Evidence of meeting #11 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 citizens.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Okay. So that's one of those cultural changes you're talking about?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I think also that this is a major resource issue within institutions. We're going through this process ourselves, and it needs serious education, serious commitment within the institution, and serious discipline in order to have sound information management practices, particularly with electronic documents.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Thank you.
Since I was the one who raised the whole ideal of transparency and reporting on the stimulus spending... To give an example, we tried for months, even into a year, to get a handle on the number of jobs actually created under the stimulus spending. Despite the government's claim that there would be over 200,000 jobs created, whenever we asked the question we were told that they don't keep track of the number of jobs and that it was left to the municipalities. I don't know how they were ever supposed to guarantee that 200,000 jobs would be created.
This is a case in point of wanting to track the information about where the jobs were being created. It was a headache, and it couldn't be done. I just raise that as an example of the difference in the information available on the Canadian website versus the American one.
In your most recent report on access to information and the delays we're encountering, you said then, at the time, that there's a lack of will by this government to be transparent. That was in your report. Yet I read in your comments today that:
Proactive disclosure is an essential component of the broader concept of open government. Open government is predicated on a system in which government records are available to citizens in open standard formats that permit unlimited use and re-use of the information. This facilitates public engagement and participation which, in turn, promotes greater transparency, accountability and trust in government.
You go on to say that at the federal level, presently—I'm assuming this is what you're referring to—there have been only modest attempts to have proactive disclosure.
Given that statement in your report, and now your comments today, what makes you think this government will be even remotely interested in having an open government or in being proactive when it comes to proactive disclosure? Is there anything you're seeing that would lead you to believe that this is even remotely possible, given your two comments?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to look at my report to see where I said that there was a lack of will. I can't find it, nor do I remember it. So I'm not sure I stated that. I think what I said that's being most widely disseminated is that the right of access to information “is at risk of being totally obliterated because delays threaten to render the entire access regime irrelevant in our current information economy”.
12:40 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
That's what I think. And that was the point, because that paragraph specifically refers to the delays we're experiencing in dealing with access to information requests, which is a reactive mode of disclosing information in the context of today's technological environment. That's what this sentence was referring to. It's important, because that's what I'm talking about. I'm not here to say that this government should do this or this government should do that. I'm here to state, as a proponent of transparency, that I really believe that open government is the way to go. I think there are various reasons to go there--for economic reasons, for innovation, for citizen engagement, and to maximize public service efficiency. I think there are many reasons to go towards open government.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Based on your experience to date, given the time you've been in office, albeit in an interim position, what's the likelihood of that happening? Are you seeing anything at all that would lead you to believe that...? Obviously, you believe that this is the way we should go. Where are we in terms of going down that path with this government?
12:45 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chairman, my role is the role of an ombudsman. I really take this very seriously, and the reason I'm here is that I believe this is something we should adopt. It is in the interest of Canadians that the government adopt it. Further than that, I will continue to do what I do, which is to advocate before this committee, before other jurisdictions, and before other fora. Beyond that, it is really out of my control.
I take your suggestion to speak to the Clerk of the Privy Council, and I might very well speak to other people about it, because I think it's a very valid suggestion. I should actually get on with that.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
If we all take seriously, on behalf of Canadians, that they need to have access to information that should be readily available to them, I think the onus is probably on those of us who are in a position to make that suggestion to do that. I'm glad you're going to do that.
Thank you.
April 29th, 2010 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for coming here today.
I'll just follow up what my colleague, Ms. Foote, brought up around the issue of open government. Since coming to power in 2006, our government has opened up 70 new organizations to the Access to Information Act, including the CBC and the Wheat Board. Would you consider this move to be consistent with a government that wants to be an open government?
12:45 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I think adding institutions that are covered is a good step forward in terms of increasing transparency, yes.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Also, since coming to power in 2006, we eliminated a program that was known as CAIRS, which was used under the previous Liberal government to filter information that was then released to the public. Are you familiar with CAIRS?
12:45 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Yes, and, Mr. Chairman, I do have an investigation in relation to CAIRS, so I am bound by confidentiality.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Would you consider that a government that eliminates a system such as CAIRS is a government that is working toward being an open government?
12:45 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the indulgence of the committee. The report on the CAIRS investigation should be out fairly soon, and I would prefer to make comments once the investigation is complete. Certainly it will be something I will post on the website. If the committee wishes to have me back to answer questions, I would be more than happy to do so.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you. We look forward to that.
In your opening statement, Commissioner, you said our jurisdiction can learn from practices in other jurisdictions. You also said other jurisdictions can learn from Canada as well. Perhaps you can highlight some of the areas that other jurisdictions can learn from what Canada is doing well.
12:45 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I think Canada was at the forefront of proactive disclosure about 10 years ago when we started posting travel and hospitality and expenses. It was definitely something that was in advance of other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions are either putting that in legislation now or they're emulating those types of disclosures.
What National Resources Canada is doing I think is a really good initiative: GCpedia is inside of government, but it is a collaborative tool for sharing and collaborating on information within government. The Clerk of the Privy Council again reiterated the importance of using that tool. I think those are really good news Canadian stories.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Okay. I'd like to pass the microphone to my colleague, Mrs. Davidson, if I may, please, to finish up.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you very much.
And thanks once again for being here with us. Certainly we always appreciate your coming forward and giving us the information. The purpose of today's meeting was to gather information so we could see where we wanted to go with this process. I think this process has been supported by both sides of the room here. I don't think there's been any objection from the government side at all. I think it's something we do want to explore.
I was glad to see in your opening remarks that we are seeing some signs of progress. I think that's encouraging. Certainly it's not the answer or the end of the process, but it is encouraging to see that some departments and some areas are doing things very well. I think the opposition needs to realize this process is being driven by everyone around this table, not by the opposition. I wanted to make that very clear.
The one thing I haven't heard today and that I have a question about is that the process has to have a cost involved in it. Have you talked with any of the others that have done this, that have started into it? Do you have any idea what the U.S. or the U.K. or Australia may have budgeted for this process?
12:50 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No, I don't know.
As I said in my opening remarks, the only analysis that has been done of the cost is what I've read in the Australian task force, where they basically put a dollar value on the value of public sector data, almost as an economic input.
The other thing we know is that open government, say in Vancouver, has led to the development of various applications, which the government would probably never have developed but have resulted in a lot of use by their own citizens. So there is value for the citizens, which ends up being of little cost to government—the municipal government in this instance.
But I think if you were to ask some of the witnesses, if you invited some of the people from the municipal governments or spoke to the people from the U.S. who are involved in open government initiatives, they might have better information.
In Australia, they have not implemented it yet. In the U.K., you would get a different perspective, because, as I say, they're looking at it as a way of streamlining their public service by using this interaction with their own citizens. They have quangos, and are looking at not having so many. They're looking at different types of services that would no longer be necessary. So they're coming at it from a cost savings perspective.
