Evidence of meeting #39 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Often people provide consensus to those motions, which is exactly what we're seeing—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I don't believe I had a chance to speak, Mr. Chair, because I was interrupted three or four times. I appreciate your efforts to bring order to the committee.
I would like to address the second issue that was raised by Madame Thi Lac. I think we generally would deal with witnesses in the same way as is always done, which is that the subcommittee puts together a witness list and, if there are no objections, that list is carried out and the witnesses are called before the committee. This motion does not suggest any other course of action than what is normally the case.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
In reference to what Mr. Poilievreand Madame Thi Lac said, sure. I didn't put in the motion who the witnesses would be. As a committee, I think we could figure that out together, and it seems as if we're moving in this direction anyway.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Yes, the witnesses will be discussed at the steering committee.
(Motion agreed to)
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The next item is the minutes of the steering committee. The first item is redundant, so we're talking about the second item, and that basically is the whole e-consultation process that we've talked about before on the committee.
By way of summary, we have done a fair amount of work on this. We've involved the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament, and we have a paper that is the next step in the process. There is some involvement of third-party consultants. If this is approved, we will present a budget, and we'll get quotes from the third-party consultants. But once the budget is developed, that will go back to the liaison committee. But this is the next step in the process.
Mr. Poilievre, and then Mr. Albrecht.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I'm not sure that I can endorse the initiation of a study, an e-consultation of this kind, when it just seems that there could be a so much easier approach to doing an e-consultation. I'd be interested just to know exactly what kinds of costs would be involved in simply arranging for a Facebook page for the committee, which would allow people to submit their comments, which would allow them to actually vote on propositions that the committee could offer before them through the like and dislike function, which would allow people to join the site in a way that would indicate that they're interested in the discussion.
In fact I'm not really aware of any form of e-consultation that this committee would require on open government that could not be executed through a simple Facebook page. Even long, detailed essays or compositions that members of the public might like to submit to this committee could be done through the Facebook e-mail function. Or if attachments were required, they could be done through a simple public display of an e-mail address that could easily be sent. Or if someone doesn't use electronics, of course, we could continue to use old-fashioned snail mail.
I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding why we should pay thousands of dollars for consultants to set up websites and online surveys, and whatever else might come to mind, when there exists, at the click of a mouse, resources that are readily available for that sort of interaction right now. I think that in a time when the country is increasingly focused on fiscal restraint, we should lead by example and send the signal that we're going to seek cost-effective ways of communicating with the Canadian people.
I think Facebook has more people on it now than most countries have population, meaning that there's widespread access to it. And anybody who would be interested in participating in an e-consultation would already have a computer and an Internet connection and therefore would be capable of contributing through a Facebook function. Finally, if they don't have access to Internet and they perhaps use a public library, there too they are not banned from using Facebook.
Now, there might be other existing online networking services that might serve the purpose better than Facebook. I simply put it forward as one example of infrastructure that is already in place so that we don't have to spend exorbitantly on consultants for something that can easily be provided through simpler means.
Thank you.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.
I'd like to get this done, and we also have the Google study. So I'm going to hear briefly from Mr. Albrecht, Madam Bennett, and Madame Thi Lac. Let's limit them to two minutes each.
Mr. Albrecht.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be under two minutes.
I concur with many or all of the comments that my colleague made. But in addition, if we were to look at the analysts' suggested list of witnesses, which I have no argument with, there are 38, at least.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We're not talking about the witness list now, just the e-consultation part.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
But it's very possible that we could be asking witnesses to give their input. I just want to conclude that anything we can do to reduce the costs and have that input either via electronic means or, if necessary, through video conferencing, as opposed to making a large request for resources....
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay. Very briefly, Madam Bennett, Madame Thi Lac, and then I want to put the question. And we'll deal with the Google report too.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I'm quite shocked that this was actually agreed to at the steering committee meeting. We agreed to go forward. We agreed that serious, meaningful citizen engagement on something as important as open government requires a serious, scientific approach, with appropriate analysis and the ability to actually hear what the people of Canada are saying.
The honourable member can set up his own Facebook site whenever he wants to on open government. But we expected that this could be a pilot for the way government operates in 2.0. We need to go forward.
The last meaningful consultation a parliamentary committee did was Senator Kirby's. And then there was the one we did in the disability committee in 2002-03. We have been at an absolute standstill in allowing ordinary Canadians, who don't necessarily know how to ask to be witnesses, to consult and advise government.
I feel extraordinarily strongly that we should go forward. We agreed to it last week. I don't know, honestly, what the member is saying. Let's see what the consultants say.
As the honourable member knows, $250,000 has been set aside at the liaison committee to do expressly these kinds of activities. It's never been tapped, because there is always someone on the other side thinking that less is better and that democracy should be cheap.
We have to spend the money to do this properly.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I want to add two things. Obviously, whatever is discussed by the steering committee is confidential. So, I will not deal with the issues that have been raised in those meetings. However, I believe it is a matter of responsibility. We all know that only one member of each party attends the meetings of the steering committee.
I am surprised by what you said this morning, Mrs. Bennett, because I think that the proper action this morning would have been for you to express your position to the member of your party attending the meeting. I am surprised to learn here what your position is. I believe that the other MPs from all parties who are not members of the steering committee have to communicate their position to the representative of their party.
Here is my second point. I might not agree with the way you use Facebook. My staff received some training last week on the tools and on Facebook and I was quite surprised by the conclusion and warnings of the trainer. That person told us that, when one puts one's photograph on Facebook, it becomes the property of Facebook. Even if you close your account, Facebook remains the owner of everything you put online through Facebook, not of the links you have used. So, before thinking that the committee might use a tool like Facebook, I believe we should get more information because the information in tiny characters that we usually do not read or perhaps do not fully understand might be very significant. As I said, all your data, your photographs and your videos become the property of Facebook. So, I think we should use another tool than Facebook. Personally, as an MP, I am thinking of removing my profile from Facebook because I do not think it is a good tool. And it would be even less so for a committee such as ours.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Madame Thi Lac.
I'm just going to put the question.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I notice here bullet 2 in the seventh report. I read the paragraph regarding the study, and it doesn't even have a budget.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I don't know why we'd approve an expenditure before we actually know what it is.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
It says “That the committee undertake an e-consultation process for the purpose of its study on open government. The e-consultation”--