Remarks to Records Management Institute 2003 Seminar - Information Management A Progress Report

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

[2003-11-20]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to be a part of this seminar by the Records Management Institute and to be able to add the perspective of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada to your deliberations.

At the federal level, in Canada, we are fortunate to have these mechanisms of accountability. The incoming government has identified a "democratic deficit" in Canadian affairs. What I am going to talk about today is to describe some element of this "democratic deficit", what is being done and not done about it. This "democratic deficit" is not the focus that has been discussed at the political level, but it is the essence of any successful attack on the problem.

We, at the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, are dedicated to getting the challenges of information management in government into the top ranks of the government’s priorities. That might seem an impossible dream but we keep dreaming the dream because, as grandiose as it may seem to say so, the vitality of our democracy depends on it.

A healthy democracy – as history has taught us – is one where there exists a panoply of incentives to move those who exercise the power of the state away from self-interest and corruption and towards the public interest and stewardship. As a group, such incentives might be termed "mechanisms of accountability". Among such mechanisms are universal suffrage, fair elections, uncensored media, independent judiciary and military and police forces controlled by elected officials. Also among the mechanisms of state accountability are individual rights such as freedom of speech and assembly, protections against unreasonable invasions of privacy and the right to a fair trial before being deprived of liberty or property.

My point is not to say that we need more or less such mechanisms of accountability. Rather it is to say that none of them have any viability without the oxygen of information – information about what governments think, decide and do; information about what governments know about their citizens and about the costs and effects of government decisions and actions.

This is precisely why an increasing number of governments in mature democracies have subjected themselves to freedom of information laws. And it is why an increasing number of less mature democracies are being "encouraged" by their citizens, the World Bank and the IMF to adopt freedom of information laws as an anti-corruption measure.

This vital, fundamental link between information rights and democratic health is eloquently captured in these words from a 1997 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada:

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation … is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure, first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry".

Our former Auditor General, Denis Desautels, expressed the same idea more succinctly, but no less eloquently this way:

"Information is the current that charges accountability in government".

This flow of government-held information, as of right, to the citizen, and to these other mechanisms of accountability, is in grave jeopardy. The right of access, as articulated in the Access to Information Act, is under direct attack by a government in the throws of a love affair with secrecy coincident with the world-wide fear of war and terrorism. For example, in its anti-terrorism legislation, the government gave itself the power, by certificate, to close down almost any investigation by the Information Commissioner and, hence, ensure that its decisions to keep information secret will not be questioned.

In the fall of last year, I tabled a special report to Parliament warning Parliament and the public of the proposals coming from public officials, designed to make a significant shift of power over information away from the citizens and back to the state where it resided in those bad old days (or good old days, depending on one’s perspective) before the enactment of the Access to Information Act. Some of the recommendations include removing public servants’ notes from the right of access, ending the existing right of access to policy options presented to cabinet and allowing government to cloak in secrecy work done for government by contractors and consultants.

Here is where the "democratic deficit" shows its true colours.

After 20 years of struggle to break down a culture of secrecy in official Ottawa – of fighting in the courts to keep exceptions to the right of access as narrow and specific as possible and to ward off efforts by the government to escape from the investigative reach of the Information Commissioner; of judicial and administrative battles to get government to obey the response deadlines in the Act – after all this we now risk losing the battle for open government. And we do not risk defeat simply because of a government leadership which is unsympathetic to the right of access or because of a distracted citizenry. Rather, the most significant threat to open, accountable government is a crisis in information management in the federal government of Canada.

When records documenting the actions, decisions and considerations of public officials are not created; when such records as are created are not included in an indexed institutional system of records or when the disposition or archiving of records is left to the unguided whim of the records creator, then there can no longer be an effective right of access to information no matter how strong the words of the law may be.

And all the other mechanisms of accountability, too, are suffocating from the lack of information oxygen. The Auditor General keeps warning Canadians and Parliamentarians in ever more urgent tones with each passing year, that the audit function cannot be carried on with confidence in the absence of paper trail. Parliamentarians and Parliamentary committees are expressing consternation about the unavailability of government records to assist them in their deliberation. Journalists are becoming less able to obtain source records and data and more reliant on the carefully managed information releases from government communications spin-doctors.

This topic we are thinking about and talking about at today's conference may not seem – at first – to have much sex appeal. But we all should be passionate about it, because on it hinges our very ability as a society to have good and accountable government. It is one of the first steps to dealing with the "democratic deficit".

My message today is that while we are still extremely concerned about the state of information management in the federal public sector, there have been positive developments, there is a positive momentum and our challenge is to keep pushing ahead.

In government workshops and public presentations, the National Archivist, the Chief Information Officer and other senior government officials have been working to raise awareness of the value of records and information management. Treasury Board Secretariat now sponsors this annual fall "IM Day" for public service managers at which presentations and case studies underline the importance of information management.

All of these activities are raising the profile of information management and helping to generate greater interest in improving it in the Government of Canada. Information is becoming recognized as one of the four primary assets that government depends on and must manage in an effective and professional manner (the other resources being money, people and technology).

At both the central agency and departmental levels, stronger leadership for information management is emerging. Within Treasury Board Secretariat, the Chief Information Officer Branch is creating a stronger focus on IM and linking IM more closely with its Government On-Line priorities. At the operational level, the Library and Archives of Canada is emerging as the centre of expertise and lead agency for the life-cycle management of government records and documents. Both agencies have a number of IM initiatives underway.

The Framework for Managing Information, the Management of Government Information policy and the Information Management Capacity Check tool are the products of significant consultation among central agencies and line departments. As well, the IM roles of the two most prominent agencies (the Chief Information Officer Branch of Treasury Board Secretariat and the Library and Archives of Canada) are becoming clearer, more coherent and better coordinated.

New governance structures and mechanisms are enabling IM issues to be more readily discussed and addressed. These include an Information Management and Policies Committee (IMPC) of Treasury Board, consisting of director generals in departments and central agencies and co-chaired by the Chief Information Officer Branch and Health Canada. IMPC is a subcommittee of the Service, Information and Technology Management Board (SIMB). IM proposals discussed and endorsed at these levels flow to Treasury Board’s existing Information Management Sub-Committee (TIMS), consisting of the Chief Information Officer of Canada and a number of deputy ministers. And although confusingly named, an Information Management Champions Committee (IMCC) provides a forum specifically for human resources development issues.

There are new policies and tools to support information management.

A strong policy foundation for the government’s IM program has now been developed. The Management of Government Information policy was approved by Treasury Board in April 2003. MGI succinctly defines the life-cycle operational requirements for managing information in all forms. It provides information about the legal framework for recordkeeping, requires that departments ensure effective IM governance and accountability arrangements, and necessitates ongoing evaluation of IM activities.

Individual departments are improving their IM programs.

Individual departments are taking steps to improve records and information management. With the necessity to implement the new Management of Government Information policy in mind, a number of departments are reviewing their IM infrastructure, raising internal awareness, and introducing departmental policies, standards and processes. The most recent of these, department-wide, initiatives – of which I am aware – is being undertaken by the Department of Finance.

Overall, though, progress "on the ground" is still modest and varies widely depending on the degree of senior management support and the level of resources made available.

The progress that is being made in strengthening IM practices and infrastructure is both overdue and welcome. There are now clear signs of a will to do something. It will take time, however, for awareness and effort to be translated into more efficient and effective recordkeeping practices.

In some areas of the government, there is still little visible evidence of change. Program and policy managers, information specialists, auditors, legal staff and parliamentarians, who rely on good business records to do their work, continue to be frustrated. Audit reports and newspaper headlines still remind the public that it cannot always access or trust government information to which they have a right.

The significant progress that has occurred needs to be recognized and applauded. The government must accelerate its efforts in the above areas, however, so the IM momentum is not lost. As well, government needs to take action in the following areas:

Parliament must play a more active oversight role for IM.

The effectiveness of Parliament as a fundamental institution of democratic governance depends on the information it receives, considers and is able to act upon.

It is essential that Parliament demand the information it needs to review and approve programs and expenditures, assess their effectiveness, consider new legislation and perform other functions. It also needs to assure itself (and Canadians) that departments have the necessary underlying IM infrastructure and recordkeeping practices in place. It can accomplish these ends through its standing and special committees, through reports and audits it requests from departments and through other opportunities to exercise oversight. This is the ideal place to start the attack on the "democratic deficit", for the problem is not only at the political level, as we have seen, it exists as well within the bureaucracy. The attack on the "democratic deficit" will take place on both fronts, and there not only must be leadership from Cabinet and the senior civil servants, but House of Commons and Senate Committees must accept their responsibility as well.

Federal government recordkeeping policies and practices still lack a strong foundation in law. Canada has legislation dealing with certain aspects of information management (e.g., public access and privacy, archival preservation). What is missing is legislation that deals explicitly and comprehensively with the creation of records and the government’s stewardship of recorded information over its complete life cycle.

Although some program-specific legislation includes records provisions, Canada does not impose a general legal obligation on ministers of the Crown and their departments to create and maintain full and accurate records of their business activities (the duty to document). The law would recognize the business and other value of government’s information assets in all forms (including their importance for public safety and security) and require their effective life-cycle management.

At its centre, the law would provide a legal basis for the Management of Government Information policy and its key provisions

Strong support is needed to implement the Management of Government Information policy.

To support the implementation of MGI, departments will need a phased implementation strategy and operational plan. They will also need practical tools and appropriate models in various areas. These include models for developing an IM business case, evaluating IM risks and benefits, documenting business activities, creating file plans, determining records retention periods, managing e-mail and web documents, devising training plans, and others. Portions of this tool kit already exist within the government and others can be adapted from international models. It is the intention of the Chief Information Officer Branch and the Library and Archives of Canada to make such materials and related supports available. Most especially, departments need the funds to press ahead in this area. I urge Mr. Martin not to make the mistake of previous program reviews by imposing cuts in the area of information infrastructure for by doing so, he would be launching a full frontal attack on his own policy of deflating the "democratic deficit".

Some issues are more fundamental, complex and difficult to change. Despite the efforts of many conscientious and dedicated civil servants, large bureaucracies sustain a culture that resists openness, transparency and record keeping. An introverted and risk-reluctant command-and-control hierarchy still characterizes most parts of the federal government. A dogged unwillingness to admit error still persists. Where this is the case, the tendency is either not to create important documents or to hold onto information rather than to release it and to place loyalty to a minister above the public interest. Senior managers at a recent IM Symposium identified "organizational culture" as the second greatest barrier to good information management (after "lack of leadership"). Change must come from the ranks of the most senior public servants and from the political level itself.

We have no choice; if we want a healthy, vibrant democracy, we must have a healthy, vibrant information management regime. We are moving towards a more cohesive, comprehensive and effective information management environment for the federal government but we are limping and crawling when we should be striding and running.

The Prime Minister in-waiting has recently been commenting on the need to eliminate the "democratic deficit" in the government of Canada. Of course, one of the ways in which this can be done is by enhancing the information rights of Canadians, particularly by reforming and modernizing the Access to Information Act. And of course, as is my thesis in my remarks today, one of the best ways of enhancing the information rights of Canadians is by pushing ahead vigorously with improving the information management in the government of Canada, including the passage of a "recordkeeping" law. My plea and challenge to the new government leadership in waiting is to make information management reform its most important infrastructure project. What a superb contribution that would be to facilitating good, accountable government in Canada for the 21^st century.

Thank you for your kind attention. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.