There's a story this week about how the government is blaming privacy laws for its lack of accountability and transparency. You've heard me say this before, but it irks me to no end when people tarnish privacy laws this way.
For context, the case is about how Correctional Services Canada moved Canada's most notorious serial murderer, Paul Bernardo, to a medium-security prison. When pressed for details about why the transfer from the maximum-security prison was made, the government cited the aging Privacy Act as the reason for secrecy.
They clearly have not read the Privacy Act.
Despite all its failings, the law should never be the reason a government institution would choose secrecy when there is a compelling public interest in transparency. Section 8(2)(m) states that personal information can be used and disclosed without consent if the public interest clearly outweighs the invasion of privacy that would result. On the surface, at least, it sounds like they didn't even analyze the privacy question.
I think this is a case where Section 8(2)(m) ought to have been considered and invoked, and I'm frustrated that instead of using it, the government, including the minister himself, cited the Privacy Act as the reason for secrecy.
Don't get me wrong; there is a lot in the Privacy Act that needs to be changed and modernized. But this is an aspect of the law that I actually appreciate and that helps ensure reasonableness in its application by the government.
From the news stories, it seems like the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is seized with the matter. I hope they use the opportunity to educate government officials on this important and flexible provision — they clearly need it.