Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 28th, 2011

[Mark Perlman]

I can't speak to the political side of things, but a section has been added under the Important Notices area of all government websites. It says, “Information...has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal or public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified”.

I think that's what Madame Leduc was speaking to in discussing when we're not the copyright holder and when there are various elements there.

The users must exercise due diligence in ensuring that the information is accurate, that the complete title is there when they quote it, and that it's a reproduction of official work. What's nice is the other line that was added. It says, “Unless otherwise specified, this authorization is also applicable to all published information regardless of its format”. I think that's really good.

We are keeping the current copyright on commercial uses or where there are areas that are on the exclusions list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thanks.

Go ahead, Mr. Abbott.

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

Again, I reflect on all of us appreciating the input you're giving us today.

Dr. Mercier, I want to pursue your discussion about French-English translation. In committee, the easiest way to describe the issue of translation is that if a document is going to be presented at committee, it will have to be translated prior to its being presented. That is the broad-brush rule.

I wonder if you can help us understand something. Documents under the control of the government, documents that are reports of the government, will naturally be in both official languages. What other documents are you thinking of that would require translation, other than the documents and reports that have been prepared by the government, which are already in both official languages?

[Diane Mercier]

I don’t think I have the expertise to give you that information. I can give you my professional opinion on the Quebec context.

Our language in Quebec is French. Some documents are obviously translated because of public safety and other considerations, but that does not apply to us.

I think we really have to model this information. There are layers of information, consisting of analyses and summaries of other information that is much more extensive. Those summaries and comments are translated. I personally think of them as metadata.

There is perhaps a way to speed things up. For example, in a federal department, documents are systematically being translated. Sometimes, consultants provide the document to be translated, whether in French, English or another language. The document is then sent to a translation agency. There, the document has to be fully redone so that it can be processed electronically. There are no governmental standards that require consultants or other units of the department to communicate and exchange information in a given format to speed up translation. When I talk about enhancing employees’ information skills, this is part of it too. There is a lot of delay at the translation stage because of methodology or other problems.

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

What I'm driving at is a question that I would like your opinion on. For example, take the Afghan detainee documents that were swirling around a year ago and that we're still looking into; many of them were only in English, and some of them were in French.

If there is a big raft of similar documents that you would like to see in the public domain, should it be an almost irrevocable standard that they be translated before they are released, or do you see them being released in just one language?

This is an important issue within the context of how we proceed in Parliament.

[Diane Mercier]

If we look at the principles behind open data, we see that the idea is to get complete primary information as soon as possible. We understand that it is urgent to have access to this information, but, for documents like that, a delay in translation could hinder access, openness of data, freedom, transparency, and so on. That’s just a personal opinion. And it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to stop translating documents altogether. Access to information and translation are not mandatory. Do you see that? When we talk about open data, what is important is to have access to this information.

Let’s use me as an example. I did my PhD in French in Montreal, but to do that, I had to read texts in English. Americans and students from Toronto were asking me how I was managing to do my PhD in French. I told them that I was able to do it, but that I was reading in English, French, German and Spanish. They only read in English. So they had a problem. I probably am a little more open-minded, but regardless of that, I would not wait for the documents to be translated into French to access them. Yet I know that a document that is considered to be very important is eventually going to be translated. People take time to translate it. As to denying access to the document, that really must be on a case-by-case basis. It’s a judgment call.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Mrs. Thaï Thi Lac, you have five minutes.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mrs. Mercier, my first question is about the topic we are currently discussing.

Canada calls itself bilingual. There are two official languages. We are talking about a transparent government and opening data to as many people as possible so that they can use it. But, if I understand correctly, from your answer to my colleague, Mr. Abbott, we are about to tell an entire group of people, whose only language is French, that they won't be able get data from the government because they will be available in English only, and it is not necessary to translate them.

Is that right?

[Diane Mercier]

No, I did not say that it wasn’t necessary. Let’s use the example of information on detainees in Afghanistan. It’s safe to assume that there is a sense of urgency in accessing that information. A delay in translation could have major consequences. The translation of a document like that could in fact take months. Perhaps access to information is not required right away. We mustn't wait until it is. But the translation has to get done.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Don’t you think we are opening a can of worms by saying that the delay is a good reason for the government not to translate a document? If we decide that, in order to make documents accessible faster, the federal government can contravene the legislation on bilingualism, don’t you think that’s a slippery slope?

[Diane Mercier]

Let’s just say that my political position on language and bilingualism is perhaps different from that of the Canadian government. My language of use is French and I access any document around the world, whether in French, Spanish, German or English. If I need to have it translated, I get it translated. Of course, there are machines to do it and there are also translators.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Yes, but Mrs. Mercier, you have a PhD. You are educated. I am talking about your average Joe here, people who don’t have a PhD, but who have a right to this information just like educated people.

Isn’t the government’s responsibility to provide information in both official languages in Canada? Don’t you think that your recommendations could make the government open a can of worms in terms of people’s right to get information in both official languages?

[Diane Mercier]

Mrs. Thaï Thi Lac, I am definitely not referring to something like my testimony from today. I know that it will be translated within 24 hours. But should we deny access to a document of 1,000 pages because translation will take five months?

The gentleman made his point earlier by telling us that the government refused access to some information because the system has all sorts of excuses for increasing the delay. I don’t think bilingualism is a problem. It’s just my personal opinion.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Caron, you said that Library and Archives Canada played a vital role in developing the policy on a transparent government. In your view, what practices should all the departments take from your organization?

[Daniel J. Caron]

In fact, the role we have had—and continue to have, since this is just the beginning—has to do with implementing the record-keeping directive. We developed it together with the Treasury Board. In 2005-2006, when we first created it, our goal was to ensure that, in the end, our vaults will contain historical documents for Canadians. So we have to make sure at the outset that information is created based on what is important. We have developed the directive and we are now working closely with the Treasury Board and the departments on implementing it. We are providing training and developing methods and tools. A wide range of activities have been designed to keep the enthusiasm up within public administration and to develop those habits so that the directive can materialize. If I am not mistaken, all departments are supposed to have implemented all the tools by 2014. That’s what we are working on.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

I would also like to thank all the witnesses.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Madam Thi Lac.

We'll now go to Mr. Albrecht for five minutes, please.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to let the rest of the committee know that I don't share Mr. Easter's negativity about accountability, because our government has actually increased the level of accountability by many factors when you consider the number of crown corporations that currently are subject to access to information.

I have a question for Mr. Perlman.

I apologize for not being here for your presentation, but I have read through it. On page 8 you mention the number of downloads that are done each year, 9.2 million, and next year you expect it to be 10 million. Back on page 5, in relation to the crown copyright part of it, a group of four people receive 1,000 inquiries per year and approximately 4,000 applications per year. Then, a couple of paragraphs later, you talk about “Permission would be denied if the information was intended for....” I won't finish the sentence, because we have all talked about that before.

My question comes to the matter of intention.

If a person applied for a copyright licence for a particular purpose, stating a particular intention, is there anything stopping them from using that material for another purpose after they've been granted permission? For example, if a photo has been requested for an apparently appropriate reason, could it be used for an inappropriate purpose later and, if so, what kind of policing or follow-up would there be to ensure that it was not inappropriately used somewhere down the road?

I don't know if you follow my line of questioning--

[Mark Perlman]

I'm following what you're saying completely.

In answer to your question, as part of the application process, people have to identify what the purpose is, and when they're granted a crown copyright licence, the purpose is part of that licence. If we find out that they're doing something that's in violation of it—and that sometimes gets reported to us—we will issue a cease and desist. We will confer with the authoring department and confer with our legal services.

In the vast majority of cases, when people misuse it, it's inadvertent; as soon as we find out about it, we advise them, and they stop immediately. They apologize, and that's it. In the odd case it does happen that it escalates, and we deal with our legal services to be able to deal with that.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

As a follow-up to the material that the Library of Parliament researchers have presented to us, they talked about permission always being required when the work is being revised, adapted, translated, and so on. Then you made a statement earlier, or one of your people did, that we want to be sure it's not presented in a misleading or inappropriate way.

My concern comes back to the small group that's administrating this. I'm not denigrating your work at all, but I wonder how it's possible for a small group of four or five to possibly keep a handle on all of the applications out there and ensure that they are not being misused, either inadvertently or intentionally.

However, you're fairly confident that the number is extremely small and that it's not a big problem.

[Mark Perlman]

The number is extremely small. Our small group does the issuing of the licences and the coordination, but there is a large network out there, because the departments are the authoring organizations. When we find out about something being used inappropriately, it's usually from one of the departments. Someone will say, “Hey, this Health Canada piece of information was used on a cigarette ad; can you look into it?”, and then we're able to look into it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Is it correct, then, that your primary responsibility would not be follow-up, but instead would be to respond to indications that there was possibly an inappropriate use?

[Mark Perlman]

That's correct.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

I think that's all I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.

The last member we'll go to is Mr. Siksay.