:
I will now call the meeting to order.
Welcome, everyone. Bienvenue à tous.
This meeting is a continuation of the committee's ongoing study on open government. We're very pleased to have before us today a number of witnesses.
First of all, appearing as an individual, we have Madame Diane Mercier, who works with information services with the City of Montreal.
As well we have Monsieur Daniel Caron, librarian and archivist, from Library and Archives Canada. He is accompanied by Jean-Stéphen Piché, the acting assistant deputy minister, acquisitions sector.
From Public Works and Government Services Canada we have Mr. Mark Perlman, acting assistant deputy minister for the consulting, information and shared services branch. He is accompanied by Madame Christine Leduc, director of publishing and depository services with the consulting, information and shared services branch.
On behalf of all members of the committee, I want to welcome everyone.
We will start with you, Madame Mercier.
I should notify everyone that we have some other business to transact, so this part of the meeting will go to five o'clock.
That said, please go ahead, Madame Mercier.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Diane Mercier and I am a practitioner, researcher and consultant in knowledge transfer. For over 20 years, I have been working as an information professional for the City of Montreal. I am currently in charge of open data. I have multidisciplinary training, which goes to the heart of your concerns. I have a Master's in computer science and a PhD in information sciences. I am involved in many training and research activities at a number of Quebec universities and public organizations. My testimony, as an individual, will focus on the benefits of open data from the perspective of knowledge transfer.
Public data are part of the common good that we need to be able to use and that allows us to transfer a considerable amount of knowledge. Public organizations are the keepers of this knowledge. When these data become open, they contribute to the transparency and accountability of our public organizations and to the promotion of ethical behaviour.
In Quebec, data are documents, digital or otherwise. They include information and knowledge management systems, which are the embodiment of expertise. In Quebec and in our major cities, it is the young people who are challenging public organizations. Just like the rest of the world, they are calling loudly and clearly for free access to data in order to use it, to add value to it, to better understand the world and get involved in making it a better place according to their own values. They want to be able to use what belongs to them, since public data, we must remember, essentially belongs to the public, not to public organizations.
For example, it was these young people who contributed to the public consultation that was organized jointly by the Commission permanente du conseil municipal sur les services aux citoyens and the Conseil jeunesse de Montréal. The commission recommended that the City of Montreal explore the possibility of circulating open data. These same young people also participated in the five-year review of the Charte montréalaise des droits et responsabilités.
Yes, intergenerational transfer of knowledge does take place, but it needs to be extended promptly to all citizens and communities, and especially within public organizations. Knowledge transfer through open public data is also very beneficial for enhancing the quality of management in our public organizations. It helps to break down organizational silos and to promote understanding, solidarity and consistency among staff members, making them aware of what is happening in their organization. In addition, this all has an economic impact on efficiency. The internal transfer of public information also helps to ensure the protection and sustainability of public intellectual capital.
Where are we now and where are we heading?
Making public data completely open does not happen overnight. The proof lies in the first annual review of the cities and governments that wanted to demonstrate this concept. Achieving open data fully will take time. We will need everyone's continued efforts, we will need the efforts of politicians, governments and citizens in order to bring the intellectual capital up to date. The LiberTIC group has clarified the process for completing the initial implementation phase: advocating, showing the relevance, bringing players together, and convincing leaders. In Quebec, some organizations are already there and should soon be able to move on to the next phase, which is planning initiatives. First, elected officials have to examine the issue. Then they will vote on legislation and adopt policies.
Leaders have to approve directives, standards and action plans.
The public will have access to catalogues of sets of open data based on conditions tailored to their use.
Public organizations are creating interfaces for direct access to public databases, and the public will be able to contribute.
Finally, accessibility standards will be applied to webcasting first, and then to the whole document production chain.
But that's not the end of it. After doing the planning, adjustments will constantly need to be made. The risks of going backwards will be significant. Privileges, exclusive agreements and information behaviours, such as procrastination and information overload, could put a lot of pressure on reverting to closed data.
In addition, the online community is likely to want to take centre stage in open data and define the challenges as being essentially technological. However, open data is only in part related to computing. It is important not to fall into this trap.
Above all, open data is a human and political issue, and that is what our approach should be if we want it to work. It is up to the highest authority in the organization to provide leadership and to assign this task to the data-production units within the organization. Open data cannot be achieved elsewhere, such as by computer services, public relations or consultants.
The following are some suggestions to facilitate and support the adjustment phase and the task given to the highest authority in the organization: first, get appropriate support by hiring information professionals, integrating them with the teams in the data-production units and placing them in strategic roles; second, provide managers with support in the classification of public documents; third, develop and hone the information and social skills of managers and employees in all areas.
Other considerations are: adding value to data through metadata; digitizing downloadable documents and multimedia items into an accessible format; and getting rid of proprietary technologies and software applications, since accessibility is not compatible with closed-source software. Finally, employees and the public should be both encouraged to be involved in the development of applications.
As a result, the organization will acquire the social skills and learn to adjust and refocus its strengths, by using the data, the metadata, understanding how they operate and how to use them.
Those are some of my observations, and I hope you will find them useful.
Thank you.
:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am here in my capacity as Librarian and Archivist of Canada, to share with you my observations and comments about your study on open government. I am accompanied this afternoon by Mr. Jean-Stéphen Piché, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for our acquisition sector.
Library and Archives Canada combines the holdings, services and staff of the former National Library of Canada and the former National Archives of Canada. Our mandate, as defined in the Library and Archives of Canada Act is to preserve the documentary heritage of Canada, to be a source of enduring knowledge accessible to all, to facilitate co-operation among communities, and to serve as the continuing memory of the Government of Canada and its institutions.
The digital age instilled profound shifts in how societies access their documentary heritage, and open government is just one factor among many in this transformation. In particular, the increasing use of information technology by governments and citizens makes it possible to distribute information immediately and at a lower cost. This use of technology allows us to better understand how governments work. It increases the expectations of Canadians, both with respect to government accountability through increasing transparency, and with respect to civic participation in socio-economic debates.
[English]
I should point out that this important paradigm shift has not led to a change in the order of business for Library and Archives Canada, nor to a change in our institution's reason for being. We are continuing to collect our country's documentary heritage in its varied forms and we are trying to make it as accessible as possible within our legal, regulatory, and administrative environment.
For Library and Archives Canada, as for all member institutions, society's greater access to its documentary heritage raises multi-dimensional issues in view of the volume of collections, the diversity of the origin and nature of records, and the different vehicles by which we acquire them. These three different factors have ethical and legal repercussions on our ability to make documentary heritage accessible to Canadians.
The issue of the volume of collections will be resolved gradually through the digitization of holdings. The diversity of the origin and nature of records and the way in which they are acquired raise questions about the system of access governing the various components of our documentary heritage. For example, the records of the Queen's Privy Council have their own system of access; books that are published in this country, which are kept under the legal deposit program, have another system; records subject to solicitor-client privilege have a different system; records from ministers' offices have yet another one, and so on. Finally, when Canadians decide to entrust documents of high value to Library and Archives Canada, it is important that they feel they can do so with confidence, knowing that the access given to them is in accordance with their wishes.
The few rules I have just mentioned are part of society's access management framework in which Library and Archives Canada operates. This framework is composed of several statutes, such as the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Copyright Act, the provisions in the Quebec civil code that relate to property, and the equivalent common law principles. In addition to these statutes, there are internal government regulations and policies and a series of special rules that apply to Library and Archives Canada covering specific situations or contractual agreements between the institution and its donors.
[Translation]
At present, one of my priorities is to clarify the rules that make up the access management framework, to resolve any inconsistencies, fill any gaps, and make this management framework as widely available as possible. This will be our contribution to the evolution of the framework. I believe that the more clearly the framework's elements are articulated, the more effectively Library and Archives Canada will be able to play its role. In turn, this will contribute to a healthy, sustainable and trusted environment between the various creators of information—government institutions, donors, artists, and so on—and all Canadians who wish to have access to their documentary heritage.
[English]
The importance of the trusted environment I'm referring to must not be underestimated, because the access framework is the culmination and reflection under the rule of law of how citizens wish to use their documentary heritage. It is the connection between people and their collective memory.
All these efforts will allow us to increase our effectiveness in processing access requests. These efforts are parallel to the work of this committee on open government. Your proceedings and reports will inform the different components of the access management framework that govern the activities of Library and Archives Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to underscore a number of initiatives that Library and Archives Canada is currently engaged in, initiatives that increase support of the concept of government openness, in my view.
[Translation]
First, in partnership with the Canadian Urban Libraries Council and the War Museum, Library and Archives Canada has started to digitize military records from the past world wars to support a pan-Canadian Lest We Forget program. In addition, about 4,000 items from the old map card catalogue, now in the public domain, have been digitized and may be consulted online. Furthermore, the records of the Canadian Expeditionary Force from the First World War have been digitized and loaded into a web portal.
Second, in collaboration with the Treasury Board Secretariat, Library and Archives Canada leads the first phase of the digital office initiative. The goal of this initiative is to create an environment where borne-digital documents will remain digital from creation to access.
[English]
Third, over the past five years Library and Archives Canada has led a record-keeping initiative that has culminated in a record-keeping directive that applies to 250 federal institutions and ensures that records of business and archival value are kept within the memory of the Government of Canada.
Fourth, over the next year, Library and Archives Canada will double the volume of its online content, adding millions of genealogy images to its website in partnership with Ancestry.ca.
Lastly, Library and Archives Canada will gradually offer its access to information service online by responding to requests with digitized documents. This initiative will yield two important advantages: it will accelerate our response time, and digitized documents will be infinitely reusable for repeat requests.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like to conclude my remarks by summarizing the presentation I made to the International Council of Archives last September. To better serve Canadian society, Library and Archives Canada must be selective in what it acquires, more robust in how it preserves the documentary heritage of Canadians to ensure the authenticity and integrity of information, and more porous to provide better access to its holdings.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I would be happy to respond to any questions.
:
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to address this committee concerning the administration of crown copyright within the federal government and our role in support of open government.
My name is Mark Perlman and I'm the acting assistant deputy minister of the consulting, information and shared services branch of Public Works and Government Services Canada. I'm accompanied today by Madame Christine Leduc, director of the publishing and depository services program, which includes crown copyright and licensing.
I'd like to begin by positioning the role and responsibilities of our organization within the broader context of copyright in the government.
[Translation]
Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage are the two departments that are jointly responsible for the Copyright Act. Section 12, chapter 42 of the Copyright Act is generally referred to as Crown copyright and is the only section that is relevant to works belonging to the government. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is responsible for the communications policy which includes requirement 28 on copyright and licensing. Government of Canada symbols such as the Government of Canada signature, the Canada word mark, and the arms of Canada are protected under the Trade Marks Act. Individuals or institutions external to the Government of Canada cannot use these marks without prior authorization of Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
[English]
The crown copyright and licensing unit, or CCL unit, within Public Works and Government Services Canada has been given the mandate under requirement 28 of the communications policy to administer and protect copyright in works produced by federal government departments and agencies. This policy applies to all federal government departments and agencies specified in schedules I, I.1, and II of the Financial Administration Act.
It is important to note that under this policy, departments and agencies are solely responsible and fully accountable for approving or denying requests for the reproduction, adaptation, or translation of information produced under their respective institutions. CCL does not have the authority to approve or deny any requests. Our role is to provide a centralized administrative service through which applications can be submitted via a single point of contact for approval to reproduce, adapt, and translate Government of Canada information.
CCL facilitates the administration of crown copyright by first receiving, reviewing, and evaluating the intended use of the information; second, verifying that the information belongs to the Government of Canada; third, determining the author, department, or agency responsible for the content to be used and forwarding the request for approval or denial to them; and, finally, responding to the requester once the decision has been reached. If an intended use is commercial, a requester will be required to enter into a licensing agreement for a specified period of time. Management of such licences is also carried out by CCL in coordination with author departments. Any rights granted are non-exclusive, which means that any other party can also apply for a licence to the same material.
I would like to emphasize that the administration of crown copyright is not meant to restrict access but to ensure that the Government of Canada information is not misused when it is modified, adapted, translated, or republished.
[Translation]
The Crown copyright office is administered by a small group of four people. It receives over 1,000 enquiries a year by email, telephone and mail from Canadians seeking general copyright information. Approximately 4,000 applications for copyright clearance are received and processed each year. Ninety-five percent of requests are granted. Permission is never denied except for valid, transparent and common-sense reasons.
[English]
Permission would be denied if the information was intended for inappropriate advertising purposes, such as photos of National Defence personnel being used to promote the sales of firearms, as an example. In addition, no permission will be granted that would lead to a suggestion of an official endorsement by the crown when none existed, such as the use of Health Canada information with an indication of cooperation with the department when in fact none existed.
[Translation]
Given the significant number of requests received annually, and recognizing the increasing demand for easier and better access to Government of Canada information, CCL undertook an initiative in 2009-2010 to streamline the procedures and processes required under the administration of Crown copyright.
[English]
As a result of the work that was conducted with the legal services of our department, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Industry Canada, and Canadian Heritage, and following consultation with 57 government representatives, we're pleased to report that the requirement to request permission to reproduce Government of Canada information for personal or public non-commercial use was eliminated unless otherwise specified in the work itself.
An example of this would be publications that contain third party material or photographs that do not belong to the crown. These would be identified with the copyright logo and would mention that all rights are reserved.
This 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.
[Translation]
As a result of this initiative, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries sent a letter of commendation to various ministers, including the president of the Treasury Board, praising the government.
Mr. Chair, I would now like to take a few minutes to highlight the unique role our organization plays in making published information available to the public.
[English]
As the Queen's Printer for the Government of Canada since 1886, we have a long history of making government information easily accessible to Canadians through published material. Through the depository services program, which was created by order in council in 1927, we acquire, catalogue, and distribute Government of Canada publications at no cost to a network of more than 700 academic, legislative, federal, provincial, and public libraries in Canada and abroad, including the Library of Parliament, Library and Archives Canada, and the Library of Congress. Senators, members of Parliament, and political parties are also members of this program and can order publications from it.
With the advent of the digital age, there was an important shift to electronic formats. As part of the government online initiative, we instituted the Government of Canada publications website and database. Publications.gc.ca is a one-stop shop for government publications. It provides access to more than 180,000 publication records, and more than 80,000 electronic publications can be accessed and downloaded at no cost.
The collection continues to grow, and more than 16,000 records are added annually on average. Last year there were more than 9.2 million downloads, and we expect there will be more than 10 million during the 2010-11 fiscal year. We also provide Canadians and the library community with valuable information about what is being published in the government through the weekly checklist of government publications, which we produce in both electronic and print formats.
Our long-standing relationship with the library community also helps to support open government. We respect and value the important role libraries play within their communities by helping Canadians acquire and understand government information.
[Translation]
Since 1981, we have chaired the Library Advisory Committee, which is made up of senior representatives from the major library associations in Canada, as well as representatives from the various types of libraries that we serve and key government departments such as Library and Archives Canada, the Library of Parliament, Statistics Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat.
Mr. Chair, I would like to conclude by saying that our organization is constantly striving to improve public access to Government of Canada publications and information, and to maximize the use of the latest technologies to better serve Canadians.
[English]
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to talk about our programs.
I look forward to your questions.
:
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?
:
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--
I was part of an e-consultation in 2002-2003 when I chaired the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. It was quite extraordinary to see the response of regular Canadians, particularly those affected in terms of the future of CPP disability. The future of CPP disability seemed somewhat arcane to some people, but we were astounded by the response we got, and astounded that well over 95% of the participants said they would do it again when that e-consultation was evaluated.
We cannot do a proper job in a study on open government without talking to the public about the kinds of things that are in our notes today. What federal information is of high value to Canadians, not to just the usual suspects that come to committee? What will Canadians do with the data? What are the possibilities? It is really important to ask Canadians these questions sitting here in our Library of Parliament questions.
There is no question that in the work we're doing at the Library of Parliament committee on Parliament 2020 visioning and the way Parliament will have to act in the future in terms of Government 2.0--an interactive approach to developing public policy and influencing Parliament between elections--what we are proposing will be the minimum specifications for parliamentary committees of the future. We have to be more responsive and relevant to regular Canadians. Having an interactive website and these kinds of processes will set a real example to other parliamentary committees and be an advantage in building some of this capacity inside.
If we compare it to travelling across this country, we would be obligated to go into rural Canada, which doesn't have Library and Archives Canada down the street. We would have to go to hear from Canadians who can't access lots of things right now, particularly the data sets. It would be a very expensive committee activity if done properly.
I think this is expensive because there has been an unfortunate hiatus in doing this over the last five years in Parliament. We need to be able to raise our game. It is exactly the issue we're dealing with at the Library of Parliament committee in terms of open Parliament. It's where open government meets open Parliament. It's where we set an example to show Canadians that we actually care about their input and that it is no longer this closed “we-know-best” approach that just doesn't wash with Canadians any more.
:
A recorded vote is requested. I'll turn that matter over to the clerk.
I'm going to vote in favour of the motion. I'll briefly give the reasons.
I think we have to look behind this individual situation. We can't look at this issue in isolation. I was taken aback and a little bit disappointed that Parliament and the Library of Parliament did not have the capacity. I view this as much larger than this particular contract: I view it as a capacity-building exercise. Parliament is governed by the Board of Internal Economy and is served--quite ably, I might add--by the Library of Parliament and the excellent people who work there, but hopefully this will build capacity for this type of consultation. As Mr. Siksay mentioned quite correctly, this is a tool of the 21st century. This is going to become commonplace in all parliamentary committees, and it should be. It's my view that we should proceed with it. I'm looking forward to the comments we get from Canadians and I think it will help us immensely in our work, so I will vote in favour of the motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The Chair: The last item is the proposed agenda that has been circulated. I can go over this briefly.
You can see that we have three additional meetings dedicated to the ongoing study on open government. The lists of witnesses are there. On March 9, next Wednesday, there are a few witnesses to be confirmed. I should point that out we have a very strong panel this Wednesday, with three people who were very much involved in the Obama initiative in the United States. They are appearing via video conference before the committee. That takes us to the end of next week, and then we pick it up again.
On March 21 we have the CBC and the Information Commissioner both before us. Then on March 23 the minister is going to appear before us on the open government issue for one hour.
Then we have three and a half meetings devoted to the review of the Lobbying Act. These witnesses that you have listed in front of you have not been confirmed. They have not been contacted. This is just the first thrust of the discussion. We plan to have about 10 or 11 witnesses come before the committee on the review of the Lobbying Act. Of course, that takes us until April 6.
Mr. Poilievre, did you have a comment on this?