(Personal Data Protection Commissioner Michael Harvey) The personal data protection commissioner of the province clarifies his role after rejecting the request of the Executive Council to examine a report prepared by the representative of the Citizen on allegations of intimidation and harassment in Elections NL. Personal Data Protection Commissioner Michael Harvey issued a release on Thursday stating that less than half an hour after receiving the request and before examining it, the Executive Board issued a statement stating that the documents had been sent to his office for “consideration”. and analysis to ensure the complainants’ personal information is protected “. Harvey says the Prime Minister and the Attorney General then had media available indicating, according to media reports, that the Prime Minister had “ordered” him to undertake the review and that Harvey would “wipe out” the documents as part of it. ” due diligence “of. Harvey wrote to the executive on Wednesday refusing to review the documents. He says that as an independent statutory member of the House of Representatives, any action he takes is based on the law on access to information and privacy and his primary role is to provide independent review of decisions made by the government and other public bodies. He says that while he has some scope for advising public bodies in a specific context, if he were to provide detailed advice on a public body’s decision – in this case by considering the proposed amendments – it becomes part of the decision-making process, undermining his ability. for independent review. Harvey also clarified that there is no legal authority for the prime minister, any minister or cabinet to give instructions to his office, pointing out that if he were subject to instructions from the executive, then his role would not be considered independent of the public. Full Statement On the afternoon of June 7, I received a letter from the Executive Board requesting that I examine a report prepared by the Citizen’s Representative and the relevant correspondence. I had not consulted before receiving this request. Less than half an hour later, before I 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 “examination and analysis to ensure that the complainants’ personal information is protected”. The Prime Minister and the Attorney General also had access to the media on this issue. Although these may not have been the words of the Prime Minister, the media reported that the Prime Minister had “ordered” me to undertake this review. He said he would “wipe” the documents as part of my “due diligence”. On June 8, I wrote to the Secretary of the Executive to refuse to review these documents. As an independent statutory officer of the House of Representatives, my actions are based on the Access to Information and Privacy Act of 2015. My primary role, as set out in this statute, is to provide an independent review of decisions received from the government and other public bodies. While there is room for me to advise public bodies in certain contexts, if I provide detailed advice on a public body decision – in this case by considering the proposed amendments – I become part of the decision-making process and thus undermine the ability to provide independent evaluation. If there was a complaint about this, my ability to control it would be jeopardized. As it turns out, I have already received a complaint on this subject. The indication that the review of the documents before their disclosure is due diligence suggests that I am responsible for these decisions. Instead, due diligence must be obtained from the public body and subject to my review. It should also be clarified that there is no legal authority for the Prime Minister, any Minister or Council of Ministers to give an order to my Office. The Assembly, as the legislature, provides oversight of the executive. If it were subject to instructions from the executive, then my role would not be considered independent of the public. Trust in government is based on strong oversight, and the integrity of that oversight must be maintained. I believe that the intention of the Prime Minister who asked me to examine the documents was a good faith effort to protect the confidentiality of the complainants and witnesses of this report. The only advice I can give the government is that if it finally chooses to publish some or all of these documents or the information contained in them, make sure it has the legal authority to do so and make the best use of the resources it has. at its disposal, in the form of experienced ATIPP coordinators and legal advice, to make appropriate corrections. My role will be to provide independent oversight of these decisions.
