Parliamentary Committee Notes: Q & As - Public Disclosure and the Privacy Act
Why are these documents being publicly disclosed now?
The Public Health Agency has consistently applied the requirements of the Privacy Act to protect private employee information and to respect ongoing labour relations proceedings. PHAC also consistently sought to protect information the disclosure of which it considered would be injurious to national security.
Fully unredacted documents were disclosed to the Ad Hoc committee on public interest grounds, with a view to respond to requests for transparency and accountability and in accordance with the framework set out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the leaders of the recognized parties in the House of Commons. The final disclosure to Parliament and the public results from the Committee’s decision and from determinations of a Panel of Arbiters as to which information needed to remain protected.
Why are there still redactions in the documents?
The documents, as tabled, continue to contain information that is redacted on the grounds of privacy and security. Under the MOU, an independent Panel of arbiters composed of three former judges reviewed the documents and identified the information that ought to remain protected on those grounds.
Did you advise the Privacy Commissioner?
Yes, PHAC informed the Office of the Privacy Commissioner regarding this Public Interest Disclosure, to support the process set up in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the leaders of the main parties in the House of Commons on October 31, 2022.
Is the disclosure of these documents in Parliament by the Minister of Health permitted under the Privacy Act?
PHAC disclosed personal information to the Ad Hoc Committee of Parliamentarians and the Panel of Arbiters on public interest grounds as described in the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act applies to federal government department and agencies. The public interest disclosure made by PHAC was made to support the process set up under the MOU, with a view to an eventual tabling before Parliament. That said, the Privacy Act does not apply to the House of Commons or the Senate, including the work of their committees.
The information has been vetted for release by a Panel of Arbiters, which was entrusted to determine which information could be released to maximize transparency and which information had to remain protected, including on privacy grounds.
Why are the names of the two Scientists public?
The names of the scientists are already in the public domain, and this supports the transparency sought by Parliament on this issue.
Why have other names been redacted?
Other names (except lead external investigators), including but not limited to those of current and former employees, contractors and university associates, are redacted to protect privacy and security of those who participated in the administrative investigation.
Did PHAC-NML work with the Panel of Arbiters in the preparation of the version of the documents that will be released, including their redaction?
PHAC worked with the Panel of Arbiters assigned to prepare the documents for the Ad Hoc Committee’s review to ensure that the documents would provide Parliament with a full understanding of the events while continuing to respect the privacy and security of employees.
- Date modified: