Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 03

May/June 2018 // Canadian Government Executive / 41 Governing Digitally Part of what is lacking in the Canadian public sector is a deeper examination of digital governance by elected officials both in governing and opposition parties. Any comparison of recent British and Canadian Parliamentary studies is notably lopsided, largely explaining why Canada and the UK have been heading in opposite directions in many global surveys. In a similar vein, the Coalition Government in Australia pro- duced a detailed strategy for digitization while in opposition (a message for the NDP and Conservatives perhaps…). National security matters accentuate the importance of dialogue. As University of Toronto expert Neil Desai points out in a 2017 contribution to Policy Options: ”If we are to balance security and privacy, all stakeholders – including our security and policing agencies, the technology sector, privacy advocates and the victims of crimes enabled by the Internet – must come together for a reasonable and open public debate on this subject.” Accordingly, the Liberal Government deserves credit for creating the first-ever Parliamentary Committee to oversee the workings of a sprawling and evermore virtual security apparatus. Such a step is in keeping with the spirit of the O’Connor Inquiry more than a decade ago. Unfor- tunately, such an undertaking is limited to the realm of national security rather than the wider set of privacy challenges emerging across all types of digital service offerings both public and private. Indeed, a crucial distinction between service de- livery and security is that in the case of the former, governments may well have more freedom to innovate. In the UK for instance, the Government has balanced sharp criticism with proactive engage- ment and open communication as a basis for sharing (anonymized) personal health information with the private sector for re- search and discovery purposes. In British Columbia, a 2016 strategy produced by Canadian Mental Health Association (Information Sharing in the Context of Mental Health and Substance Use in British Columbia) articulates the necessity of information sharing for more integrative and effective solutions. In a manner sadly emblematic of challenges faced in all provinces in delivering of- ten fragmented human services, the 2015 Commission of Inquiry into the Circum- stances Surrounding the Death of Phoe- nix Sinclair called for revamping key legislation surrounding privacy and in- formation protection in order to facilitate greater information-sharing and more co- ordinated services. In a more proactive vein, as BC sought to become the first province to introduce a new Citizen’s Card (integrating the previ- ously separate driver’s license and health cards), Service BC undertook a significant public consultation effort to address pri- vacy fears and cultivate public support. This exception notwithstanding, identity management across federal and provin- cial governments has evolved at a glacial pace. Whereas jurisdictions across Europe and Asia are introducing smart chips to in- tegrate an array of private and public ser- vices through mobile devices, this country remains shackled by a patchwork of pub- lic and private credentials as governments struggle to keep apace of marketplace in- novations. Recognizing this challenge, provincial and territorial and federal governments are responding by creating Canada’s Digi- tal Interchange, an initiative meant to facilitate and coordinate the sharing and verification of Canadians’ basic identity information to create more seamless, digi- tized services predicated on the principle of ‘tell us once.’ Moving forward with this initiative in any meaningful way will re- quire two fundamental steps: first, a new and more collaborative architecture for formally partnering across jurisdictions (in ways involving industry as well), and secondly, a level of public acceptance and input into the privacy implications of such an integrative effort. Privacy Commissioners are already rais- ing concerns – and in the absence of a ro- bust and meaningful public engagement effort by governments themselves, the political oxygen required for not only tech- nological but also legislative and policy in- novation will simply remain absent. A cen- tral role for such engagement is not only to facilitate reforms within government, but also to better educate the public (as both consumers and citizens) as a provider and custodian of information. All too often, pri- vacy is framed as an infallible political right rather than a shared responsibility. Recently, the fallout from Facebook’s troubles, as well as the data breach of the Nova Scotia Government’s freedom of in- formation website, underscores the mag- nitude of the challenge across all sectors. In each case, the initial reaction was insu- larity, further inviting suspicion and erod- ing trust. For public authorities especially, such incidents reinforce risk aversion at the expense of innovation and openness. Governments must therefore go beyond blanket and simplistic promises and act on widening calls for proactive public en- gagement. Otherwise, initiatives such as the much-vaunted Canada Digital Service will wither within the familiar toxicity of partisan politics and antiquated policies. There is much to be gained from looking elsewhere. The European Union is set to introduce the world’s most stringent pri- vacy measures for the handling of personal information by private entities (notably social media companies). Yet many jurisdic- tions also balance tough privacy safeguards and robust information sharing within the public sector as a means of integrating and bundling digitized services. To be sure, different political cultures and traditions shape public expectations and government actions in ways that vary considerably. The commonality, however, is that public engagement is crucial to balancing privacy and innovation – and to cultivating trust in a digital era. J effrey R oy is professor in the School of Public Administration at Dalhousie University (roy@dal.ca) .