Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 28th, 2011

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Perlman, you mentioned the number of publications that are a part of publications.gc.ca and the number of electronic publications that are available for download.

In a way, downloading is an offloading of publication costs to the consumer in some respects over time. In the last decades we've seen a big change from a system in which the government would often provide government publications free of charge to consumers; now you can download them for free, but you're the one who's taking on the cost of publishing.

Has anyone done any analysis of whether that has actually increased the participation of consumers in looking at government publications or if there's been any chill associated with the cost of having to publish it yourself on your own computer, with your own paper and your own ink? Do we know if that's affected the use of those documents? Are you confident that the usage is way up, given the millions of downloads you report in the last couple of years?

[Christine Leduc]

Perhaps I can answer that question. In terms of the free publications that the Government of Canada produces, we work with a network of libraries across Canada; we make print copies available at no cost to these libraries, which means that millions of Canadians can access those publications if they so wish. A number of libraries, especially academic and research libraries, prefer to use electronic formats of these publications. There are ongoing issues about shelf space, about no access, about what to keep and not to keep, about long-term preservation, and so on.

We know it has been reported that as the government moves more and more towards a digital environment, there is an offloading of those costs on citizens. People print. Very few people can read a 20-page or 50-page or 60-page document online, so people tend to print the document themselves, and sometimes they print a copy, bind the copy, and make it available for internal use.

Has there been an official study or do we have figures? No. It's more feedback we've collected through our different networks of users.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Another question I have is in terms of the copyright licensing process. Is there any ministerial involvement or political involvement? Are the decisions reported to political staff? Are they reported to ministers? What happens when those decisions are made?

[Christine Leduc]

There is no reporting to ministers or staff. It's an administrative process. We receive the information, and copyright is denied or approved. There were, to my knowledge, no instances in which it went up to a minister's office or required any kind of political intervention.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Leduc, you mentioned that some departments make their own decisions about licensing. You folks are making decisions about licensing. Is there any sense that decision-making across government is inconsistent in that regard? You mentioned that fees are being waived more regularly now, but is that an issue? Is there an inconsistency across government about these kinds of decisions?

[Christine Leduc]

I cannot speak on behalf of the other government departments or institutions. I think there's a long history of departments establishing their licensing fees and establishing their cost recovery mechanisms. What I reported on today is what we know and what we administer, and I think that's the extent of it.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Do people ever appeal to you because they feel they've been overcharged, or do they ever ask you to look at a decision? Do you have the ability to do that? If a department has made a decision, is your office able to look at that decision and review it?

[Christine Leduc]

We work very closely with requesters of information and the departments. We have many years of experience, so we provide advice and guidance to departments. The ultimate decision is theirs, but we certainly will work with them to find the best solution to their requester's--

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

But that's only if they ask you for that advice?

[Christine Leduc]

Yes, it's if we're consulted. However, when we transmit the information for the application clearance form, we try to gather as much information as possible so that the decision can be made in a speedier way and can be made with all the facts. There are times when we have to go back to the requester and demand some clarification of the request, but yes, our role is really to advise and counsel the departments.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

That concludes the questions. The committee has other business before it, so this ends this part of the meeting, but before we go into the next part, I'm going to ask if the witnesses have any closing comments or remarks they want to leave with the committee.

Perhaps we'll start at this end of the table. Mr. Piché or Mr. Caron, do you have a comment?

[Daniel J. Caron]

I'll just say that we will continue to work to decrease the amount of time between the moment we acquire something and the time it's available to Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Madame Mercier, would you like to comment?

[Diane Mercier]

All I can say is that a long road is ahead of us. We must believe in the potential of public service employees and give them all the tools required to make public data open.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you.

Mr. Perlman, is there anything you want to add to that?

[Mark Perlman]

I'd just like to add that we continue to work to streamline our processes, streamline our work with other departments, and act as advocates to get the information out there and make it an easier process. We will continue to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

On behalf of every member of the committee, I want to thank you very much for your attendance here today. Your testimony is very helpful. As Madame Mercier said, we're on a long path; I hope it's a path with no turns or bends in it and that we can get to the end of it.

Thank you very much.

We'll suspend for a minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I call the meeting back to order.

The first item I'd like to deal with is the issue of the e-consultation budget. As you will recall, the committee made a decision previously that we would carry out a process of e-consultation to engage the citizens of Canada on this issue of open government and open data. Neither the Library of Parliament nor Parliament as a whole was really ready to deal with it, so we had to go to a third party consultant, but when we initially sought proposals, there were no bids. Perhaps they didn't have sufficient time. In any event, the committee elected to go back and have a conference with several of the prospective bidders.

I'm now going to ask the clerk to give the committee a little background on what has transpired over the last three weeks. A recommendation is coming from the Library of Parliament, but I'm going to ask the clerk to address that issue.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Chad Mariage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As members were made aware, members of the subcommittee and subsequently the main committee agreed to hold a bidders conference so that we could assess the problems or questions the potential bidders might have. That conference was held. There were two bidders. We received bids from both of them, who both qualified. Subsequently, House administration evaluated those bids, and we came forward to the subcommittee this morning with the name of the winning bid, which we're forwarding to you today.

I should note, or maybe the chair would want to note, that the winning bidder has not been contacted yet; therefore, as we are in a public setting, we'll have to perhaps tread lightly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I want to point out that this is a two-step process. The way it works is that we first approve it at this committee, meaning that we decide as to whether we go forward with the budget and the scope of the work that was negotiated between the Library of Parliament and this third-party consultant. In the next step, it has to go to the Liaison Committee. It gets approved by this committee and then it goes to the liaison committee, which is a supervisory committee made up of the chairs of all 22 parliamentary committees.

The proposal before this committee is that the committee adopt the proposed budget for the e-consultation in relation to a study on open government. The budget is in the amount of $105,213. That will take it to the next step.

Is there anything else you want to add, Chad, before we...?

Mr. Abbott, do you have a comment now?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask fellow committee members what value they believe they or the people of Canada are going to receive for $105,213.

I'm sure the idea forum, as it has been proposed, will attract all the Michael Geists and others of the world, and probably a major number of the people who have already given testimony to the committee. Those who are interested in the work of the committee on this topic have the opportunity to watch this on television or follow it in Hansard or on the Internet, and without a doubt they will be energized to present information to us anyway. At the risk of being provocative--and I don't intend to be--I don't think the average person walking down Sparks Street or Granville Street or Yonge Street in our major centres is even going to be aware of this idea forum. As I say, my submission is that the vast majority of people who would take time to be involved in this idea forum are people who are currently going to be involved in any event.

I'm suggesting that it is not a good use of $105,213. I think that if we're trying to be prudent, we would do well not to accept this proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Ms. Davidson, do you have a comment?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I've made these comments before; I just want to make them once again.

I fully understand the lack of in-house capacity, and I realize that this will be addressing a capacity issue pertaining to our study, but I still am not able to support the $105,000. I just find that too much to support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

Go ahead, Dr. Bennett.