Government must balance privacy, transparency

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/04/2017 (3377 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Tragic events often covered in the media, such as the unexpected death of an adult or child involved with the health-care system, corrections or child and family services, highlight the ongoing and often complex discussion about how to properly balance transparency with individual privacy rights.

Sadly, the light on how, or how well, government and other public-sector services are delivered tends to shine brightest when a tragic or seemingly avoidable event occurs. In these circumstances, it is understandable the public wants to know what happened.

At the same time, the release of personal and personal-health information can have a profound and lasting impact on the privacy of those touched by the tragedy. Individual privacy, access to information and public interest are not always easy to disentangle.

Provincial access to information and privacy laws provide some direction on how to balance the need to know with the right to privacy. In Manitoba, it is not just legislation such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Personal Health Information Act (PHIA) that govern access to information and protection of privacy for personal and personal health information. The Mental Health Act and the Child and Family Services Act are also examples of provincial laws with confidentiality requirements.

The specific parameters of and interactions between these laws determine how, when and why information, including information about individuals, may be shared.

Access to information is necessary for an open and transparent government. The public has a right to know how its government operates, how tax dollars are being spent and how it fixes mistakes. Citizens need information in order to properly hold governments accountable for actions taken or not taken, particularly when there are devastating consequences. Access to information also builds trust between citizens and government bodies. That trust breaks when people believe they are being misled or that their government is secretive.

While there appears to be a conflict between the need for transparency and the right to privacy, they can coexist. It does not have to be one or the other. The proposed Advocate for Children and Youth Act, which will give the children’s advocate more ability to publicly report on any matter reviewed or investigated, is an example of a legislative reform that strikes a balance between the release of information to promote transparency and accountability, and protecting personal privacy.

Going forward, it is important for all of us to keep discussing these issues and challenging our perceptions and assumptions about the right to know and the right to privacy. Governments need to keep reviewing laws, policies and training standards to ensure the frameworks that govern both the sharing of information and the protection of privacy remain current and responsive to best meet the needs of all Manitobans.

The provincial government recently announced its launch of a public consultation on the reviews of FIPPA and PHIA. This is an important opportunity for Manitobans to provide input that can help shape the future of access to information and protection of privacy in our province and it is timely to have this discussion.

It will continue to be the role of my office to provide oversight to ensure that access and privacy obligations are met under FIPPA and PHIA, and to promote greater understanding of the access and privacy rights of Manitobans.

Charlene Paquin is Manitoba’s ombudsman and serves as the province’s information and privacy commissioner.