Dissenting Report to the Report on Privacy Issues produced by the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

Reform considers it essential for the government to be part of the growing debate over the impact of modern technology on privacy rights and was glad to participate in the recent review performed by the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The opportunity the Committee afforded for Canadians to engage in the public debate was important. Reform, however, is compelled to dissent to the final report issued by the Committee on this study because of the lack of recognition given to the scope of opinion submitted by Canadians from across the country.

Many Canadians recognize the value of some form of regulation or legislation that recognizes the competing interests involved in this complex issue. Many groups, including Industry Canada, recommended a "multi-pronged" approach where responsibility is shared between the government and other interested parties. This would likely include a measure of self-regulation by businesses in the privacy domain.

Instead the government, in standard fashion, has chosen the most narrow and heavy-handed approach by opting to recommend consolidating all power in the federal government, and in particular, under the Privacy Commissioner, greatly expanding the role and responsibilities of the Privacy Commissioner without any apparent consideration of the costs involved or the efficiency of the process.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) seems to mirror many of the functions of the proposed expanded Privacy Commission, but has been ignored as either a source of experience or a possible mechanism for the regulatory process.

According to the government, privacy rights are not congruent with those rights addressed by the CHRC since they do not represent historically-defined discrimination.

However, if the government adjusts this qualification on the definition of the rights addressed by the CHRC, the Commission could then focus on real and present rights' violations. This would facilitate a more equitable approach to rights violations. And if privacy is an "inalienable human right" as it maintains, it could be included in the Commission's portfolio.

Another recommendation of the Committee has potentially serious ramifications on the constitutional distinctions between federal and provincial jurisdictions. In what appears to be a very heavy-handed approach to enforcing privacy rights, the committee has recommended that federal governments cease data sharing with provinces unless the provinces implement reforms to privacy protection that meet the approval of the federal government. Thus legislation and regulation intended for application in the federal government and federally-regulated organizations will have much farther reaching implications.

The government's interest in enforcing privacy rights also rings hollow in view of its opposition to respecting property rights. With years of pressure and continuing inattention to the area of property rights, why is there now a will to exclusively pursue the related area of privacy?

Several bills illustrate "regulatory creep" and the government's disregard for property and privacy rights:

Bill C-68 significantly weakens Canadians' protection from search and seizure measures, increasing the ease of access of police officers to private property.

Bill C-71 also permits search and seizure without a warrant. While these two bills still maintain a measure of protection regarding dwelling places, Bill C-76, the Drinking Water Safety Act, of all pieces of legislation, goes even further. This bill, concerned with the regulation of bottled water, includes provisions for permitting access even to a person's home without a warrant. Little by little, the government is abandoning the historical rights and freedoms of Canadians while trying to claim the high ground by appearing concerned about new, complex issues that are more difficult to define.

Extreme proposals advanced in some circles on behalf of so-called children's rights have also found a friendly ear in some corners of the Liberal government. Such proposals, including the repeal of Section 43 or the privacy rights of children over and above the rights of parents, threaten the protection afforded to children and their families in the private sanctuary of the home. Such infringements threaten to destroy institutions and relationships Canadians have long taken for granted.

The violations of privacy made possible through more and more Liberal legislation sends a contradictory message to the recommendations proposed by the Committee on the limited scope of privacy issues addressed by the Committee. It suggests that the government lacks a comprehensive underlying philosophy that takes into account the priorities of Canadians and reflects the expected level of respect for their rights.

The Reform Party supports the involvement of the government in the public debate over privacy issues. The purpose of public debate, however, is to inform the government of the views and concerns of Canadians.

In consideration of the government report however, the Reform Party recommends greater responsibility and freedom be extended to individuals and businesses to choose and implement standards and measures that also respect the expectations of Canadians.

We recommend a re-examination of the singular proposal to use a greatly expanded Privacy Commission as the structure for the regulatory body.

Finally, we express our reservations over the rush in which the final report was produced which should have allowed more opportunity for careful examination of its proposals and their consequences. The Reform Party trusts that the public consultation proposed by the recommendations will produce results that do indeed represent the wishes and expectations of the broadest possible spectrum of Canadians.