2 July 2003

The statement enclosed in this message has disappeared from the web site of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, where I obtained it several days ago.  It was apparently censored by the outgoing Commissioner's replacement.

I have no knowledge of the truth or falsehood of former Commissioner Radwanski's statement.  I just find it interesting that the most politically active national privacy commissioner in the world has been forced out of office -- and that his resignation statement has been removed mere days after its publication.

The statement attempts to refute the charges against him, and claims that he has been the target of a witch-hunt because he successfully opposed numerous totalitarian Canadian government proposals.  Several of these, notably the proposal to track the movements of every Canadian citizen, were inspired by US pressure.  They were the Northern equivalents of the CAPPS 2 and TIA programs.  Further privacy-related initiatives, such as for biometric national ID cards, are still pending, and will be handled by the new Commissioner.

I called the media-relations person listed in the statement itself, Anne-Marie Hayden, and asked why it was removed and who ordered its removal.  She said she would have to get back to me on that, and also that Tuesday is Canada Day, so the earliest she could respond would be Wednesday.  She did say that the statment is available on Canada Newswire.  While the search interface there found it by title, there was no obvious way to bring up the statement itself.  Some URL hacking enabled me to display it at:

http://www.newswire.ca/releases/June2003/23/c6543.html

John Gilmore
Electronic Frontier Foundation

____________________

http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2003/02_05_b_030623_e.asp

Statement

Ottawa, June 23, 2003 -- The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, today issued the following statement:

I have today resigned as Privacy Commissioner of Canada, effective immediately.

I have been left with no other choice as a result of the actions of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and the statements about me that have been made by members of the Committee to the public and others through the media and in other ways. Indeed I have been forced out.

I assure every Canadian that I have at all times conducted myself with honour and integrity in the exercise of my duties. I have never intentionally misled Parliament or any of its Committees, nor have I committed any other improprieties. The distorted image conveyed through the media in these past weeks bears absolutely no true resemblance to me, my values or my activities. But I have been, and remain, unable to properly defend myself and set the record straight, because the process chosen to attack me deliberately and most unfairly prevents me from doing so.

From the outset when I was first appointed, I instructed the relevant public service professionals in my Office, particularly the Executive Director, to monitor all my activities for compliance with all applicable rules, policies and regulations and to advise me immediately of any concern. At no time had they expressed any such concerns with regard to any of the matters recently in the news. I also wish to emphasize that contrary to reports that the Auditor-General's just-announced review of my Office constitutes some indication of financial impropriety, it was my own suggestion to the Committee, in a letter of June 11th , before they ever embarked on their close-door proceedings with witnesses, that any concerns the Committee might have regarding expenditures be referred to the Auditor-General for impartial review.

For the past nearly three years, I have worked tirelessly to oversee and defend the privacy rights of all Canadians.

I am deeply proud of the successes I have been able to achieve for Canadians with the aid and support of the superb, dedicated professionals who comprise my Office.

These successes include protecting Canadians from grave governmental threats to privacy such as provisions in Bill C-36 that would have made the entire /Privacy Act /vulnerable to suspension at the will of a single Minister of the Government, the opening of international letter mail by customs agents on behalf of Citizenship and Immigration, and the CCRA's initially unfettered data base on the travel activities of all law-abiding Canadians. In addition to my public statements, in these and other matters my behind-the-scenes advice and intervention in less formal meetings and discussions also prevented or resolved many, many privacy intrusions.

The successes of which I am particularly proud also include persuading powerful corporations such as Canada Post Corporation, Air Canada and the chartered banks, as well as many thousands of other businesses across the country, to modify or abandon practices that were insufficiently respectful of the privacy rights of Canadians; overseeing the smooth implementation of the /Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents (PIPED) Act /that extends privacy protection law to the private sector; transforming the Office of the Privacy Commissioner into a much more vigorous and dynamic instrument for protecting and promoting privacy rights at a time of new challenges and an expanded mandate; and greatly raising the profile of privacy as a fundamental human right, so that Canadians may understand the issues, know the stakes and be better prepared to defend their rights.

Regrettably the aggressiveness, independence, and perhaps effectiveness of my approach has provoked a powerful political backlash from some who would prefer a less forceful Privacy Commissioner. For the past two weeks, I have been the target of an extraordinary and unprecedented assault on my character, reputation and credibility.

A Committee of Parliament, the Government Operations and Estimates Committee, has produced a scathing condemnation of me through closed-door proceedings that have denied me every right to fairness and due process. I insisted on testifying in public when I was summoned, because I have nothing to hide; I was refused. I am forbidden to disclose what did or did not take place behind closed doors, but I can say that to this day I have not seen any evidence and have not had access to any transcripts of testimony. Ten hours before my appearance before the Committee, one of its members was reported by Canadian Press to have said that the Committee already knew what it intended to do.

What is most unfair is that the Committee's sweeping gag order has prevented me from defending myself while the news media have been systematically provided with, and have reported, irreparably damaging "information" about me that is factually wrong, distorted or out of context. This is an extraordinary situation to befall any Canadian in our own country in the 21st Century.

Even today, my counsel has advised me that I simply cannot afford the risk of holding a press conference and answering questions -- as I profoundly wish to do -- for fear that I might inadvertently say something that the Committee could interpret as a breach of its gag order, with incalculable consequences.

Much in me wants to continue the fight -- because I am passionately committed to carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to me to serve Canadians, and because I believe what is happening threatens the whole system of Officers of Parliament mandated to carry out their duties fearlessly without the threat of being removed or forced out of Office at will.

But what has been done in the past two weeks, and the failure of anyone in a position of authority in Parliament, government or the public service to speak out or intervene in my defence against the profound unfairness of these proceedings, has made it impossible for me to do my job. Irreparable damage has been inflicted.

Therefore I have regretfully concluded that I must not continue this fight, much as I wish to do so, because my duty commands otherwise. My duty, at whatever personal cost, is to do what will best serve the continued effective protection of the privacy rights of Canadians, what will best protect the credibility of my Office and its crucial functions, and what will best spare others within and outside my Office who are likewise dedicated, hard-working and of the highest integrity from continuing to be collateral victims of the attack directed against me.

In resigning, I have recommended to the Government and to the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate that Mr. Gerald Neary, the distinguished and long-serving Director General of Investigations of this Office, be appointed as interim Privacy Commissioner. I have done this because I believe that in this difficult time, continuity and stability are essential to the survival of this Office as an effectively functioning agency. I also believe that it is essential that this appointment from within be a person who has had no involvement whatsoever in the matters of recent weeks. I have further recommended that Mr. Neary be considered as an excellent candidate to be appointed the next Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

While I am prevented by the gag order from responding in detail to the many false and distorted things that have been said and reported about me, I wish to reiterate in the strongest possible terms that I have always conducted myself with the utmost respect for the public trust conferred on me. I have been neither wasteful nor self-serving. On the contrary, I was always determined that the public interest receive maximum value from everything I did, and this I have accomplished.

Let me illustrate with a few examples, to put into some context the deeply unfair and painful damage that has been done to my reputation.

Contrary to what was reported recently, I did not spend $5,000 on a pre-Christmas celebration for a few senior officials of my Office. This was an event for the entire staff of the Office -- approximately 100 people -- to convey appreciation for their excellent and hard work throughout the year and to provide me with an opportunity to address the entire staff about the accomplishments of the past year and the priorities for the future. Both the Executive Director of my Office and other relevant officials assured me that this was an appropriate expenditure under the employee incentive program.

The particularly expensive business lunches and dinners -- of which there were very few -- that have been the subject of much media reporting and commentary did not involve any officials at all from my Office. They were working meetings between me and important external contacts --
including professionals, experts, Ministers and Deputy Ministers -- that were necessary and valuable to the exercise of my duties. In many instances, the restaurant was chosen by the guest, not myself. In the case of professionals, the cost of the hospitality was a considerable saving to the public purse over what they would otherwise have billed in hourly rates for their time. I also had working lunches with some of my most senior subordinates, although at a reasonable cost that was nowhere near the amounts reported in the media. This is a practice that I understand to be common at the Deputy Minister level which is the rank that the Privacy Commissioner holds.

In the public sector as in the private sphere, comparatively informal discussions over meals are an indispensable instrument for any top or senior executive to obtain information, conduct constructive dialogue, resolve outstanding issues and solidify contacts. Canadians were entitled to expect that I would utilize this instrument, as I utilized all other means at my disposal to carry out my duties as effectively as possible.

A great deal of money was spent on travel. Travel is expensive, but essential to the mandated responsibilities of the Privacy Commissioner in today's circumstances.

Most of the expenditure was on travel within Canada, criss-crossing the country to deliver speeches, primarily to business audiences and primarily about the /PIPED Act /which is coming into effect in stages and affecting the private sector across Canada. Last year alone, I delivered 31 speeches. Since I became Privacy Commissioner less than three years ago, I have given a total of 92 speeches, all but a few of them outside Ottawa. Even at that, I had to decline more speaking invitations than I accepted.

All this travel to deliver speeches, answer questions, give media interviews and conduct meetings was in direct execution of my statutory obligation under the /PIPED Act /for public education and raising awareness about privacy and privacy issues.

Canadians are well served by the extent to which I was able to succeed in meeting this obligation. Three years ago, most Canadians did not know who the Privacy Commissioner is, what he does or why it matters. Now privacy is increasingly being recognized as the fundamental human right that will so greatly determine what kind of society, with what level of freedoms, we not only will have for ourselves but will leave for our children and grandchildren.

There is clear empirical evidence of the results that all my communications efforts, but particularly my incessant travels to spread the word in every part of Canada, have brought to Canadians in terms of awareness of their rights. Inquiries to my Office have increased from 11,500 in the year 2000 to 30,000 last year. Hits on the Web site of my Office have increased from 5,000 per month in the year 2000 to more than 60,000 per month last year.

I have also travelled internationally to deliver speeches, attend conferences and conduct meetings, and it was to the benefit of Canadians that I did so as part of the execution of my duties. Last year, I made 10 international trips, half of them to the U.S. To put this into context, it was recently reported that last year a fellow Officer of Parliament, the well-respected Auditor-General, made five international trips. Taking into account that privacy protection in a post-September 11 environment of increasingly globalized anti-terrorism measures and law enforcement has far more of an international dimension than does auditing, my foreign travel was certainly not disproportionate.

My trips to the U.S. enabled me to raise awareness among American decision-makers about Canada's different approach to privacy rights and about the role of the Privacy Commissioner in our system. I was specifically advised at a very high level of Government that this would help to make it easier for the Canadian Government to resist some U.S. pressures for new intrusions on privacy rights.

My trips to the U.S. also helped me to serve Canadians by better understanding the initiatives that American authorities are implementing or contemplating, and their potential impact on privacy rights in Canada. They also enabled me to forge relationships with leading U.S. privacy advocates, in order to make common cause in protecting privacy rights on both sides of the border. Through an initiative of the American Civil Liberties Union, I was invited to testify before the City Council of Washington, D.C. on street video surveillance. As a result of meetings I conducted in Washington on another occasion, several members of the U.S. Congress expressed an interest in creating an American position of Privacy Commissioner along the Canadian model.

Likewise my international travels outside the U.S. benefited Canadians by helping me to better understand privacy issues that have an international dimension, including the monitoring of internet and wireless communications, biometric passports and identity cards, collection of airline passenger information, and genetic privacy. They also helped me to work to position my Office as an international leader in privacy protection, with a view to developing common approaches that would benefit Canadians and others around the world.

As a result of my efforts, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will host the International Conference of Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners from around the world in Ottawa in September, 2004. This will massively raise the profile of privacy rights and privacy issues not only in Canada but in the neighbouring U.S. through media coverage and observer participation, and will allow the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to set the agenda for international discussions.

All the travel costs, domestic and international, were doubled by my decision that it was necessary and appropriate for me to be accompanied by a senior official to serve as a witness when I answered questions, gave interviews or conducted discussions to protect me against misquotation or misinterpretation; to participate in meetings and discussions; to take notes and make follow-up arrangements; to establish contacts for future relations with my Office; to assist in dealing with media requests; and to help me with continuing the ongoing work of the Office while traveling. Some people may disagree with this decision, but it was within my rights as Commissioner to make it. I did so in order to have the assistance I considered essential to serve Canadians as effectively as possible.

In leaving my position, I wish to thank all those, in government and outside, in Canada and abroad, who were so helpful and supportive to me in the exercise of my duties.

I above all want to thank all the outstanding members of my staff who worked with superb and shining professionalism, effort and dedication to contribute to the well-being of every Canadian, and indeed of the nation as a whole, by overseeing and defending the fundamental human right of privacy. I challenged them to achieve excellence, and they rose to this challenge beyond measure. I am profoundly and forever proud of them, and I hope that when this current climate of character assassination has faded, perhaps they will also be proud of me and the good that we were able to achieve together.

I hope that all fair-minded Canadians will judge me by what I have accomplished on their behalf and by the unwavering vigour, commitment and spirit of service with which I have carried out my duties, and not by the vicious, untrue and distorted things that have recently been said and reported about me. I have paid a heavy price in these past days for doing my job of overseeing and defending the privacy rights of all Canadians as I believe they deserve to have it done, but I leave proudly and with no regrets except for being unable to carry on this vital work.

I will continue to seek to serve Canadians and contribute to the public interest in whatever future ways may be open to me, as I have done in one capacity or another my whole adult life.

-- 30 --

For more information, please contact:

Anne-Marie Hayden
Media Relations
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Tel: (613) 995-0103
ahayden@privcom.gc.ca
http://www.privcom.gc.ca

Last Updated: 6/26/2003 4:

Top of page
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media%2Fnr-c%2F2003%2F02_05_b_030623_e.asp#Top

Print Version
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2003/02_05_b_030623_e.asp?V=Print