Evidence of meeting #47 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 data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay, so we're now going to go to Mr. Easter for five minutes and then Mr. Calandra for five minutes and then we'll ask for closing comments. If we do get Professor Noveck back--
5:10 p.m.
A voice
She's back.
5:10 p.m.
A voice
She should be.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Perhaps we can ask her to finish her answer where she was interrupted.
Professor Noveck, are you there?
5:10 p.m.
A voice
No, she's not.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
One of the problems on access to information here, regardless of the political stripe, I might add, is that security and privacy is always used as an angle by whatever government is in charge in case there is something that might complicate their life or show what's really happening, and it is prevented from being made public.
Are you seeing any of that as a problem in the United States? There is a huge effort many times to use security and privacy, I believe, as an excuse to not allowing that information to get out into the public.
5:15 p.m.
National Archivist, United States National Archives and Records Administration
Go ahead, Melanie.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Office of Information Policy, United States Department of Justice
Okay. I was just happy to be back in the discussion.
I could take a stab at that. One of the things that is key to avoiding that situation from happening, of course, is to have clear direction from the top, as we have here in the United States. We have right in the President's memorandum statements that specifically say information should not be withheld because it would be embarrassing to the government official and that we have to remember that disclosure is the purpose behind transparency. Of course, the President also had a beautiful principle that transparency is a key part of democracy and it's all connected with accountability. We start from the top by having clear statements that we can't withhold information based on those faulty principles.
At the same time, of course, we have a recognition that there are legitimate privacy interests that are properly protected, and the idea here is to only withhold the smallest amount of information necessary in order to recognize those valid privacy interests and then release the remaining material.
A key thing that the Attorney General mentioned in his guidelines was that agencies should really strive to make partial disclosures whenever full disclosures are not possible. That is one of the key ways we're finding that we are able to recognize legitimate interests and still disclose the remaining information.
5:15 p.m.
National Archivist, United States National Archives and Records Administration
She said it eloquently.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Director, Office of Information Policy, United States Department of Justice
Thank you.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
There is another area I was wondering about. Often you would find, I imagine, that some departments were very good in opening up documents. We all know, having been in government, that there are turf wars, power struggles between departments. Was there any problem with that as you moved to open government? And were there disputes between departments on what really should be allowed to be made public?
5:15 p.m.
National Archivist, United States National Archives and Records Administration
I don't think we have those kinds of situations that you describe down here.
That was a joke.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Office of Information Policy, United States Department of Justice
I was jumping in to second that.
5:15 p.m.
National Archivist, United States National Archives and Records Administration
I've actually been pleasantly surprised in the work of the National Declassification Center about the collaboration, cooperation among the agencies. We are talking about the big hitters: the Department of Defense, Justice, EPA. The ability to work together to fulfill the mandate of this executive order has been rewarding.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The key to getting this done, when the President comes in and there is a major staff change at the very top of so many agencies and departments.... The political culture really changed at the top of pretty nearly every institution--is that not correct?
5:15 p.m.
National Archivist, United States National Archives and Records Administration
That's true.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Office of Information Policy, United States Department of Justice
That's right.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That's a big step forward, whereas our bureaucracy in this country really doesn't change, which would create another problem for us.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
March 2nd, 2011 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'm shocked to learn that Mr. Easter would like the bureaucracy to change with the government. I sometimes wish that would happen, but it didn't.
Let me ask this. There's a big difference between facebooking and twittering and releasing data and information sets. One of the things some of us have trouble with is the types of data sets and the security around them. This is something that's new for you and new for us.
What I've been finding during all of this testimony is that those people who are excited about open government are very excited about open government. But when I'm in my riding and in my community, I'm not often seized by individuals who are overly concerned with open government. Is it that the data is not available, or is it just that it's hard for people to find? I know in our context we have StatsCanada. Individuals can go to StatsCanada to get data.
Is it just that it's difficult to find the data that's out there? Do we need to just do a better job of making it available? If you can, just blue-sky for me. If we continue down this path, where are we ten years from now with open government? Or where are you ten years from now?