Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 28th, 2011

Evidence of meeting #46 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 information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Open Government

Follow-up on the Information Commissioner's Report Cards

MPs speaking

Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac

Harold Albrecht

Pierre Poilievre

Also speaking

Diane Mercier Doctor, Information Sciences, As an Individual

Daniel J. Caron Librarian and Archivist, Library and Archives Canada

Mark Perlman Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Consulting, Information and Shared Services Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada

Christine Leduc Director, Publishing and Depository Services, Consulting, Information and Shared Services Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada

Jean-Stéphen Piché Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Sector , Library and Archives Canada

Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Thank you.

I was part of an e-consultation in 2002-2003 when I chaired the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. It was quite extraordinary to see the response of regular Canadians, particularly those affected in terms of the future of CPP disability. The future of CPP disability seemed somewhat arcane to some people, but we were astounded by the response we got, and astounded that well over 95% of the participants said they would do it again when that e-consultation was evaluated.

We cannot do a proper job in a study on open government without talking to the public about the kinds of things that are in our notes today. What federal information is of high value to Canadians, not to just the usual suspects that come to committee? What will Canadians do with the data? What are the possibilities? It is really important to ask Canadians these questions sitting here in our Library of Parliament questions.

There is no question that in the work we're doing at the Library of Parliament committee on Parliament 2020 visioning and the way Parliament will have to act in the future in terms of Government 2.0--an interactive approach to developing public policy and influencing Parliament between elections--what we are proposing will be the minimum specifications for parliamentary committees of the future. We have to be more responsive and relevant to regular Canadians. Having an interactive website and these kinds of processes will set a real example to other parliamentary committees and be an advantage in building some of this capacity inside.

If we compare it to travelling across this country, we would be obligated to go into rural Canada, which doesn't have Library and Archives Canada down the street. We would have to go to hear from Canadians who can't access lots of things right now, particularly the data sets. It would be a very expensive committee activity if done properly.

I think this is expensive because there has been an unfortunate hiatus in doing this over the last five years in Parliament. We need to be able to raise our game. It is exactly the issue we're dealing with at the Library of Parliament committee in terms of open Parliament. It's where open government meets open Parliament. It's where we set an example to show Canadians that we actually care about their input and that it is no longer this closed “we-know-best” approach that just doesn't wash with Canadians any more.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

Okay.

I'll ask all members to keep their interventions fairly short.

Mr. Siksay, you're next.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Thank you.

I think this is the fundamental issue of how we do our business in Parliament and as a parliamentary committee. We can't leave the 21st century behind. We can't say that the tools of the 20th century, as interesting and exciting as they might have been at the time, are sufficient for doing our work today. We need to do something more than broadcast on television some of these committee meetings. We need to do more than invite experts to testify before us. We need to do more than travel to a select, small group of communities across the country--as committees usually do--to make those kinds of decisions.

Especially when we're dealing with the topic of open government and how Canadians interact with their government and use its services and resources, I think it's absolutely crucial that we go down this road. It is a major failing of our Parliament that we don't have the capacity inside our institution now to do this as a matter of course, and that we have to go to an outside consultant to put together this kind of program.

This capacity should exist inside Parliament. Until parliamentary committees make these kinds of requests of the people who are the decision-makers--the Liaison Committee and others--we're not going to move this issue.

It's absolutely crucial on two levels: it's crucial to the work we're doing on open government, and it's crucial to how we function as members of Parliament doing work on behalf of Canadians. That's why I strongly support this proposal.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

Go ahead, Madame Freeman.

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Mr. Chair, I think that it is extremely important that we let the public speak out so that we have some sort of interaction and we can understand their needs better. I think this method is really not expensive compared to the results it could give us. In my opinion, it is an indispensable tool.

I am wondering why we are bringing up the $100,000 that we will have to spend to consult all our fellow citizens in order to find out what they are expecting from a transparent government. It just doesn't make any. How can we want a transparent government if we are not willing to use an inexpensive tool that would enable us to communicate with the public in order to become more transparent?

The fact that my Conservative colleagues are opposed to this idea is simply an unbelievable contradiction. I get the impression that you don’t want a transparent government. You don’t want to get in touch with the people in order to understand them, to find out what they want and what we need to provide them with. You seem to be putting up quite some resistance to this topic. I am personally in favour of having an open consultation. I think that having a transparent government is very important. We are talking about a very inexpensive tool. So I am in favour of this recommendation.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

Perhaps I'll put the question. I'll read it:

That the committee adopt the proposed budget for the e-consultation in relation to its study on open government in the amount of $105,213.

All in favour, please raise your hands.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Can we have a recorded vote?

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

A recorded vote is requested. I'll turn that matter over to the clerk.

I'm going to vote in favour of the motion. I'll briefly give the reasons.

I think we have to look behind this individual situation. We can't look at this issue in isolation. I was taken aback and a little bit disappointed that Parliament and the Library of Parliament did not have the capacity. I view this as much larger than this particular contract: I view it as a capacity-building exercise. Parliament is governed by the Board of Internal Economy and is served--quite ably, I might add--by the Library of Parliament and the excellent people who work there, but hopefully this will build capacity for this type of consultation. As Mr. Siksay mentioned quite correctly, this is a tool of the 21st century. This is going to become commonplace in all parliamentary committees, and it should be. It's my view that we should proceed with it. I'm looking forward to the comments we get from Canadians and I think it will help us immensely in our work, so I will vote in favour of the motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The last item is the proposed agenda that has been circulated. I can go over this briefly.

You can see that we have three additional meetings dedicated to the ongoing study on open government. The lists of witnesses are there. On March 9, next Wednesday, there are a few witnesses to be confirmed. I should point that out we have a very strong panel this Wednesday, with three people who were very much involved in the Obama initiative in the United States. They are appearing via video conference before the committee. That takes us to the end of next week, and then we pick it up again.

On March 21 we have the CBC and the Information Commissioner both before us. Then on March 23 the minister is going to appear before us on the open government issue for one hour.

Then we have three and a half meetings devoted to the review of the Lobbying Act. These witnesses that you have listed in front of you have not been confirmed. They have not been contacted. This is just the first thrust of the discussion. We plan to have about 10 or 11 witnesses come before the committee on the review of the Lobbying Act. Of course, that takes us until April 6.

Mr. Poilievre, did you have a comment on this?

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Yes. With regard to witnesses for the open government study, if it's still possible--I know we're getting quite late in the testimony list--I would like to have a witness who could illustrate, through a demonstration for us, what open data means. We certainly have the technology to do this. I would like to see these data sets on a screen and how they can be manipulated and used by the end user in a way that isn't available under the status quo. I think it would help us to have a very tangible understanding of the advantages of their proposed system of open data over what is accessible under our present situation.

It could potentially be a witness we've already heard from who has experience working with these open data sets. Perhaps it could be a demonstration of how the British system works. That system has been widely lauded by witnesses. It doesn't have to be exhaustive, but I think it would be helpful to have some sort of a demonstration for the committee.