just the first 10 days in October would, if printed, take up more than 300 pages. Paying people just to read through all that (or watch the CPAC feeds) along with all the dozens of other threads wouldn’t be cheap. And paying people smart enough to turn all that information into intelligible journalism would presumably cost a lot more.
But there is at least one thing Canadian governments do exceptionally well, and that’s transparently provide an exhaustive record of their deliberations and debates. Data. Lots of it. If there’s data, then I can surely apply data analysis tools to the task of managing it. That, after all, is what I do.
All the way back when The Audit was nothing more than a few incoherent notes in a single digital document, I wondered whether I could automate the jobs once done by caffeine-enriched journalists struggling to stay awake through marathon committee meetings.
So welcome to Parliamentary Briefers by The Audit. Besides my regular twice-weekly (and exquisitely hand-crafted) posts, I'm now going to give you a third post where a suitably inspired AI model will summarize and assess the workings of one or more parliamentary committees on a specific topic.
The AI’s writing won’t be nearly as charming and compelling as mine (but then, whose is?) and I can’t be 100 percent sure there won’t be errors. But it will provide us with some valuable ongoing visibility into what’s really happening in the halls where our lives are recklessly wisely governed.
This first edition of Parliamentary Briefers is available for everyone. But I plan to keep at least some of each future edition behind the paywall just for paid subscribers. Someone’s got to feed that growling AI monster crouched menacingly over there in the corner.
Parliamentary Briefer: Disinformation
Over the first 10 days of October, the Public Safety and National Security (SECU) and Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics (ETHI) committees met to discuss “disinformation” three or four times each. I asked my AI buddy to summarize their discussions and conclusions and identify contentious or surprising content. Here’s what came out the other end:
SECU Committee (Public Safety and National Security)
Foreign Interference: The SECU committee emphasized the impact of Russian disinformation campaigns on Canadian security. They highlighted that disinformation related to Russia-Ukraine issues poses significant risks, aiming to destabilize public opinion in Canada.
Social Media's Role: Platforms like Meta (Facebook) were scrutinized for their role in either facilitating or combating disinformation. SECU stressed the need for tighter regulations and better collaboration with social media companies to limit the reach of harmful disinformation.
Call for Policy Strengthening: There was a consensus on the need for Canada to develop robust policies to counteract foreign disinformation, including enhancing national security measures to address this threat.
ETHI Committee (Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics)
Public Vulnerability and Ethics: The ETHI committee discussed the ethical implications of disinformation targeting Canadian citizens, focusing on the vulnerability of individuals to foreign disinformation and its impact on privacy. They emphasized educating the public on recognizing and avoiding false information.
Transparency in Media: ETHI highlighted the need for Canadian media to be transparent in distinguishing factual reporting from opinion or sponsored content. This is aimed at helping audiences differentiate trustworthy information from potential disinformation.
Government-Platform Collaboration: The committee recommended improved coordination between the government and media entities to create public awareness campaigns about disinformation, especially foreign-sourced, and to equip citizens with tools to verify the credibility of information they encounter.
The Audit: Were there any suggestions that government might limit the speech of Canadians either online or elsewhere?
In reviewing discussions on potential government limitations on Canadians' speech, here’s a summary of relevant points from each committee:
SECU Committee
Focus on Foreign Influence: The SECU committee members, along with representatives from Meta, discussed strategies to counter foreign disinformation, particularly from actors like Russia. Although they emphasized removing "coordinated inauthentic behavior" (CIB) on social media, they did not advocate limiting Canadians' general speech.
No Explicit Calls to Restrict Canadian Speech: The discussions leaned towards disrupting foreign-influenced accounts and fake profiles rather than imposing direct limits on Canadian citizens' expressions online. SECU stressed the importance of protecting public debate from foreign interference without suggesting limitations on individual freedoms.
ETHI Committee
Ethics and Transparency: ETHI focused on the ethical aspects of disinformation, discussing the responsibility of media and platforms to transparently label information to help citizens discern credible sources. This was directed at fostering informed decision-making rather than restricting speech.
Educational Approach: There was an emphasis on public education and awareness, encouraging Canadians to critically assess information. They advocated collaboration between the government and media but stopped short of recommending restrictions on citizens' speech.
Neither committee suggested or endorsed limiting Canadians' online or offline speech directly. Instead, they focused on countering foreign disinformation sources, fostering media transparency, and educating the public to empower Canadians to identify disinformation themselves.
The Audit: Was there a suggestion that Canadian media producers should limit what they publish based on a government-imposed standard?
In both SECU and ETHI discussions, there was no indication that Canadian media producers should restrict their publications based on a government-imposed standard. Here’s a breakdown of relevant points:
SECU Committee
Platform Self-Regulation: The focus was primarily on platforms like Meta identifying and disrupting foreign-origin disinformation. There was no suggestion of a government mandate directing Canadian media to limit content publication.
ETHI Committee
Transparency Emphasis: The ETHI committee discussed the importance of transparency in media reporting, encouraging news organizations to differentiate between factual reporting and opinion or sponsored content to help audiences identify reliable sources. However, there was no proposal for a government-imposed standard on what Canadian media should or should not publish.
The Audit: Was there any discussion about defining what constitutes "misinformation"?
In both SECU and ETHI committee discussions, there were references to "misinformation," but no detailed effort to create a specific definition for it. Here’s a summary of what was covered:
SECU Committee
Focus on Platform Responsibility: TikTok and Meta representatives discussed the challenge of misinformation on their platforms, particularly regarding foreign influence. The emphasis was on identifying and countering misleading content but did not extend to defining "misinformation" formally.
ETHI Committee
Impact on Parliamentary Work: The ETHI committee acknowledged misinformation's impact on public trust and the work of parliamentarians, noting it as a problem needing attention. However, discussions revolved around strategies to mitigate misinformation rather than explicitly defining it.
The Audit: Were there significant differences of opinion that followed party lines?
In both the SECU and ETHI committees, all major Canadian parties (Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Québécois, and NDP) were represented and participated in discussions on disinformation.
Here’s an overview of representation:
SECU Committee: Liberals (54 mentions) and Conservatives (43 mentions) were the most active, followed by Bloc Québécois (37) and NDP (17).
ETHI Committee: Conservatives had the most mentions (100), with Liberals (65), Bloc Québécois (58), and NDP (54) also actively involved.
I’ll now examine the text more closely to identify any specific contentions along party lines.
In examining the SECU and ETHI discussions, some differences of opinion along party lines emerged, particularly between the Conservatives and Liberals:
SECU Committee
Conservative Perspective: Conservative representatives raised concerns about the balance between combating disinformation and protecting free speech. They emphasized the need for transparency and accountability from social media platforms like YouTube and Meta, ensuring they are not unduly limiting Canadians' expressions under the guise of managing disinformation.
Liberal Perspective: Liberals generally supported platform efforts to counter disinformation, particularly from foreign sources, framing it as a security issue. They were more inclined to discuss government collaboration with platforms to strengthen national security measures related to disinformation.
ETHI Committee
Conservative Emphasis on Media Bias: Conservative representatives, such as Michael Barrett, questioned whether Canadian media organizations receiving government subsidies might shape their reporting to align with the Liberal government’s views. This was framed as a concern over media independence and transparency in reporting.
Liberal Focus on Media Responsibility: Liberals, in contrast, supported the need for media organizations to address disinformation responsibly. Their approach focused on ethical standards and collaboration with media rather than questioning media independence or government influence.
In both committees, Conservatives voiced concerns about potential government overreach and media bias, while Liberals emphasized collaboration and responsibility in combating disinformation. These differences in focus created some party-line contentions on the issues of platform regulation, media transparency, and government involvement in managing disinformation
The Audit: what specific outcomes and next-steps were planned?
Here’s a summary of the practical outcomes and next steps that were discussed in the committee meetings:
Platform Accountability: Representatives from social media platforms like TikTok and Meta committed to expanding their efforts to identify and mitigate disinformation, specifically targeting foreign-origin campaigns and misinformation on their platforms.
Government Collaboration: Committee members discussed the importance of continued collaboration between the government and social media companies to enhance national security protections. This included developing better systems for identifying harmful content without overreaching into free speech.
Public Education Initiatives: There was a recommendation to create public awareness campaigns to help citizens recognize and critically assess disinformation. This educational initiative is seen as a joint effort involving the government, media, and educational institutions.
Policy Recommendations: Several members suggested forming a framework for ongoing policy recommendations, possibly leading to regular updates on handling disinformation in Canadian media and social media landscapes.
Monitoring and Reporting: The committee discussed instituting consistent monitoring and reporting mechanisms within platforms to track the effectiveness of disinformation policies and public transparency efforts.
One more thing. Abandoning all good sense, I decided to take many of the first 50 posts from The Audit and convert them into a book:
Why should content that’s already (mostly) available online need repackaging as a book? Well I have reasons:
I believe in the stuff I publish here. Highlighting the wasteful and just plain bizarre policies identified in these posts represents a genuine opportunity for improving how governments work. And it bothers me that, after a few days or weeks, older posts just disappear from sight. Sure, they’re all still there for someone who knows how to find them, but most people don’t. Books, however, allow for easier discovery over the long term.
There’s actually some new stuff in the book. The first chapter, for instance, is a big-picture introduction describing the current state of the government. This provides important context that’ll help everything else make sense. On occasion, I also combined multiple posts into single chapters to make them easier to understand. I also added updates where useful. And I may even have removed one or two typos.
The book’s chapters are divided into sections: Governance, Transparency, and Policy. This adds shape and meaning to the content.
Publishing the content in book form provides a new platform through which more Canadians can discover The Audit. I can write more and faster than just about anyone I know. But so what? That won’t accomplish anything unless people choose to read it. And that won’t happen unless people find it.
And who knows? A book might actually generate some income which I can use to expand and improve everything else I’m doing with The Audit.
Curious about any posts you might have missed? Interested in getting all the play-by-play in one place? Prefer reading physical (or Kindle) books? Do consider picking up a copy of The Audit: Adventures in Canadian Policy - Data stories from the land that competence forgot.
That is quite well done. Thank you.
Thank you.