(Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey)
The provincial privacy commissioner is clarifying his role after rejecting a request from the Executive Board to review a report prepared by the Citizen’s Rep on allegations of school bullying and harassment in Elections NL.
Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey issued a statement on Thursday stating that less than half an hour after receiving the request and before it had time to consider it, the Executive Board issued a statement stating that the documents had been sent to his office for “review and analysis to make sure.” the personal information of whistleblowers is protected “.
Harvey says the prime minister and attorney general maintained availability in the media that indicated, according to media reports, that the prime minister had “instructed” him to do the review and that Harvey would “scrub” the documents as part of his “due diligence.”
Harvey wrote to the secretary of the Executive Council on Wednesday refusing to review the documents. He says that as an independent statutory officer in the House of Assembly, any action he takes is based on the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and its primary function is to provide an independent review of decisions. taken by the government and other public bodies.
He says that while he has some leeway to provide advice to public bodies in certain contexts, if he were to provide detailed advice on a decision by a public body – in this case reviewing drafting proposals – he would be part of the process. decision-making, thus harming. its ability to independently review.
Harvey also clarifies that there is no legal authority for the Prime Minister, any minister or cabinet to instruct his office, indicating that if he were subject to instructions from the executive branch, his role would not be considered independent by the public.
Full statement
On the afternoon of June 7, I received correspondence from the Executive Board requesting that I review a report that had been prepared by the representative of the citizenry and related correspondence. I had not been consulted before receiving this request. Less than half an hour later, before it had a chance to consider the request, the Executive Board issued a press release stating that the documents had been sent to my office for “review and analysis to ensure that the information staff of the complainants is protected “. In addition, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General maintained media availability on the matter. While it may not have been the Prime Minister’s words, the media reported that the Prime Minister had “commissioned” me to carry out this review. He was quoted as saying that I would “scrub” the documents as part of my “due diligence.”
On June 8, I wrote to the Secretary of the Executive Board to refuse to review these documents. As an independent statutory officer in the House of Assembly, my actions are based on the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act of 2015. My primary role, as defined in this Statute, is provide an independent review of decisions made by the government and other public bodies. Although I have some leeway to offer advice to public bodies in certain contexts, if I advise in detail on a decision of a public body (in this case, reviewing drafting proposals), I become part of the decision-making process and , therefore, undermine my ability to provide an independent review. If there was a complaint about this, my ability to review it would be compromised. By the way, I have already received a complaint related to this topic. The suggestion that reviewing documents prior to disclosure is my due diligence suggests that I am responsible for these decisions. Instead, due diligence must be done by the public body, and is subject to my review.
It should also be clarified that there is no legal authority for the Prime Minister, any minister or cabinet to instruct my office. The House of Assembly, as the legislative branch, oversees the executive branch. If I were subject to instructions from the executive branch, then my role would not be seen as independent by the public. Confidence in government is based on the existence of strong oversight, and the integrity of that oversight must be maintained.
I believe that the intention of the Prime Minister to ask me to review the documents was a good faith effort to protect the privacy of whistleblowers and witnesses in this report. The only advice I can give the government is that if it finally decides to publish some or all of these documents or information in it, it should be convinced that it has the legal authority to do so and that it makes the best use of it. of the resources at its disposal, in the form of experienced ATIPP coordinators and legal advice, to make the appropriate essays. My role will be to provide independent oversight of these decisions.