IMRC - IM Day 2003: IM in Motion - Where Have We Been, Where Are We Now, Where Should We Be Headed?

Remarks to
IM DAY 2003

"IM in Motion - Where Have We Been, Where
Are We Now, Where Should We Be Headed?"

Ottawa, Ontario

By

Hon. John M. Reid, P.C.
Information Commissioner of Canada

www.infocom.gc.ca

September 11, 2003

I am pleased to have been asked to speak to you today at IM Day 2003 and to add my perspective, as the Information Commissioner of Canada, to your deliberations. I recall from my previous visits with you that there is a wide variety of backgrounds and occupations here today, many of whom may not have been to IM Day before, or know who I am and what I do, so let me start with a brief introduction to my role as Information Commissioner of Canada.

I am an ombudsman appointed by Parliament to investigate complaints that the government has denied rights under the Access to Information Act, Canada's freedom of information legislation. What does this have to do with information management? It's simple. The right I am charged with upholding in Canada - the public's right of access to government held records - becomes meaningless in the absence of effective information management.

Government "recordkeeping" is the foundation of efficient, effective and transparent government. The information and knowledge captured and available in government records represents a major investment of intellectual property. As well, the selection and archival preservation of records with long-term significance ensures the continuity of the government's corporate memory and documents the aspirations and achievements - and, yes, shortcomings - of a nation. In short, the federal government bears a fiduciary duty to carefully create, preserve and protect its records to the ultimate owners of the records, the citizens of Canada. It is easy to see, when looked at in this context, that without proper information management, the public's right to know becomes a hollow and empty shell. This is the nexus between our two domains.

Where We Have Been

I have long expressed concern regarding the state of information management in the Government of Canada. Good recordkeeping is a central component of good government and a pre-requisite for the successful administration of the Access to Information Act.

The lack of proper information management results in weakened levers of accountability. Both the Information and Privacy Commissioners, the Auditor General, Parliamentary Committees and others have repeatedly called attention to poor information management and its impacts. Most recently, poor recordkeeping was cited as a key factor of concern in the management of the gun registry program, in concerns over GST fraud, in the improper tendering of government contracts, in the inability to locate costly commissioned reports and in the lack of security for sensitive information placed on government websites. The Auditor General has said that some programs were so poorly documented that an audit could not even be completed. The records were simply unavailable, incomplete or unreliable.

Other problems stem from the huge volumes of records found in government departments in electronic, paper and other formats; the use of complicated and quickly changing technologies; and the lack of basic skills among government staff for creating and managing their own records and shared files. In particular, the volume of e-mail and web-based documents are overwhelming government workers who have difficulty understanding what to keep and what to discard.

The federal government has been creating the complex technology infrastructure needed to support Government On-Line. Less attention has been given to the quality and timeliness of information that Canadians want and need. A report by the Public Policy Forum called attention to the danger of an "emperor's clothes syndrome" where "the outer clothes of Internet portals and websites are removed to reveal a fragile and inadequate information infrastructure..."

At issue is whether the public has confidence that government will be responsive to its needs, will act openly and transparently, will recognize its duty to document its actions and be accountable for them, and whether it will respect the rights of individuals and organizations to access information that shows how well government has met these responsibilities and expectations.

Where Are We Now? Moving in the Right Direction

Interest in and attention to information management have increased considerably following the recommendations in the Information Commissioner's 2000-2001 Report (and in the government's own Situation Analysis report in 2000). Central agencies and an increasing number of departments are responding to the calls for action. Evidence of this includes:

Information management is becoming more widely recognized as a core discipline of public sector management.

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).

There is a better understanding of what information management is.

The definition and level of understanding of what comprises information management vary widely. "IM" encompasses a variety of processes and practices related to records management, data management, web content management, access and privacy administration, knowledge management and others. There is, however, a more widely shared understanding of IM than before. A new Management of Government Information (MGI) policy makes clear what managers and other public servants must do to manage different forms of information in their care. The Library and Archives of Canada's "Case for Action" defines the fundamental information management activities and processes. Treasury Board Secretariat's new Framework for the Management of Information describes the wide range of elements and activities that constitute IM. These and other initiatives to describe and discuss information management have provided more clarity and stimulated greater awareness of information management and about what needs to be done to better manage government records and data in electronic, paper and other forms.

There is stronger leadership for information management.

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.

Two "champions" for information management have been designated to promote IM across the government: the National Archivist and the Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence. Together, they combine the perspectives and expertise of an important information management professional with that of a highly respected government business manager.

There is greater collaboration among central agencies and departments.

A tradition of top-down policy and program development has long existed in the federal bureaucracy. While change is inconsistent, a more collaborative approach is becoming more prevalent. 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.

There are new mechanisms for addressing IM issues and developing shared solutions.

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.

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.

There are promising efforts to improve IM skills and develop a new IM community.

The e-government information environment requires a new breed of information professionals. A common complaint of deputy ministers and other senior managers is that people who understand and can support this new environment are not available. Records managers, file clerks and other traditional positions common in the paper world have long been disappearing.

The Steps Ahead - Where Should We Be Headed?

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 (or undertakes itself) and through other opportunities to exercise oversight.

The need for a recordkeeping law

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. Many other countries have passed records legislation to underpin these objectives.

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

Clearer strategies and roles for information management are needed.

While central agency leadership in IM is increasing, there is still a need for a more coherent "whole of government" approach. There is no clearly defined government strategy or roadmap for improving IM. Its absence increases the risk of poor coordination, fragmented initiatives and blurred accountability.

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.

Information management must be better funded.

Even with good laws, policies and leadership in place, a strong IM infrastructure cannot be developed and sustained without sufficient funds. Central agencies, too, need the funds to plan and implement corporate IM initiatives.

Progress in implementing information management policies and practices needs to be objectively evaluated.

The introduction of the MGI policy encourages departments to assess the current state of their IM infrastructure and to plan improvements. Over the longer term, departments regularly need to assess their progress in implementing the policy. Self-assessment by program managers is not always sufficiently objective, however, nor does it provide a whole-of-government view of the state of IM. Important roles need to be played by internal auditors, central agencies and by the Auditor General in assessing whether records management programs meet standards.

An IM education and training strategy is needed.

There is increasing attention to the need to modernize the public service and ensure that it has the skills it needs to manage in an information and technology-rich environment. The most recent budget statement announced new initiatives in this area. Information management needs to be an important part of these efforts. The ability to manage and effectively use information is a core skill that needs to be at the centre of any public sector education and training strategy.

A Fundamental Priority - Changing the Bureaucratic and Political Culture

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. The best guarantee of that change is greater access by the public, the media, non-government organizations and others to information that enables them to scrutinize the workings of government and hold public servants and politicians accountable. The Privy Council Office must play an important role in this process as it links the political and public service dimensions of government. It has the opportunity and the responsibility to advance information management and access as it develops a strong vision of evidence-based governance in the electronic age.

Thank you for your kind attention.