 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Information Management in the Government of CanadaOTTAWA, ONTARIO [2004-7-28] I am pleased to be able to participate today for several reasons. The primary one, of course, is that information management issues lie at the very centre of my responsibilities as Information Commissioner of Canada. Put simply, information access rights are meaningless if the information does not exist, cannot be found, is incomplete or cannot be trusted. I have stressed this on other occasions, in my reports to Parliament and will do so today. Another reason that I am happy to be here has to do with the company I am keeping. On the program are a number of speakers who are knowledgeable about various aspects of records and information management, have responsibility for them in the Government of Canada and other jurisdictions, or represent organizations that promote good public sector information management. I am particularly pleased that my colleagues, the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Alberta and British Columbia, are here as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Ontario. As well, Dr. Alasdair Roberts, who will be speaking tomorrow, has long been a champion of open government and strong information access rights. Like you, I will look forward to hearing other conference speakers. For my part, I would like to share with you my perspective, a few of the information challenges that I see facing the public sector and some of the steps that are being taken or should be considered to improve the management and accessibility of government records and other forms of information. In his opening remarks, the Chair of today's conference, Andy Lipchak, defined information management and described the activities and elements that need to be in place to ensure that information is available, accessible and of high quality. In the public sector, these are not abstract notions but essential processes for open, effective and accountable government. Nor is information an abstract concept. We are talking about immigration files, census records, commission reports, environmental assessments, pension records, departmental financial accounts, grant files and others that enable government departments and agencies to function internally and to interrelate with a host of stakeholders. The information is current, semi-active and archival. It exists in paper, in digital formats and a multitude of other media. It is stored in department servers, in filing cabinets, in PDA’s1 and in piles littering desks and office hallways. In formal policies and official reports, in memos, emails, scribbled notes, websites and a variety of other forms, the records of government show how it thinks, makes decisions and takes action. They can also tell us, sometimes by their absence, how government has sidestepped issues, refused to take action or avoided making decisions. In the work of my office and in the records I review, I see all of these dimensions – the good, the bad and the bizarre Why is the Information Commissioner concerned about Information Management? My perspective comes from my responsibilities and experience related to the legislated rights of Canadians to access information maintained by federal government institutions and agencies. The Access to Information Act is one of the two primary legal safeguards for Canadians regarding information held by the Government of Canada. The other is the Privacy Act (for which my colleague, Jennifer Stoddart, has responsibility). The Access to Information Act provides Canadians with the right to have access decisions reviewed, independently of government, by the Information Commissioner and the federal courts. As an officer of Parliament, my job is to investigate and attempt to resolve complaints by members of the public, the media and other non-government bodies that access has been improperly denied or unreasonably delayed, that they have been asked to pay too much to get requested information or that they have faced other unreasonable barriers. My office received 1,338 such complaints in the last completed fiscal year, the 21st since the Act’s passage in 1983. In many cases, the denial of access, delay or expense is justified. There are a variety of limited and specific exceptions to the right of access and these are identified in the Act. They cover such areas as Cabinet confidentiality, national defense and security, international relations, law enforcement, personal privacy, intellectual property and certain other areas. In other instances, the request for information is so broad or complex and covers such a large number of documents and locations, that an extension of the prescribed 30-day response time is clearly called for to assemble, review and copy the records. Frequently, however, the investigations my office conducts find that the denial of information or delay or cost is unjustified. Sometimes, this can simply be explained as errors in interpreting or administering the Act. Unfortunately, there are also other and more troubling reasons why access is denied. In these instances, the information exists, has been located, does not fall under an exemption and can be provided within the allotted time. To understand the reasons, one must look at political and bureaucratic attitudes and the organizational culture of government. The Bureaucratic Culture of Secrecy Despite the efforts of the vast majority of conscientious and dedicated civil servants, large bureaucracies and a contentious political environment sustain a culture that often resists openness and transparency. It is by nature hierarchical, introverted and reluctant to take risks. In spite of the need to collaborate to solve increasingly interconnected problems, there is a strong tendency to hoard information and knowledge rather than share it. Keen competition by departments for recognition and resources encourages this tendency. Records and data are often seen as personal property or departmental possessions. And in spite of legal requirements and government policy, there is often resistance to releasing information that may result in negative political, personal, organizational or other consequences. An unwillingness to admit error continues to persist. Records are conveniently lost or altered. The concepts of "cabinet confidentiality" and "national security" are open to abuse. Put bluntly, a deeply embedded culture of secrecy co-exists with genuine commitments by government to openness and transparency. Excessive secrecy is inexcusable in a democratic, information-dependant society that expects high levels of integrity, transparency and accountability from political leaders and public servants. If citizens cannot access or trust the information to which they have a right, democracy itself is in serious jeopardy. In the recent election, fewer than 61% of eligible Canadians exercised their right to vote, the lowest level since Confederation. Among United Nations’ member states, Canada ranks an embarrassingly low 109th in voter turnout, in between Fiji and Lebanon.2 For many younger Canadians, there is greater interest in voting for the next Canadian Idol than in electing a government. This disengagement is particularly troubling since it is part of a trend in Canada and in some other western democracies.3 There are many reasons for this apathy and cynicism, none of them encouraging. Only the foolish, however, would deny that it has something to do with the public’s perceptions of the credibility of information they receive from government. The Records Management Crisis There are other reasons for the inability to access reliable government information. I am referring to the lack of good, basic records and information management. Let me give some examples. Searches are often lengthy and incomplete because records are lost or inappropriately named and filed. Relevant records are often duplicated in many locations and in multiple versions of uncertain authoritativeness. Records that should be present in the files often have not been created (for example, when the minutes of important meetings are not kept or when the authority behind key actions and decisions is not documented). Records security and confidentiality are often poorly protected. Records are sometimes destroyed prematurely and without authorization, often inadvertently and sometimes intentionally. Other records are maintained far longer than needed or required, raising costs and impeding the search for more timely and authoritative documents. In other instances, the records in the file are inaccurate, irrelevant or otherwise unreliable. Often, I find that departments simply do not know what records they have or what they contain. This uncertainty sometimes breeds fear at what the files might show or at least hesitation in releasing them. Whatever the reason – and there are others as well -- the result is that often neither government staff, department heads, Parliament nor the public has ready and reasonable access to important information it needs and has a right to see. The introduction of electronic information systems, although providing huge benefits, has complicated the task of properly creating, storing, protecting, accessing and preserving government records. Computer systems are complex, quickly changing and often incompatible. Instead of a paperless office, we now are now producing, world-wide, nearly twice the volume of paper documents in 2003 than we did in 1999.4 Whether in paper or electronic form, the volume of information around us makes it harder to know what information we really need, where it can be found, what value it has, what we should do with it and how it should be managed. Earlier, I referred to the multiple versions of documents that exist. Sometimes, this circumstance provides a lighter dimension of information management. I am reminded of a public official who was asked to deliver a fifteen-minute speech at a community event. There was very little time for his staff to prepare the speech and he was handed the text just as he was leaving for the event. Once there, everything seemed to be going well until the official noticed that many people in the audience were looking at their watches and growing restless. He glanced at his own watch and realized that he had been speaking for almost one hour! He finished quickly and hurried back to his office. He angrily called the speechwriter in and said, "I told you to write me a 15-minute speech!" The writer, rather surprised, replied, "But, sir, I did write you a 15-minute speech…and I handed you four copies." I suspect that all four copies are still filed somewhere. I have not been the only one to raise concerns about poor records and information management. The Librarian and Archivist of Canada, various Privacy Commissioners, my own predecessors and numerous Auditor Generals have addressed the subject. A recent and well-known report of the Auditor General is a case in point. Released in February, the report cited poor recordkeeping as a key factor in the mismanagement of major government programs. One of these is the federal Sponsorship Program. The Auditor General found that contracts with advertising firms were so poorly documented that key questions about payments, funded activities and program value could not be answered. There were few records of decisions and no documentation of results. It was, Sheila Fraser said, the most extreme case of missing records that her office had ever encountered. The report also discussed the Canadian Firearms Program. It said that the responsible department5 did not provide Parliament with sufficient information to allow it to scrutinize the program effectively to ensure accountability. There was little financial information and insufficient explanations for the dramatic increases in the cost of the gun registry program. Earlier audit reports have dealt with other examples of poor recordkeeping: the files related to GST fraud, improper tendering of government contracts, the inability to locate costly commissioned reports, the lack of security for sensitive information and other examples. The Auditor General has said that some programs are so poorly documented that an audit cannot even be completed. The records are simply not there, are incomplete or are unreliable. Neither a paper trail nor its digital equivalent is in place. Although overshadowed by references to the sponsorship scandal, the same Audit report devoted a chapter to the serious problems threatening the preservation of Canada’s cultural heritage – federal library and archival materials and historic sites. Among the underlying issues identified were poor records management and a lack of resources and effective plans to protect and preserve records and publications. One might assume that the Auditor General and I tend to discover the worst because of our investigative functions. There is some truth to this although we do not go looking for trouble. Nor do we assume, when we find it, that it is representative of all programs or of the majority of public servants and elected and appointed officials who place high value on professional behaviour and institutional accountability. They are just as concerned when their best efforts to plan, manage and document their actions and decisions are frustrated. The implications of poor recordkeeping are a serious matter. They range from minor inconvenience to poor programs and services to the denial of basic rights and the erosion of government accountability. Put another way, at stake is the public’s right to know, to challenge, to participate in and, ultimately, to influence and improve the governance process. Making Progress There are many problems, but there are also many efforts to address them. In my last annual report I identified a number of signs that central and lead agencies and many departments are responding to the need for better records and information management. These efforts are continuing and, in some areas, accelerating. Other speakers will be discussing some of them. Let me mention positive initiatives in three critical areas. The first area is the need to increase awareness of information management and appreciation of its value in enabling effective policies and programs, cost savings, improved accountability and other benefits. I find that awareness of IM is much higher than before. Departments have a better appreciation that records and other forms of information and data are valuable public assets that must be responsibly and efficiently managed. Two official Champions for Information Management – National Librarian and Archivist Ian Wilson and Janice Charette, Associate Deputy Minister, Health Canada – are strong advocates for IM. An annual IM Day sponsored by the Chief Information Officer Branch and other events bring together senior managers to discuss IM issues and plans and recognize achievements. The last such event had 400 participants.6 Several IM committees within government provide opportunities to consider and respond to IM issues. Library and Archives Canada also developed and distributed a "Case for Action" for improving the federal IM infrastructure. The document defines IM and provides persuasive arguments for improving information management. It has stimulated a number of departments to examine their information management programs. To support this, several tools have been developed to assess IM capacity and infrastructure. The best known of these is the Information Management Capacity Check developed by Library and Archives Canada. Another initiative that helped call attention to information management was the report of the Access to Information Review Task Force in 2002. The report echoed the call for a stronger access culture and effective IM leadership, tools and training. Unfortunately, the report fell far short with regard to its primary objective: the need to reform and strengthen the Access to Information Act and related powers and procedures. I will leave that topic for another occasion, however. The second area where progress is being made relates to IM policies, standards and tools. The chief advance has been the development of an excellent Management of Government Information policy by the Chief Information Officer Branch of Treasury Board. Approved last year, MGI identifies information management principles, defines the life-cycle requirements for information in all forms, provides direction regarding governance and accountability for IM and requires monitoring and evaluation of IM programs. It requires that each department designate a senior official who will be responsible for the policy. You will be hearing more about the policy in the next session. To support IM requirements, both the Chief Information Officer Branch and Library and Archives Canada have extensive websites that describe and support a framework for IM, provide various guidelines and tools, as well as links to other useful resources. Important information standards are also being developed or promoted. These include systems for classifying records that are based on the functions and activities that the records support rather than on the frequently-changing structure of an organization. Other standards include XML7 which is used to structure and format documents and data on the Web. New metadata standards control the description of electronic and paper records, web-based information and geospatial data. These are important aids to access and information systems interoperability. As well, there is work being done to identify better metrics and performance indicators for IM. Records and documents management software systems (RDIMS) are also becoming more prevalent. I am aware, however, that there are a variety of opinions about RDIMS among departments. Our own version is proving highly successful in my office, however. A third and particularly critical area has to do with raising information management skills and leadership and properly resourcing IM in the federal government. The decimation of the records management community in the 1990’s and the explosion in electronic communications have resulted in a workforce that is poorly equipped to manage either their paper or electronic records. Departments are realizing that the greatest single IM challenge they face is the lack of skilled staff. The ATI Task Force expressed the problem this way: "Public servants are expected to manage the information they create or acquire, without this responsibility being clearly communicated to them, or adequate training or support provided." Neither senior executives nor workers are likely to be able to understand let alone implement the requirements in the new IM policy without such training and support. Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for leading the development of a human resources strategy for the IM and IT communities. There have been a number of positive steps taken. The IM community has identified key IM competencies and the Organizational Readiness Office has published a catalogue of IM job descriptions including models for three director-level positions. These positions relate to information management, knowledge management, and access and privacy management. I am told a searchable inventory of IM training courses and institutions will soon be available. Public Works has also launched an excellent two-year pilot "IM Leadership Initiative" involving 25 managers identified by their departments as potential IM leaders. I believe you will be hearing more about these initiatives tomorrow. In terms of financial resources, the budgets for IM activities are typically buried in administrative nooks and crannies, hard to find but somehow easy to cut. I am aware, however, that some help for departments is available through a new MGI Implementation Fund and a government-wide RDIMS license and fund. I have been focusing on central agencies so far, but individual departments are also developing or revising their IM frameworks and undertaking other projects to improve compliance with the new IM policy. Some of you are involved in these activities and can share this information at the conference. I am aware that approximately 25 departments and agencies have completed, are using or are planning to evaluate their information management programs using the IM Capacity Check or other assessment tools. This is providing an opportunity to identify gaps and priorities, and argue for greater internal and central agency support. What More Should be Done? A good deal is happening and I applaud these and other initiatives at the centre and among departments. I have only mentioned a few of them. There is now some momentum within the public service to improve records and information management. Much more needs to be done, however. In spite of new policies, programs and tools, I see little improvement in the government’s filing cabinets and at the electronic desktop. Workers continue to be unsure what they need to do, where to turn and whether they have the support they need, especially with regard to managing their electronic records. The benefits of current high-level projects need to trickle down to the office level and other steps need to be taken. I would like to mention several areas where improvements can be made. Awareness of the importance of IM and commitment to do something needs to be stronger at the Deputy Minister and other senior levels. Managers at an IM Symposium said that the most important determinant of a successful IM thrust in their departments was the level of support from their Deputy Ministers. That support has to be developed through a strong business case for IM, in other words a customized "case for action" that focuses on a specific department’s programs and activities. What a Deputy Minister wants to know is why he or she should take action in one area or another, what the benefits will be related to their programs and pressures, and what will be the cost of taking action. They already have plenty of competing demands for resources and a host of rules they are expected to adhere to. They need to know the extent of the financial, legal, political, and program risks of not managing or protecting their records and information. These dimensions need to be added to IM capacity assessment projects. At present, these assessments focus on identifying gaps rather than impacts. On their own, they tell a department what needs to be done – and that is important – but they do not tell it why. There has been a focus on the supply side – by that I mean the supply of IM rules and requirements that departments are told they must follow. There needs to be a shift of focus to the demand side. And by this I mean demand from within departments for action that can be shown to improve programs and services, save money, enhance accountability and avoid unfavourable attention by pesky auditors, Information and Privacy Commissioners, the media and the public. Although IM benefits are the carrot, I can think of other sticks as well. I have long recommended that information management responsibilities should be incorporated into the performance evaluations of department executives and managers. The new IM policy provides a benchmark for assessing management performance and accountability. Good policies and standards are also of little value if a department does not have the resources to implement them. Special funds are useful, but they are usually directed to discrete projects rather than upgrading basic IM infrastructure. Department budgets and program proposals need to identify IM issues and direct resources at them. I would like to suggest some ways for those issues and needs to rise to the surface. I suggest that all major government program and service proposals be required to identify related IM issues, risks and requirements and indicate how they will be accommodated. There is already a policy and mandatory procedure in place in the Government of Canada with regard to the privacy impacts of new programs.8 A broader IM checklist would identify the types of records and data involved, their use, intended audiences and the steps that will be taken to protect information integrity and security, provide authorized access, organize the information and dispose of it. No major program or computerized system should be approved unless there are assurances that these and similar issues will be dealt with. The Chief Information Officer Branch has already developed an IM Checklist for voluntary use. Its use should be mandatory. An added benefit would be to provide some focus for creating and defending a budget to support these IM requirements and the underlying infrastructure. The checklist would also provide a basis for program and system audits and evaluations. Another way to identify and respond to key records and information management requirements is in the context of the specific business functions they support. For each core function such as financial management, human resources management, grant making, licensing, legal and judicial processes and so forth, there should be generally similar types of recordkeeping needs and procedures. Some functions have already been codified, although they are not consistently implemented across government or within departments. I think there would be considerable benefit from identifying for each function, the specific steps in the business process, the types of records and data that need to be created and maintained, their flow and the standards for their creation, retention and disposal. These profiles could guide and help assess operational performance in each area and support Modern Comptrollership. They would be particularly valuable where functions are shared and when they are outsourced. In the latter case, records may no longer be subject to government records management rules or access and privacy laws. The above suggestions are intended to help move information management from the abstract and avoidable to the concrete and controllable. Focus on Education and Training I said earlier that more and better IM training and leadership are crucial. Some positive steps are being taken by the Organizational Readiness Office and there are others, including some excellent training for access and privacy coordinators and federal librarians. There is insufficient coordination of activities, however, and of the roles of the different players. More to the point, there is no coherent and comprehensive IM education and training strategy and plan for the Government of Canada. Such a plan is needed to address the IM needs of different audiences. As new ministers and their staff assume their responsibilities, they need orientation regarding their recordkeeping requirements and access and privacy obligations. They need to know how to differentiate between and manage their personal and political records and those that support their assigned portfolios. Outgoing ministers and staff need to know what records they can take and which they must leave, which can be destroyed and which preserved. The Privy Council Office and Library and Archives Canada both have important roles to play in these areas.9 At the senior management level, executives need to be able to identify and deal with strategic information issues that threaten programs and undermine accountability. This includes knowing what information is critical to success and how its value can be exploited. They need to be able to integrate business, information management and information technology processes. They need to know how to embed information management into program management and technology systems. To support these skills, case studies can be developed geared to a senior management audience. I am sure HRDC, Justice, National Defense and other departments can point to lessons they have learned. The new Canada School of Public Service should play a lead role positioning IM in a strategic context. At present, its core curriculum for managers includes courses on managing finances and human resources, but not information. At the operational end, staff needs training to cope with a deluge of e-mails; their other electronic documents, data and tools; and their still-growing paper files. Information management and systems professionals need training in new information policies, standards, techniques and technologies. They also require guidance on how individual IM and IT disciplines can work together to support increasingly interconnected government programs and IM tools. As IM and IT converge in the e-government environment, the modern information manager will need a mix of traditional and new skills. These skills need to combine records and document management, web content management, program management, preservation issues, IT capabilities and awareness of the IM legal environment. Although these kinds of job profiles are beginning to appear, professional islands still exist, each with its own priorities and preoccupations. For an IT specialist, a robust system is one that survives one or two upgrades. For an archivist, success may be measured in centuries. National Librarian and Archivist Ian Wilson once remarked on differing professional views in the following anecdote. It appears that a conference was being held on the subject of elephants. In attendance were a computer specialist, a librarian, a records manager and an archivist. Each was asked to deliver a paper reflecting their professional perspective on the subject. The IT specialist spoke on "Smaller and Faster Elephants Through Digitization". The librarian called his presentation, "When Elephants Forget – the Overdue Book Problem." The records manager talked about "Off-site Storage for Elephants – When One Box Isn’t Enough." And the archivist raised the question of "Preserving Elephants – Is Physical Custody Really Necessary?" For all managers and staff, there are eight core information skills that must be developed. The first is knowing what information and data are needed to support the development, delivery and evaluation of policies, programs and services. These are information planning skills. The second is knowing how to determine whether it exists, where it is available and how it can be accessed within the organization or elsewhere. These are information searching and retrieval skills. The third is understanding how to assess the value of information in terms of relevancy, accuracy, authenticity, authoritativeness and other characteristics in the context of intended uses. These are information evaluation skills. The fourth is knowing when and how to document activities, decisions and transactions adequately for business, legal and accountability needs. These are documentation and recordkeeping skills. The fifth is being able to organize, file, store and dispose of paper-based and electronic information effectively. These are life-cycle records management skills. The sixth is knowing how to provide authorized access and protect records confidentiality. These are access and privacy management skills. The seventh is knowing how to capture and share the knowledge of co-workers and others to support collaborative and creative problem solving. These are knowledge management skills. The eighth is being able to use new technologies to support all of these activities and to re-engineer government programs and services. These are technology and transformational skills. A professional public service cannot be established and maintained without these Information Age abilities. At present, there is no overall plan to respond to these needs and too few in-person, e-learning and web-based courses and workshops for all target groups. I know that bodies like the Organizational Readiness Office recognize these gaps and are attempting to do something about them. Others can contribute as well. Within the federal government, they include the Canada School of Public Service, the Knowledge Institute at Public Works and Government Services, the Chief Information Officer Branch in TBS, Library and Archives Canada, the Council on Federal Libraries and the Records Management Institute. Non-government bodies such as universities, professional associations10 and the private sector can lend their experience and expertise. As an example, my office is working with the University of Alberta which has developed a comprehensive on-line curriculum for access and privacy administrators. The Information Management Champions Committee provides a planning and coordination mechanism for IM skills development. I hope that a strong education and training thrust can be mounted and I will do all I can to encourage and support it. Better Monitoring and Enforcement In several reports to Parliament, I have argued for a legislated basis for recordkeeping in the federal government. The IM policy is excellent but it lacks a clear foundation in law to give it force and authority. I outlined the need for a recordkeeping law, identified what it might contain and pointed to other jurisdictions where these provisions exist.11 Canada has legislation dealing with certain aspects of information management such as the right of access, privacy protection and archival preservation (although each of these need strengthening). What is missing is legislation that deals explicitly with the duty to keep good records. Canada does not impose a general legal obligation on ministers of the Crown and their departments to create and maintain records that adequately document key organization activities, decisions, policies and transactions. This requirement would be at the heart of a recordkeeping law. Too often, critical records of key decisions and actions are missing in an increasingly casual and oral information environment. As an example, we can no longer assume that minutes of important meetings are being taken. Information that does not exist cannot be accessed under ATIP laws. I have heard from many users of the access Act that poor recordkeeping should not be an excuse for denying public rights. The issue is not what records are on file but which records should exist to support responsible government. IM laws, policies and practices need to be supported by strong leadership at the centre of the public service. The Chief Information Officer Branch, Library and Archives Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada are the lead agencies and institutions for IM. Although each is undertaking useful IM initiatives, questions need to be asked. Are their IM roles, responsibilities and relationships sufficiently defined and coordinated? Is accountability clear, particularly where there are overlapping activities and interests? Are there avoidable gaps or duplication of effort? Is there a unified strategy and work plan among the players for ensuring that the IM policy will be effectively implemented? And from a user perspective: are departments confident about where they can turn for help? Positive answers are needed to maximize the impact of these key players. I will be inviting colleagues from the Chief Information Officer Branch, Library and Archives and Public Works to meet and discuss current IM projects and some of the issues I have identified today and on other occasions. I believe there is interest in doing this and good communication among us. I can assure them of my support for the valuable work they are doing, in the hope that they will understand that my occasional nagging comes with the territory. The Need for Strong Leadership Strong leadership by ministers, by Parliament and by the Privy Council is also needed. Ultimately, they decide where political and management attention is directed. Ministers already know the trouble that can arise when important records cannot be found, when information is withheld from the media and public, and when privacy rights are not protected. They need to set (and ensure that their departments meet) a high standard for openness and transparency, based on access to timely and reliable information. The Privy Council Office should make sure Ministers are aware of these issues. Parliament must also provide strong oversight. The Auditor General and others, including Parliamentarians themselves, have repeatedly said that Parliament often does not receive the information it needs to exercise its role effectively. It must demand and rigorously question the information it receives from departments and agencies to ensure that it is complete and accurate. In doing so, Parliamentary committees may wish to look at a tool produced by the Auditor General’s Office called Audit Criteria for… Performance Information.12 This tool guides Audit staff in assessing the availability and quality of the information that departments use to portray their activities and results. It includes criteria and questions to help determine if the performance information is relevant, meaningful, attributable, accurate and balanced. The tool asks implicitly if the institution has sound IM practices and infrastructure in place. Parliament, the Auditor General and central agencies need to ask the same of departments and agencies, but more directly and explicitly. A vision of information-enabled government needs to guide both the political level and the public service. In this vision, information and knowledge are recognized as the resources that underpin effective and efficient public services and accountable government. In the vision, information is created, acquired and used to satisfy business, legal and accountability requirements. It is managed to ensure its continuing accessibility, integrity and value. It is protected to meet legitimate confidentiality and privacy concerns. It is shared and disseminated to satisfy the government’s own and the public's information needs. It is maintained and disposed of in accordance with best business practice and legal requirements. And it is preserved to ensure its long-term value to the government and to Canadians. Ultimately, the best guarantee of effective and transparent government is an informed, educated and relentlessly questioning public. We are seeing this develop. Government and other traditional institutions no longer have a monopoly either on information or technology. The Internet and other technologies are providing powerful tools for individuals and groups to communicate, share information and look over the shoulders of politicians and bureaucrats. All of us in the public sector need to be not only ready for that scrutiny, but invite and encourage it. We can do this by ensuring that information is timely, complete and accurate and by proactively disseminating it. An engaged public and effective two-way communication are essential if we are to do our jobs fully and well. I can assure you that my job would be much easier if Canadians did not have to arm-wrestle government over the right to see its files. At stake is something even more important. It is the health of the body politic. Within that body, the records are the genes that carry and communicate the fundamental traits of governance – its values, goals and processes. Together, they form its documentary DNA. Like our own DNA, the records comprise the threads of information and evidence that reveal how the political organism is structured, how it grows, how it responds to internal and external influences, how it protects itself and whether and how it adapts to new conditions. The records show how government functions, makes or avoids decisions, takes or refuses to take action. Sometimes these threads are clear and sometimes convoluted. When the public record is complete and orderly, all of the threads are in place and we can see the connections among policies, programs, personalities and events. The body politic is open, accessible, transparent and healthy. When important records are missing, altered, inaccessible or poorly managed, the threads are damaged or broken and the fundamental processes of governance become opaque and unresponsive. All of us want the public sector to be more effective and better managed. Each of us can take away something from this conference that can contribute to this goal through better information management. Together, we can engage in the high calling of helping government use information and knowledge to identify, protect and serve the public interest. Thank you.
Return to the List of Speeches |
|
||||||||
