Privacy watchdog is hindrance to real protection Re: Protect yourself, privacy commissioner urges, Dec. 29. Perhaps Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart's actual message is: "Don't expect much from the Privacy Commission." The privacy commission administers both the Privacy Act and the Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, but in a global economy, does anyone believe Canadian law can control what happens elsewhere? Domestically, the Privacy Act regulates the vast quantity of information held by government, including Canada Revenue, Human Resources and Statistics Canada. Even without it, laws like s. 241(1) of the Income Tax Act have long defined improper use of data as punishable by fine or imprisonment. If existing laws are not being enforced how does one protect oneself? The privacy commission has never referred any "well-founded" complaint to police for prosecution. It assumes offending departments or agencies will voluntarily admit wrongdoing and take action. Is this realistic? Does Ms. Stoddart not have the same responsibility to report crime as any citizen? Sheila Fraser, the auditor general of Canada, did not hesitate to refer recent results of her audit to the police for possible action. Why do so many complainants sue the privacy commission or ask the court for judicial review of its work (or lack thereof)? Why does the privacy commissioner insist she can take as long as she pleases to investigate complaints? Does she anticipate complainants' legal remedies evaporating by virtue of a statute of limitations? Why did Parliament confer power to collect sworn testimony under the Canada Evidence Act if she doesn't use it? As an officer of the Crown, is her duty first and foremost to the Crown, and its departments and agencies? Are those interests the same as the complainants'? Ms. Stoddart underlines this point by emphasizing that Canadians should protect themselves and become "skeptical" of smoke and mirrors. To do that, people should be allowed to pursue any rulings under any act directly, through the regular Section 96 courts without administrative bodies, commissioners or extra bureaucracy. Parliament ought not entertain any musings from the commissioner that she needs more authority, especially sole discretionary power to initiate litigation on behalf of complainants or to impede or block the progress of it. William D. Nichol, Ottawa, Executive director, Canadian Justice Review Board |