Evidence of meeting #40 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 make.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
There's a whole bunch of ways whereby government could actually be helping citizens understand how their money is being spent, and the results they're getting from it.
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
And the innovative services that we could be rolling out.
One of the things that struck me--and maybe they're doing this, but from what I could tell from their website, they're not--is I believe it's Agriculture Canada that has a widget that shows you products that have been recalled, and you can put this in your blog or you can go to their website and look at it. I've got to be honest with you: I can't really think of anybody who's going to Agriculture Canada's website to check to see what products have been recalled. People just don't do that, and nobody's even going to be putting a widget in their blog so that you can keep up to date.
Much more interesting to me would be if that data were available through--I don't want to get too technical--something we call an API, so that people can go and ping that database and find out what actually has been recalled. If you did that, then supermarkets could build it into their systems. So if somebody accidentally stocks something, the moment it gets barcoded, it would ring because the product has been recalled. People now with their iPhones can actually use the camera to scan a barcode to find out how much something costs and where it's cheaper. You could get a message right then saying the product has been recalled.
So you could build it into all these systems and we could begin to talk about the reduction in health care costs that might reveal, and the efficiencies in distribution so goods actually just get dumped the moment they're there, they don't get shipped all over the place and then we discover that they're actually going to get recalled.
So here is a system where the federal government has data that is enormously interesting to the public and enormously interesting to industry, and yet shares it in this very closed way, where you can only use it on their terms. If they just had an API into it, then all of a sudden we could do much more interesting things.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Dr. Bennett.
That concludes the final round of questioning, Mr. Eaves. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your appearance here today. Your testimony was very interesting and very informative. You've given us a lot of food for thought.
We have another committee item we have to deal with before we leave, but do you have any closing comments or remarks you want to leave the committee with?
5 p.m.
As an Individual
Mostly I would say that while I understand that this topic appears rather technical, there is a growing group of people, a kind of movement out there who are deeply interested in the information data that government has, and the businesses that can be built around it, the way that democratic engagement can be done with it. I think it's a loud and growing group. So I urge this committee to think very carefully about its recommendations and try to be as aggressive as possible, because they will not stop in their demands.
Most importantly, I want to make the committee know that I am available any time they want, if they have further questions or need advice or help. I will make myself available at a moment's notice.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay, we're going to move right ahead to dealing with the report of the steering committee held earlier today. That document has been circulated. The steering committee had a fairly extensive agenda today. I'll just highlight the main items for the benefit of the committee. There are five.
First, we have the witness schedule for open government, or open data. That witness list has been circulated to all members of the committee.
Second, this committee previously consented to an e-consultation regarding the open government study, and the Library of Parliament was instructed to go to the market and invite bids for it. It did, and there were no bids received. There were about 20 companies that downloaded our RFP, but there were only three legitimate companies that would be in this type of business. The steering committee is recommending that we go back to these three bidders, meet with all of them, and come back with one recommendation.
Third, we need the clerk to draft a letter on behalf of the committee to the government, encouraging it to move forward with the open government initiative. Further, we need the committee to write a second letter to the Speaker of the House recommending that the Board of Internal Economy study the possibility of an open Parliament initiative. This is in line with some of the issues that Mr. Eaves raised this afternoon: we ourselves should be moving on some of these issues faster than we are right now.
Fourth, the steering committee felt it wise that the clerk draft a letter for further review by the steering committee to the Speaker of the House recommending that the Board of Internal Economy study the possibility of additional resources, or additional capacity, for future e-consultation processes. We think this is something that various House committees will be doing more of in the future, and we believe the capacity should be there within Parliament.
Lastly, we received an order of reference regarding the five-year review of the Lobbying Act, and we would tentatively start that on March 23, 2011.
That is a summary of the minutes of the steering committee. The chair would entertain a motion for their approval.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Yes. I noticed that the motion with respect to CBC is not scheduled until March 21, and I can only imagine how excited CBC is to come before the committee and start moving on this. I'm wondering if there's an opportunity for us to push that forward and perhaps even schedule it sometime within the next couple of weeks. March 21 is a heck of a long time, and it's something that's important to me. I've received a lot of feedback on this, and I'd like to start on it as soon as possible.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I'll speak to that, and then I'll ask the clerk if he has anything to add. We tried to get it on earlier and there was a lot of negotiation on the matter. They weren't as excited as perhaps you suggested. But anyway, they are coming on March 21. We tried different dates prior to that, but the CBC and the Information Commissioner weren't available on a lot of those dates. The earliest date that we could accommodate both of them was March 21.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Can you elaborate on the negotiation? Who are we negotiating with? I think we passed a motion and I'm not sure who we'd be negotiating with.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I'll take you through what we generally do. First of all, we reflect on people having certain schedules, but we make sure they understand that we want them to come. We get that push-back from all the departments, too. We want a certain person and they'll send a junior person. There's always that push-back from departments and agencies. In this case, we wanted both individuals here. We thought it was important that both the Information Commissioner and the senior executive of CBC be present for this hearing. We pushed for that. That was our premise, and this was the real date. It wasn't only the CBC—it was also the Information Commissioner who wasn't available on a lot of the dates.
Do you have anything to add, Chad?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Could I then also add, if we're talking about March 21, I just want it on the record that I'd like this to be brought forward sooner than March 21. This is of such importance, and I would hope that the president of the CBC would find a little time in his schedule to accommodate parliamentarians, who are providing over $1 billion to the CBC. I would ask the clerk to actually inquire again about his ability to come and meet with parliamentarians.
I know they report on issues of accountability quite aggressively and with some thirst, so I can only imagine that when you're talking about their accountability and their ability to report to Canadians how their money is being spent, they would be very excited to come here and explain to Canadians how that is spent. So I'm wondering if you could direct the clerk for me, Mr. Chair—I know you've done a lot of work on this—to inquire again about the availability of CBC personnel. Also, one meeting I don't think will satisfy what I want to get out of this. We're going to need a bit more time with that.
When you approached the CBC, did they give you any additional dates on which he was available? Or was it just that one date that he was available? Can we start with other individuals within the CBC? What other options do we have?
March 21 is a long time away. We passed this motion before Christmas, and you're talking three months before we move down the road of even opening this up. And by this schedule, you've only given it one day. When you approached the president, how many days did he give you, opportunities, or was that the only day? Was he eager and excited to come on that one day? When you say “negotiation”, was this...?
5:10 p.m.
The Clerk
From my perspective, Mr. Chair, we offered February 16 as the initial day. Unfortunately, the president of the CBC, at that point, was previously engaged at another event that he'd committed to long ago. In talking with the chair after, we proposed another day, at which point they informed us that unfortunately the legal counsel wasn't available at the time.
So, again, through the chair, communicating with the CBC, we were able to come to March 21 as a date that suited them. This suited the Information Commissioner's office as well.
That's the way I proceeded, as soon as I could find a date that suited both of them. Without any other direction from the committee, that's the way the chair and I proceeded to schedule the witnesses.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I appreciate that, and I know you've worked hard on it.
I would implore the chair, then, that if he and the clerk could try again to impress upon the CBC that it's a date that's convenient for parliamentarians and for the people of Canada, not the president's schedule or the legal counsel's schedule....
It's $1 billion that we're talking about here, and there are a lot of questions that have been raised. I would think they would be a little bit more accommodating when Parliament has asked them to come before the committee. Especially in light of the fact that they've certainly shown that enthusiasm when it comes to how parliamentarians do their job, I would think they would take that same enthusiasm to appear here as soon as possible.
March 21, for me, is completely unacceptable. I would hope that we would find some space, especially when you're talking about $1 billion and especially when you're talking about the type of feedback I've received since then. I think they have to appear here before then.
I would implore you, Mr. Chair, to try again to impress upon them how important it is that they actually come here and do that, and also perhaps entertain some additional witnesses that I would like to bring forward. I would like us to consider even more days than the one that we've brought.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We can explore that, Mr. Calandra. It probably won't change, but we'll certainly go back to the.... There are two or three issues. Not only are there the president and the chief executive officer of CBC, but there is also the Information Commissioner. The committee felt that it is important to have both of them there.
Secondly, we are booked with confirmed witnesses for the next couple of weeks, at least. We can certainly go back and explore that and see if there is any possible earlier date, and we'll get back to you on that point. I should say that this issue arises not only with CBC, but it arises with most other departments too. We have to accommodate. We do it within reason, and there is invariably push-back to come to any parliamentary committee.
When I was on the public accounts committee, we always insisted on the deputy minister. Well, the deputy minister invariably didn't want to come, so we had to push that. A lot of times we used the s-word, “summons,” and that got their attention finally. They got used to that, and then they eventually came. There is a balance there that we try to reach.
Some of these officers of Parliament are busy too, but that leads to another issue I have some concerns with. They are officers of Parliament--they're accountable to Parliament, they're responsible to Parliament, and they should be able to appear before Parliament in a reasonably.... We can't demand that they come next Wednesday or next Thursday, but if we give them two dates within a three-week period, they should be prepared to come.
We'll go back to that; we'll explore that.
Mr. Albrecht, do you have comment on this?
January 31st, 2011 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly concur with my colleague's sentiments regarding CBC, both on the timing of requesting that they appear earlier and on the number of sessions we may need.
I'd like to just speak to items 2 and 4 of the report as they relate to the e-consultation, on the process. I have two concerns that actually were heightened by the witness's remarks today in terms of the length of time and this potential slowing down of the process.
I see item 2 as adding additional time to the process. It's made worse by the fact that we're potentially investing a lot of dollars in a consultation process that, with the technology we have available to us today, should be able to be done for far less, whether it's a website that we create or a Facebook account. We talked about alternatives earlier. I just don't want to see us as a committee authorize hundreds of thousands of dollars for an e-consultation process that will, first of all, slow down the process, and cost a lot money.
I'm not convinced that we need to do a lot of additional research. We have many governments that have already implemented this system. I know that we need some Canadian-specific input, and we want to welcome that; we don't want to shut the door on that. But I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel and go through this whole process again, adding time and an inordinate amount of cost.
I'm concerned on those two points, Mr. Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Ms. Bennett wants to speak, but I think your point.... It's a good point, Mr. Albrecht, but one of the points you did make—and this is covered in item 4—is that the House itself should have more capacity to do this type of initiative, rather than go to the external marketplace. This is the point we're raising in item 4.
Ms. Bennett, do you have a comment on that?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I think I've said before that for a study on open government it's very important that we have the capacity to go to Canadians who want the data, and particularly the people in the David Eaves cohort who are eagerly anticipating it. In order for us to get it right we need to hear from them so we can write the best possible report reflecting the needs of Canadians. A website just doesn't do that.
There is a methodology that works, and I think it's imperative that Canada and our Parliament set a standard for how we do a modern version of consulting Canadians, rather than just the traditional way of bringing witnesses before this committee. We did one in 2002. It was extremely effective, with a 90% success rate in terms of people saying they would do it again because they knew they'd been heard. I think we've almost lost a decade in being able to get Parliament relevant to Canadians.
So I don't think we can settle for less. We need to do a proper piece of work in this, consulting with Canadians. It will be a pilot and an experiment. As the fourth item shows, we hope to eventually be able to bring that capacity within the House of Commons and Library of Parliament, as far as the content for the sites.
I would ask any of you to look at the study we did on the future of CPP disability at the disability subcommittee of the HRSD committee, as well as Michael Kirby's excellent report on mental health. Kirby's report and our report ended up as good as they were because we found interesting, exciting people with real value-added, who we never would have met if it hadn't been for this e-consultation.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I should also point that this is just the next step in the process. Whatever comes from the meetings will come back to the committee. This is not an authorization to spend money.
Okay, we will vote on the minutes as circulated.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Seeing nothing further to come before the committee, I will adjourn the meeting.