Information & Ethics Committee on March 2nd, 2011

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our guests for attending through video conference to allow us to have some very specific insights as to what you do. I've been listening with great interest, not only to the questions from all sides around this table but also your own testimony, which I have found to be particularly helpful.

You know, it's interesting. We speak of this need for open government, and I don't think there's anyone around the table who would not believe that it's an important objective as we go forward. I would like to hope and believe that governments accept that as their responsibility.

Mr. Ferriero, you spoke of the issue, when responding to one of our colleagues, about security concerns and in terms of information. I'd like to ask all panellists something. In the world of WikiLeaks now, how has this changed your attitude about security of information and perhaps even the kind of information that would be disseminated? And it sounds like even with something like WikiLeaks, it's not even your choice. Information does get disseminated, whether we want to or not. That can lead to a number of interesting circumstances nationally and internationally.

That is my question to all the panellists. How does this whole concern about WikiLeaks and hacking into systems change the approach of what you do? I'd ask all panellists that, please.

You can pick one.

[David Ferriero]

I'll start.

It has certainly renewed the concern within the government about cyber-security and has served as a wake-up call that we really need to continue our vigilance on access, hacking attacks. It's something this government is constantly working on and is concerned about. We will continue that vigilance.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Could I have the other panellists' thoughts?

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

Let me say that I have a slightly different take on this, a different focus on this perhaps from what you're driving at with your question. But the interest that the whole WikiLeaks incident has generated demonstrates to me a tremendous interest that the public has in foreign policy. I don't think anybody would have predicted the outpouring of interest and engagement that this would create. So it suggests to me a really interesting opportunity for government--and not just government, but the private sector as well--to really think about the opportunity to truly create wikis in this space that will allow people to share and trade information and to collaborate on contributing information to help round out and improve our knowledge of foreign policy.

The CIA, for example, in the United States has an internal wiki called the “Intellipedia”. The State Department has something called “Diplopedia”. They use these information and collaboration tools in order to exchange and share better information. I think what the WikiLeaks unfolding story really teaches us is that we have an opportunity to harness this interest, to really generate and create better information for everyone's benefit. We should be looking for the collaborative opportunities that can emerge here as a result of the interest that's been generated through these news stories.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Well, Professor Noveck, that's certainly a very interesting take on WikiLeaks. I'm not sure I've heard that particular angle, that this whole issue of WikiLeaks shows a great interest in foreign policy. It strikes me more that the reason the National Enquirer and Globe sell so many of their magazines in retail settings is that people love gossip, and they love salacious stories. The more salacious they are, the more interesting, and the more magazines they sell.

And it strikes me that there's some kind of a curious causal connection with WikiLeaks, which frankly in my view was intended to serve not so much to inform as to perhaps embarrass. If that wasn't the intent--and I'd be shocked if it wasn't in part--certainly the part the media seemed to pick up on was the most salacious or compelling aspects of those stories. So your take that this would generate a broader general interest in foreign policy is interesting. I would hope that was true.

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

That's where the wiki part of it comes in. What I think is really missing from WikiLeaks is actually the “wiki” part of it.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Not the “leaks”.

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

In other words, I'm not speaking now.... I'm intentionally being counterintuitive, if you will, in trying to sort of face us forward as to where we go from here with regard to harnessing this interest.

But you're precisely right about the salacious quality of tabloid magazines. What's interesting about something like Wikipedia or this genre of tools is that when somebody posts something that is not factual and that is salacious gossip, someone else can come in and correct it. Someone else can come in, and that's often where these contributions are most valuable.

I think what we're seeing in terms of the interest level that this is generating--and this is not to speak to issues of first amendment concerns or national security concerns or espionage or after any of the many issues one could get into, but simply the interest that this has generated--is that it could cause us to ask, what are the ways we can productively and positively harness this interest to foster our culture of collaboration, which is to say nothing about protecting the security of national systems and the national security issues the archivist already alluded to. I agree completely with what he suggested. I want to just offer an additional viewpoint on this that is intentionally, I hope, provocative and counterintuitive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you.

Mr. Holder, you're out of time.

I'm going to move on now. We're going to go back to Mr. Siksay, from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Siksay, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to come back to the example of the Federal Register that both Dr. Noveck and Mr. Ferriero mentioned in their testimony. I know there seems to be a little discrepancy about how many guys there were and where they were sitting when they did this work, but whether they were in a garage or a café, I think it's an important example.

Mr. Ferriero, I appreciate why this is such an innovation and why this is important, but surely how cumbersome the Federal Register was isn't a new issue for the National Archives. And why wasn't there the in-house capacity to address this issue before open government and before it could be set out in a contest to the public at large?

I mean, surely the goal of having something that was accessible and understandable has been an issue in the Federal Register for many years. So why wasn't there the capacity in the National Archives to deal with that prior to the open government initiative, and why couldn't it be done in-house?

[David Ferriero]

If the culture had been focused on the customer, it probably could have been. The whole open government initiative is flipping things around and looking at ourselves and how we look to the general public in this case. The general public never really made use of the Federal Register. I grew up in research libraries; we had the Federal Register delivered all the time and it was never used. It's because of the technical language, the bureaucratic language that's used in the document itself. Thinking about it from how useful this is from a user perspective is something that's never been addressed before. That all came from open government.

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

Surely this is a really important resource, and a really important change in how that resource is being used. Is a prize enough of a reward for the gentleman who did the work on this? Surely this is a very significant thing for the National Archives and the register.

[David Ferriero]

In this case, yes, because these guys have gone on to larger and more glorious activities in their company. Actually, it's three guys in California.

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

Okay.

Dr. Noveck, you can see I'm interested in the effect on employment and work on this and how we value the kind of work that's being done. At this stage do you see that changing down the road? You reminded me at the beginning of the importance of civic engagement and how people are excited about being part of this process and how important that is, and not to undervalue that. At the same time, it seems as if really important work is being done, and I just want to be clear about how we value that work and how we appropriately remunerate people who do that work for us. Are good feelings, prizes, or certificates of appreciation enough, or is that a temporary phase? Do you see that changing at some point?

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

First, the academic literature is very clear in areas like open-source production in the technology industry. And I mean this not facetiously that a T-shirt can make the difference. So for people often the incentives.... And again, there is empirical data on incentives about belonging and a sense of community and a sense of achievement and professionalism. We surveyed the volunteer participants in the peer-to-patent work we did. Why are people who are busy scientists, technologists, engineers volunteering their time to help the patent office examine patent applications?

[Technical difficulty--Editor].

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

Oh no, just to the good part and we lost the connection. Are you there, Dr. Noveck?

We've lost Dr. Noveck right when she was getting to the good part of the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You've got one minute left, Mr. Siksay. Do you want to go to someone else?

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

Is there any chance of getting her back, Mr. Chair?

[A voice]

We're working on it.

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

Okay.

Maybe until that happens, I could ask Ms. Wright.... Ms. Wright, you're on the open government cross-agency working group?

Is that Dr. Noveck again? Sorry....

[Melanie Ann Pustay]

No, it's Melanie Pustay, and I just wanted to tell you I was off for a while but I'm back on, so I just wanted to reintroduce myself to the group.

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

Okay, good to know you're back.

To Ms. Wright, who sits on the cross-agency working group, what is its role? Tell me a bit about it.

[Pamela Wright]

Sure. It's representatives from the federal agencies working together to talk about a lot of the things that Beth discussed: best practices, how to implement and make happen all the information from the open government directive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Siksay's time is up. If we do get Professor Noveck back, we'll ask her to finish her answer.

I expect the bells will start ringing very shortly. What the chair proposes to do, but I need unanimous consent to do it, is to go to one more five-minute round from the Liberals, one more from the Conservatives, and ask for closing comments. Is that okay with everyone?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.