Evidence of meeting #11 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
As I understand it, when we did away with the planning committee, this became the planning committee. When you're dealing with future business as a planning committee, we don't need the 48-hour notice of motion rule. Am I correct?
9:15 a.m.
NDP
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Good. So nothing should preclude Madame Day from bringing forward a motion later in this meeting regarding—
9:15 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Yes, nothing is preventing Mrs. Day from moving a motion. However, since she did not seem to be ready at the time, I gave the floor to Mr. Trottier.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Point taken to my experienced colleague across the way.
The motion that we didn't move was to look at the G-8 Open Data Charter, which is an initiative across the G-8 countries. It's to study and assess how the government's open data practices could be developed.
Pat, you and I talked about this last week. This could be some really substantial work. There was mention of this initiative in economic action plan 2014. It is very much an exploration. The government doesn't know the answer. Other governments don't know the answer. We just know that we have to go in that general direction.
This is some work I think we could be very proud of in the sense that this will leave a blueprint for the government for the months and years ahead in terms of how it provides information to Canadians. I think we have to do some thinking about the kinds of witnesses we want to bring in. It would be witnesses from the private sector, people who have ideas about how they can make effective use of data from the government; witnesses from other countries, sharing what their experiences are; witnesses from other provinces and other jurisdictions also; and then also witnesses from the government.
There are some interesting developments, and I'd like to undertake this study, bearing in mind some of the other oversight responsibilities that we have with respect to estimates and also some of the agencies and crown corporations. I think this will be a very meaningful study for us to undertake in the coming months.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
The motion is:
That the Committee undertake, consistent with Canada's signing of the G8 Open Data Charter, a study to assess and enhance the government's Open Data practices; that this study include examining how Canadian businesses can better obtain and utilize high-value information with strong economic potential from the government and reviewing the processes and practices of other governments with respect to their collection, storage and transfer of Open Data; and that the Committee use its findings to provide the government with direction and advice focused on improving the way this high-value data is collected, stored and transferred to Canadians, resulting in access to useful and usable Open Data that will drive economic growth as part of an information economy.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you, Mr. Trottier.
The Chair finds the motion in order, so it will be debated.
Mr. O'Connor, go ahead.
9:20 a.m.
Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC
No, I'm not debating this. I'm just bringing up a point that I was here at all the meetings. We never actually eliminated the planning subcommittee. We just talked it through. We never voted on it, etc. I don't mind, but we never actually eliminated the planning subcommittee.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
You are right, Mr. O'Connor.
Do any committee members want to speak to the motion before us and participate in the debate?
Mr. Martin, the floor is yours.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Maybe we should just make it clear, if we are in a normal committee meeting, that the 48-hour notice of motion is required. Is that not correct?
9:20 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
No. As I said, we are studying the committee's future business. Any motion can be accepted.
The current motion was submitted with a 48-hour notice.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes. I understand Mr. Trottier's motion certainly would be in order either way, but I'm talking about other ideas around the table. We were hoping that these planning meetings could be fairly free and open, blue-sky brainstorming about things we might want to do.
Obviously, Mr. Trottier's motion is what's on the floor.
I want to say that this is the kind of substantive study I was looking forward to this committee undertaking and sinking our teeth into. I think it has long-term value as something, if done properly and well, we could be proud of, that would actually make a meaningful mark as we move forward on the whole pluralistic notion of open government, open data, access to information, not in the ATIP sense but in the sense of individuals' and businesses' ability to obtain the type of information they need and eliminate red tape and have a speedy porthole to the government high-value information, as you've put it.
I think we could welcome this kind of a study. It would take time to do it properly. I would hope it wouldn't be one of these things we would do for two or three meetings and then have a report tabled on our behalf. We want input into this report and the recommendations from it. I'll serve notice for that point right now.
We've been to other committees recently where they hear 50 witnesses, the committee writes 100 recommendations, and then the government comes in and says, “Here's the report that we're going to pass. Don't waste your time with the other recommendations because none of them is going to pass and this is the report you're going to get.”
If that's the plan here, then we don't want anything to do with it. However, if you want meaningful input and meaningful participation into a report that could have a lot of value, then we would embrace that.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Martin.
Would anyone else like to comment?
Mr. O'Connor, go ahead.
9:25 a.m.
Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC
Now I'll comment on this.
I read the notice, and my challenge is, what is the actual topic? If we're going to proceed with this, we need somebody or some bodies to come in here and tell us what it is they want to deal with, because I don't think we can deal with security. I don't think we can deal with a whole bunch of things. However, if we're talking about general information that voters or citizens can use, yes, but we have to start defining that, otherwise we'll wander through the universe never knowing where the heck we're going.
Whenever this gets started, I want somebody at the beginning to tell me what the scope is. I have to know what the scope is.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
In fact, when I sat on other committees, we tried to define the goal of the committee's work more clearly. The direction the committee might want to take with a study like that could expand the scope of the study, which would take longer. It depends on the committee. Does the committee want to zero in on a specific item or not? Does the committee want to take a broad approach, leaving out the open data issue? It is up to the committee.
We have already talked about reviewing a list of witnesses. We can do that later, if this motion is carried, of course.
The next person on my list is Mrs. Day. The floor is yours.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I have a proposal, Mr. Chair. It is not a motion; it is a proposal for a study for the committee.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
I would like us to finish debating the current motion before we jump to another topic.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I think it's a good point that we need to have a focus for this study because there's a wide and broad range of information that comes out of government. The way I read the motion, colleagues, is that in line 3 it says “high-value information with strong economic potential”, and then right at the end it says “usable Open Data that would drive economic growth as part of an information economy”.
I think the motion does focus our study on economic potential and economic growth, and because of that I think it does have a good utility. It's not just using a scattergun approach.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you, that is a very good comment. You would like to focus on the economy.
Mr. Martin, the floor is yours.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Just to build on what Diane said, the way I read it is that it's data and information that has some commercial value or is industry related. I don't think we have to differentiate, as Gordon says, from access to information requests or things that fall under the purview of the Information Commissioner. I don't understand that to be the objective here.
In order to focus, you'd almost have to have some meetings from users who will point out what the need and demand is, or what their problems have been in accessing. Why do all the G-8 countries feel there's a need to embrace this? Is it going to be an international effort that we're going to take part in, something to do with reciprocity of trade and access to that information so that other countries can invest in Canada and vice versa?
I think that's an exciting prospect, really, as we look at trade generally. If it's going to be a rules-based regime, we have to start agreeing on the parameters of that.
I think it might be a mistake to focus too narrowly at the outset, because the limits of the study might become clear after the first few meetings when we find out what the need and demand is out there. Then the goals and objectives of the study might become clear, as the next step.
I see this as being a long-term study. I don't think you could dive into this in four meetings. To do this properly and to have any credibility, I can see it taking between now and even the summer recess. We've already used up five or six of our windows, and there are a lot of break times in this spring session. There's a two-week block. There might only be 10 more meetings to take us to mid-June, after what we've already agreed on now.
That's all I had to say. The need and demand, I hope, will be the first witnesses we hear, users and experiences in other countries and provinces pointing out what the shortfall or shortcomings are, what the goals and objectives should be, then ultimately a cost-benefit analysis as the final bit of the study. Once we've identified what the shortcomings are and once we've identified what the goals and objectives should be, then you have to decide whether it is going to be worth the costs or whether it is something that's a priority for government now.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you for your comments.
Yes, I think a careful selection of the first few witnesses will help us figure out the ins and outs of this entire study, which might take a long time.