Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion by the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Motion No. 260 proposes to include all crown corporations under the jurisdiction of the Privacy Act. I put forward a very similar motion to this in the last session with respect to crown corporations under the Access to Information Act. This one is on the Privacy Act. It is very similar.
The right to privacy is a significant issue and important to many Canadians. Privacy is the right to enjoy private space, to conduct private communications, to be free from surveillance and to respect the sanctity of one's body. Privacy is a basic human value that Canadians hold as a right central to their freedoms and sense of human dignity and autonomy. Most Canadians believe they should have the right to control their personal information and to choose to remain anonymous if they should so wish.
Our privacy rights come from many sources. They are entrenched in international law, constitutional law, federal and provincial legislation, professional codes and guidelines. All the largest provinces, including Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, have provincial privacy acts and freedom of information acts
The Privacy Act took effect July 1, 1983 and replaced some limited personal information rights set out in part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. These rights were expanded in the Privacy Act to deal with the growing impact of computers on government record keeping. The act increases the transparency and accountability of the process and gives Canadians greater individual control over their personal data in the government data banks.
In its day to day operations, federal government departments and agencies collect personal information from almost all Canadians. The Privacy Act gives Canadian citizens and people present in Canada the right to have access to information that is held about them by the federal government. It also protects against unauthorized disclosure of personal information.
In addition, it strictly controls how the government will collect, use, store, disclose and dispose of any personal information. The act gives Canadians the right to examine information about them that is held by 110 federal departments and agencies subject to some specific exceptions. Individuals may request to have any errors corrected and if the request is refused individuals may require that a notation be attached to the information describing any corrections requested but not made.
According to the act the government can only disclose personal information to someone else with consent or when one or more of the criteria in the Privacy Act are met such as to comply with a subpoena. The act also establishes an information code to regulate government handling of personal records.
Clearly standards for the use of personal information must be imposed on all federal departments, agencies and crown corporations. This is basic to the principle of responsible government that Reform upholds.
However there are many problems with the Privacy Act both with its enforcement and its abuse that must be addressed. Our rights under the Privacy Act are meaningless unless there are enforcement measures to ensure that the violation of these rights are deterred.
However, as it stands, there are no enforcement measures built into the act which means clearly the act is not as effective as it should be. Our privacy rights can be abused and there is nothing to prevent it.
A clear example of this point was recently reported in the newspapers when the Prime Minister's friend and political appointee, Bob Fowler, broke the Privacy Act. Bob Fowler improperly issued documents in an attempt to destroy the reputation of Colonel Michael Drapeau. Fowler sent poison pen letters about Colonel Drapeau to CSIS, the Department of Justice and the Department of National Revenue. These letters clearly broke the Privacy Act.
The privacy commissioner looked at the case. When he confirmed that in fact Bob Fowler had broken the Privacy Act what happened? Nothing happened because Bob Fowler is a friend of the Prime Minister and there is nothing in the Privacy Act to enforce its provisions. This incident clearly illustrates the ineptness of the Privacy Act. It is not working.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada may investigate complaints about violations of the Privacy Act by government institutions. Yet when the commissioner finds a breach of the act, as he did with Bob Fowler, he can only recommend changes to the
government and bring to public scrutiny institutions that do not accept the instructions.
The provincial privacy acts in Quebec and Ontario, on the other hand, contain enforcement provisions which allow their privacy commissioners to make orders. These provincial acts and their effectiveness should be examined by the government to make our federal act more effective.
Despite the ineffectiveness of our federal Privacy Act, the main concern which I share with many Canadians is the abuse of the Privacy Act by government and its departments. The privacy and access to information acts work hand in hand. One is to protect information and the other is to ensure that information is open and available. There must be a balance between privacy protection and freedom of information.
Canadians have a right to see government files. At the same time they have a right to protection of personal information. Yet time and again the Privacy Act has been used to prevent individuals from accessing information that should be public.
The information commissioner has noted many problems and abuses of both the privacy and the access to information acts in his 1994-95 annual report. According to the information commissioner, the Privacy Act is used by the government as "justification for keeping secret embarrassing details about misuse of public funds or position".
The information commissioner also notes that "officials in the system have sometimes sought to protect the privacy of their colleagues by withholding the portions of records and reports which questioned their actions or competence".
The commissioner also says that "such a selective and seemingly self-serving application of privacy rights in the corrections and parole systems increases the cynicism of the news media and Canadians about the value of the right to privacy".
One example he gives, which I support wholeheartedly, is the government's refusal to disclose the names of former MPs in receipt of pensions. The government defended this decision by citing protection of privacy.
At present the Red Cross is fighting the Krever report and wants to go to the Supreme Court of Canada rather than have any of its members publicly named for their role in this scandal. In our criminal justice system we are also faced with the need to balance the public right to know how the corrections and parole system are working on the one side with offenders privacy rights on the other.
The right to information should be a fundamental block of democracy. There should be a spirit of openness and honesty practised by the government, not deceit and cover-up as we witnessed in the Krever and Somalia scandals the government continues to cover up. The destruction, withholding and disguising of information have become an everyday part of the government.
The government has an elaborate and sophisticated early warning alerting system that warns departments and ministers of requests under the Access to Information Act and that damages the public right to know about government.
Several pre-release administrative practices assist the government in monitoring, manipulating, delaying and holding back the release of information to the public. Clearly the system has been abused and exploited to the extent that Canadians no longer trust the integrity of their government. There is no question this has to change.
Many issues need to be addressed regarding the Privacy Act. It is important all government agencies be covered under the act. At the same time it is vital that the abuses of the act be brought under control. The Privacy Act must be a tool of individual protection, not an agency of political cover-up.