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?