Evidence of meeting #6 for Library of Parliament in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Lucie Moncion (Ontario, ISG)
Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament.
Today, we are pleased to have with us Philippe Dufresne, law clerk and parliamentary counsel, as well as Pierre Rodrigue, senior principal clerk at the parliamentary information directorate.
Before we get started, I'd like to ask the people around the table to introduce themselves.
My name is Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario and the joint chair of this committee.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Joint Chair Liberal Gagan Sikand
I'm the co-chair, Gagan Sikand, member of Parliament for Mississauga—Streetsville.
November 8th, 2018 / 12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Good morning. I'm Dave Van Kesteren, member of Parliament for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I'm a vice-chair.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
My name is Guy Lauzon, and I'm the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC
My name is Anne Minh-Thu Quach, and I am the member for Salaberry—Suroît.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm David Graham, member for Laurentides—Labelle in Quebec.
12:05 p.m.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Etobicoke Centre, Lib.
I'm Borys Wrzesnewskyj, member for Etobicoke Centre.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'm Bernadette Jordan, member for South Shore—St. Margarets in Nova Scotia.
12:05 p.m.
Michael Duffy Senator, Prince Edward Island (Cavendish), ISG
I'm Mike Duffy, senator from Prince Edward Island.
12:05 p.m.
Jim Eglinski Yellowhead, CPC
I'm Jim Eglinski, member of Parliament for Yellowhead, in central Alberta.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Lucie Moncion
As I mentioned, joining us today are Mr. Dufresne and Mr. Rodrigue. They will be making statements, after which, we will move into questions and answers.
Please go ahead, gentlemen.
12:05 p.m.
Pierre Rodrigue Senior Principal Clerk
Good afternoon. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Joint Chair, honourable senators and members of Parliament, we appreciate the invitation to address the committee today on the digitization of responses to written questions and the work already under way to make documents tabled in the House of Commons more readily available to parliamentarians and the public.
To set a bit of context, there are more than 2,300 sessional papers tabled in the House of Commons each year. These documents include annual reports from various departments and agencies and departmental performance reports, as well as government responses to committee reports, petitions and questions on the order paper, to name a few.
Every document tabled in the House of Commons is filed in the secretariat at the Journals branch. An identical copy is provided to the Library of Parliament for parliamentarians and their staff to consult at any time.
There has been a long-standing interest in improving access to sessional papers. Many sessional papers are made available online in the hours or days following the tabling, though there is not a central repository of all such documents. The type of document and the content owner determine how it is made available online.
For example, some departments and agencies prepare electronic versions of each of their documents and systematically publish them to a specific website. Estimates documents, budget documents and order in council appointments all fall into this category.
Documents produced by the House of Commons, such as committee reports and reports from interparliamentary delegations, are made available on the House of Commons and parliamentary websites as soon as possible following the tabling, often within a few minutes.
In the last Parliament, the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommending the establishment of an electronic petition system was concurred in by the House and the solution was launched in December 2015.
Since then, government responses to electronic petitions are posted on the e-petitions website. The next logical step was to expand on this offering and to add paper petitions and their corresponding responses. Following very productive discussions with our colleagues from the Privy Council Office responsible for coordinating the government's responses to petitions, an initiative is currently under way.
We are confident that paper petitions will be included in the electronic petition system at the start of the next Parliament.
As the Clerk of the House indicated in his preliminary remarks to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on May 8 of this year, the initiative will “be a useful pilot project toward greater use of electronic tabling and dissemination of sessional papers, including answers to written questions”.
This brings us to the most challenging category of documents, namely, government responses to written questions made orders for return, This category is of great interest to this committee and rightfully so. These responses account for approximately 21% of all sessional papers tabled in the House of Commons, compared to 25% for responses to petitions. The Library of Parliament does systematically publish these in an electronic format to an internal website available to parliamentarians and staff, usually within 24 to 48 hours of tabling. Library staff scan the paper copies tabled in the House to create a PDF document.
As the Parliamentary Librarian, Ms. L'Heureux, indicated—and I believe Ms. Lank mentioned it as well—at a previous meeting, one of the challenges with the electronic version produced by the Library of Parliament is that it is simply an image of the paper copy and it is not fully accessible to persons with visual disabilities. Issues surrounding accessibility are among the biggest challenges when it comes to the digitization and publishing process.
Responses to written questions are often more complex documents than responses to petitions. The latter are produced by a single department and are usually just a few paragraphs of plain text. Responses to written questions vary in length and format. Some are as simple as a response to a petition, but many come from multiple departments and include dozens or even hundreds of pages of text. These pages can contain lengthy tables, graphics or images, which are much more challenging to publish in an accessible format.
The House could, however, take inspiration from the success of the petitions model in tackling these challenges. Close collaboration with the Privy Council Office would of course be required in order to proceed, as well as with the Treasury Board Secretariat, which plays a leadership role in the area of information management, information technology initiatives and accessibility.
As the House of Commons does not create or own the content of the responses, the engagement of our partners in this process would be paramount to ensure its success, especially in relation to ensuring that the electronic versions are fully accessible to persons with visual disabilities.
The House administration continues to strive to provide parliamentarians, their staff and the public with timely access to parliamentary information of all kinds. We are proud of the progress we have made and the successful collaboration with the Privy Council Office to date, and we look forward to further improving the services we offer to parliamentarians and, indeed, to all Canadians.
Thank you for your interest in this topic and for the opportunity to speak about this subject.
I understand that Mr. Dufresne would like to say a few words.
12:10 p.m.
Philippe Dufresne Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Thank you.
Madam Joint Chair, members of the joint committee, I am pleased to be here, not just as a law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons, but also as the inclusion and diversity champion at the House Administration. I look forward to answering your questions about the legal dimension of accessibility for persons with disabilities, a fundamental issue.
Indeed, accessibility for persons with disabilities with respect to documents and information is protected currently under the Canadian Human Rights Act and in proposed Bill C-81 on ensuring a barrier-free Canada, currently under study before the committee.
I will be happy to take any questions you may have on this important matter as it relates to the issues at hand.
12:10 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Lucie Moncion
Thank you, Mr. Dufresne.
The first person to ask a question will be Mr. Graham.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
This is an issue I care deeply about.
I was actually the staffer who drafted the original motion calling for this. We were the third party at the time, and we wanted to see the responses to Order Paper questions made orders for returns.
Essentially, we were trying to obtain scanned documents such as Excel tables.
The issue was whether Parliament was equipped to receive electronic documents or only paper copies.
12:10 p.m.
Senior Principal Clerk
Currently, written questions are all submitted in hard copy, and the process is pretty straightforward. Using the Order Paper and Notice Paper, the Privy Council usually forwards written questions to the appropriate departments or agencies, which come back to us with paper documents, sent by courier, that are eventually tabled in the House.
As for a system with the capacity to do that electronically, we already have the electronic petitions system, which could be used.
Unfortunately, the current system needs some work because there are still a few obstacles, even when an electronic copy is sent by email, as is currently the case with electronic petitions. The email comes in with a PDF document attached and it's posted on the website.
There's an accessibility issue because it's not fully accessible. We need our various systems to communicate with one another so we can send the data and create a fully accessible document. That's what we hope to do as part of the electronic petitions project, while including paper-based petitions. At some point, we'll have to find a solution for questions.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Let's say someone shows up at your office with a USB stick containing original responses in an Excel or Word document. Are you able to accept those answers under the current rules?
12:10 p.m.
Senior Principal Clerk
It's funny you should ask because, just this morning, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled a report on that very subject. It hasn't been concurred in yet, but, in the report, the committee recommends that it be possible to file documents electronically. I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would simply say that a document was deemed tabled and would eventually be posted online.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Have you already discussed it with government officials to see if it's something they would be interested in?
12:10 p.m.
Senior Principal Clerk
I am meeting with my colleagues from the U.K. in two weeks to discuss the matter, so we shall see.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Thank you, Madam Joint Chair.
My questions are along the same lines as Mr. Graham's.
The problem, as I understand it, is that documents are converted to PDF files, so they can't be manipulated in the same way that Word or Excel files can. You just said that you would be looking into the issue.
There is supposed to be a pilot project involving electronic petitions. Could that also apply to ministerial responses? Is the project going well?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Principal Clerk
When the clerk appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the pilot project, he mentioned incorporating paper-based petitions into the electronic system. That's precisely what the Privy Council plans to do.
Now we need to find an accessibility solution for written questions before we can go any farther. That's where we are now.
There is indeed a pilot project, and we will try to use it.
