Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 03

40 / Canadian Government Executive // May/June 2018 Governing Digitally Digital Privacy and Public Trust A s governments have sought to go digital, one of the most com- mon barriers stymying progress in many jurisdictions is that of privacy – and the protection of personal and otherwise sensitive information. De- spite the rhetoric of open government and information and data sharing within the public sector, the reality is a good deal more complex. At its core, the Westminster regime is fundamentally more proprietary than open with respect to information management, making privacy a natural pursuit. Add to this mix adversarial politics, a correspond- ingly risk averse public service, and grow- ing data breaches across all sectors, and caution and trepidation are understand- able. Yet digital government accentuates in- ward integration and outward engage- ment in ways that demand greater open- ness. And recognition of the benefits of information sharing – and the costs of not doing so – is growing. As a recent study for the Alberta Privacy Commissioner notes (Government Information Sharing: Is Data Going Out of the Silos, Into the Mines?), ”All Canadians want the benefits of elec- tronic government services, and reduction of administrative burdens.” This same report, however, also wryly observers that ”some of us still want our privacy and autonomy too,” and herein lies the conundrum for the public sector. Mark Diner, formerly Alberta’s first Chief Open Government Advisor insists that a holistic open government agenda must one day eradicate the need for information sharing agreements between governmental enti- ties. And in the Province of Alberta alone, he estimates there are approximately thir- ty thousand such agreements! The Government of Australia likewise admits that ”it can take several years and multiple MOUs to establish data sharing arrangements between government agen- cies” and ”sharing data with the States and Territories is burdensome.” As a result, the Government concludes: ”Overall, the lack of data sharing prevents feedback on policy and hinders the potential of data to improve future service delivery.” In Canada’s Westminster regime, the important oversight of Privacy and Infor- mation Commissioners can be a mixed blessing. In a 2017 speech on public trust in a digital era, Patricia Kosseim, a legal expert from the federal Privacy Commis- sioner Office, underscored the importance of innovation: ”I think we all agree that in- formation-sharing could be a good thing, if it helps keep Canadians safer, provides them with improved and more efficient services, helps streamline their communi- cations with government, etc.” Yet Kosseim is cautious – critiquing ex- isting privacy laws as ill-suited for digiti- zation, with national security as a prime example where information sharing ar- rangements have expanded tremendously. A recent and thoughtful report on open government by the Ontario Privacy Com- missioner presents ‘data minimization’ as a key principle, namely that any data gathered be used only once (and for the purpose of its collection). Such a notion nonetheless flies in the face of ‘tell us once’ policies of leading digital jurisdictions. In terms of proposing new solutions, Pri- vacy Commissioners are proving to be more outspoken than governments themselves – and that is a problem. The federal govern- ment acknowledged this point last year in launching their Canada Digital Service: ”It was raised by many stakeholders that in some cases, specific legislative and policy barriers prohibit the sharing of data be- tween government organizations and other levels of government…. Many stakeholders suggested that a broader conversation with Canadians around privacy and the use of personal information would be valuable.” Other jurisdictions are taking heed of such advice. In Australia, a new informa- tion management architecture for the government as a whole is being champi- oned by the Office of the Prime Minister. New Zealand recently passed legislation to facilitate more integrated and online service offerings, and the UK Government has recently established a Chief Data Of- ficer as one element of its focus on better data management and information shar- ing across government. By Jeffrey Roy