Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 28th, 2011

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

No, it's the same thing.

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

It's the same thing, so folks....

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

It will provide value-added metadata that it does itself based on the documents, but we will provide basic metadata on that information, as well as the digitized documents.

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

Were concerns raised about the fact that folks are going to be charged for information that you folks provide for free? Is that a concern in developing this partnership?

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

We have received very few complaints about this. There's an advantage from a public good perspective to have a third party partner that digitizes the asset for free, and then it's available on our websites for free as well.

Ancestry.ca has other means of making money, because they agglomerate several data sets in other countries, etc. That's where their value-added aspect comes from, but in terms of the national interest that we have on our website, it's completely secure, because this material is made available for free. In fact, in the last couple of months between September and December, we have actually already doubled our digital content because of that agreement with Ancestry.ca. That information is currently on our website for free.

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

Maybe this is veering off our specific topic a little bit, but is there any concern about the increasing digitization of documents and how that information is preserved for the long term? I think we know or have ideas about how to preserve hard copies of sheets of paper and that kind of thing, but what about information that is put in digital format?

[Daniel J. Caron]

Developing a trusted digital repository is one of my three priorities. It is a concern around the world. We are progressing well, and we want to do it because the world is totally different on that. We want to do it in collaboration across the country, so we're talking more about a network of trusted digital repositories than just having this in one place. Yes, it's a major concern, but we're making good progress. We are also looking at the practices in the private sector, because they have to do it, so they do it.

Our objective is that by 2017 we're going to be there, fully secure.

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

Mr. Perlman, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions.

It brought back memories for me to hear about the checklist of government publications. Is that the pink catalogue? I have spent many happy hours with the pink catalogue over my career as a staff person to an MP, trying to find information for community agencies and others. That was part of my job description for many years, so I'm very familiar with that and what's in it. It was fun to hear you talk about it this afternoon.

You talked about the change that's been made in policy in the department recently. I'm not finding the right language here for it, but it's changed accessibility to documentation. You talk about how that's an opening of what's available. What's different between what you do now and the concept of Creative Commons licences? Are we approaching a Creative Commons licence by the kind of changes you've made recently, or are we still some distance away? Is that something you're familiar with or that you and your colleagues would discuss?

[Mark Perlman]

I'll start and then I'll pass it on to my expert over here.

The first part is, yes, we do create the pink catalogue. That is us. I know a lot of people are very familiar with it.

The big change we were talking about was for non-commercial use. In working with other government departments and the Treasury Board, we're ensuring that if it's a private non-commercial use or a cost recovery use, there's no need whatsoever to seek crown copyright. Right now our main restrictions, the elements we still need to work on, are items for commercial use.

In terms of the Creative Commons, I'll turn to Madame Leduc.

[Christine Leduc]

In terms of the Creative Commons licence, this would be a government-wide project. Each department is responsible and knows what information holdings they have within their own databases or data sets, so in order to offer a Creative Commons type of licence, there would have to be a get-together of the minds of all the various departments to agree on the wording. The Creative Commons licence can involve full universal access for just about everything that anybody can think about, including adaptation, reproduction, translation, and so on. If we're going to the Creative Commons route, we would have to define what that licence would mean for us in the Government of Canada. We're not the policy-makers, so this would have to be discussed with Treasury Board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Siksay.

We're now going to go to Ms. Davidson. You have seven minutes.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to each of our presenters here this afternoon. Certainly it's been interesting to hear your perspective on open government and open data.

I have a question for Mr. Perlman to start with. I'm a little confused about the crown copyright issue. Some of our previous witnesses stated that to go into open data and open government, we needed to totally get rid of crown copyright, that other countries did not have a system like ours, and that open data worked far more easily and far better in those countries. Do you have any comments on that, or do you know what other countries are doing when it comes to crown copyright?

[Christine Leduc]

Having worked with our counterparts in the U.S. government, the GPO, I know that the U.S. government does not have crown copyright on any of the government material it produces. The rights are universal. Anybody can use and reuse U.S. government information without a request.

In Canada, we have a crown copyright. The crown copyright is specifically dealt with in section 12 of the Copyright Act. I think--this is information shared with us by some officials in the U.S.--that Canada should retain copyright in terms of crown copyright. By doing so, we are identifying information that is being produced by the government. We are recognizing that the documents are official. A lot of work has gone into producing those documents and that information, so having a copyright notice is a blessing and an official sort of recognition.

I think the debate is more about permission or about how we administer the copyright. That is, it is about how far we go between giving very limited permission--being very restrictive--and being very open about the permissions we allow. There are cases in which the government does not own copyright on some of the material we publish, and that information is normally stated. A lot of the permissions will say, “unless otherwise stated”. That could be the case of photography in a work for which the rights belong to the photographer and never belong to the crown. There are other instances of that.

We are working towards opening up government information, and I think we've made great strides in that direction, but we have to be careful that we don't attempt to cede rights we do not have. It will require a lot more reflection on our part on what we hold in terms of information and whether we hold the full rights.

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

Are you saying that you're working on becoming more permissive with crown copyright? Does that mean that more things would be available at no cost, or does cost enter into it at all?

One of the things Mr. Perlman talked about in his opening remarks was permission for the uses of information, such as photos of National Defence personnel being used to promote the sale of firearms. If you don't have crown copyright, how do you prevent that? What happens in other countries that don't have crown copyright? Can they use that?

[Christine Leduc]

I cannot speak to what other governments that do not have crown copyright do in that instance. I think they absolutely have no protection whatsoever. The information can be used by any requester as the person sees fit. Part of our role--this is the policy--has been the administrative processes we undertake with departments for some validation of why the information is being requested. Is the information going to be used in an abusive way? Is the information misleading? How is the information going to be promoted or adapted?

Only 5% of the requests for crown copyright are denied, so 95% are freely granted. There's also what we call “fair dealing”. Any citizen, any person, can take information from a government publication and use it in a citation, provided the person indicates the source. There is no requirement for anyone to request copyright to use that information.

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

Thank you.

Can you address the issue of the cost to the public?

[Christine Leduc]

In terms of the costs we recover, the cost is very minimal. The costs go back to the Receiver General of Canada.

I'll give you an example. In 2009-10, we recovered $52,000. For the last 18 months, there have been no fees whatsoever attached to the licences we have issued.

A lot of departments now will waive the royalties or the licensing fees with either a full waiver or a waiver in lieu of services. That does not cover what the departments themselves negotiate in terms of licensing agreements. The departments can enter into licensing agreements and set their own fees to access information they own and for which they have the copyright. Not all of those licensing arrangements come through the licensing office. We have no say in the matter of the costs or fee structures other departments impose.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

That concludes the first round of seven minutes each. We're going to go the second round.

You have five minutes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, folks, for your information.

One of the concerns I have is that “open government” has become somewhat of an oxymoron. We talk about it, and it's been talked about a lot around here. Transparency and accountability are talked about, and the Accountability Act, but we have never seen such a closed shop in terms of information conveyed to us as legislators.

These are simple things, such as debate today or questions in the House today. Why can we not get information from the government on the costs of their crime bills? Why can we not get information on the costs of building new jails, etc.? We're talking about these things, but in practice we find a government of secrecy.

I've listened to folks who are in the bureaucracy and I've listened to others, and there seems to be a culture change. A number of you have talked about it, and Mr. Caron, I think you're right: it will happen over time.

There seems to be a culture change towards more open government happening within the federal bureaucracy, but we're not seeing it happening on the ground. Why is that?

With regard to documents from yesterday, that's great, but as a legislator I need information today to make decisions. This government is not providing that information. What's the problem? Why are we not getting that information in a transparent, accountable, and open government way?

Do you have any ideas?

[Daniel J. Caron]

I'm not competent to answer the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Maybe that's a little outside the scope of what we're doing.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Well, not really, Mr. Chair. We are talking about open government. That's the reality of the world, Mr. Chair. We're having difficulty making decisions. We're seeing lots of discussion, and I hear about the Accountability Act every day, but I don't see any accountability on the part of the government.

Ms. Leduc, you made the comment that information is made available for reuse unless otherwise stated, meaning that there are still constraints. What would those constraints be?

[Christine Leduc]

An example I've used previously is a photograph that's used in a work for which the rights to reproduce have not been granted to us. It retains copyright by the original author or creator, who is not necessarily a government employee. In some cases it could be information that may not be publicly available, where all the rights are reserved for a specific reason. Again, the call not to give permission to reproduce could be made by the authoring agency, but those cases are very rare.

It's been our experience—and we've been working in the crown copyright administration—that as more and more information becomes available on the Internet and as more and more people can review or see information, there's been an opening in providing access. As I said, only 5% of requests are denied, and when they are denied, it's for very specific reasons.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

Mr. Perlman, in your remarks you state that this cultural change “is now reflected in the Common Look and Feel standards for the Internet under the Important Notices page on all government websites. It has also begun to appear in print publications”.

Can you expand on that or provide a little further information?

I see all kinds of ads on TV, and I see them designed to look like a political party rather than to provide information. I'm increasingly concerned about that. I've been a little political here today, but I'm concerned over where we see the propaganda—propaganda rather than information—coming from. I think there's abuse of the government bureaucracy in the way the government is using those departments, in terms of their ads, for political purposes, especially at a time when we're seeing less open government than we've ever seen before.

Can you expand on what the common look and feel standards for the Internet are?