OTTAWA—The federal privacy watchdog’s concerns over electronic snooping are being met with silence from members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet.

Interim Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier directly appealed to four cabinet ministers and the federal government’s chief bureaucrat to reform Ottawa’s electronic snooping practices between February and March. Only one cabinet minister, Treasury Board President Tony Clement, has responded to Bernier’s letter.

“We are hopeful that we may be heard,” Bernier told the Star.

“I have written to every minister that has one of (our) recommendations directly within their field of competence . . . (saying), ‘I would like to hear how you would address this recommendation.’ ”

Bernier’s requests, stemming from her January special report, include:

Asking Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, Justice Minister Peter MacKay and Defence Minister Rob Nicholson to broaden oversight for Canada’s spy agencies, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE).

Requesting the Clerk of the Privy Council, Wayne Wouters, release an overview detailing Canada’s security and intelligence operations, as well as describe underlying processes of intelligence gathering and internal controls. Bernier also suggested the PCO should clarify the relationship between Canadian spies and their international partners.

Suggesting Nicholson should have CSE produce annual statistics in aiding other law enforcement agencies, as well as an annual report to Parliament.

Asking MacKay to reform existing privacy laws to curb over-collection of personal data, and to control its disclosure.

MacKay, Nicholson, and Wouters have yet to respond to the requests. Blaney’s office said they received the letter only after being contacted by the Star and following up with the commissioner, and they intend to respond in turn. MacKay and Wouters have also indicated they intend to respond, but declined to say when.

Clement released his response to the commissioner on Thursday, after the Star reported federal agencies have been scouring Canadians’ social media profiles for personal information.

Facing questions in the House of Commons and from reporters, Clement said the government is willing to work with the privacy commissioner to develop rules around Ottawa’s collection of personal data online.

“I will certainly have the discussion with her, and if something makes sense to modernize the guidelines pursuant to the law that already exists, I’d be happy to do that,” Clement said.

“I’ve been advised today, upon inquiry, that this is the collection of aggregate data to be used on an aggregate basis to inform us about reactions to government programs. So I think that’s what Canadians want us to do, to learn from them how government programs affect them in positive or negative ways and improve government programs.”

Clement said the government uses the information only to gauge public opinion, and does not store the information for further use. Charlie Angus, the NDP’s ethics critic, said the government needs to give a more complete explanation about how Canadians’ data is collected and used.

“We need to tell Canadians exactly why the government is tracking them on Facebook,” Angus said.

“This is the government that has already spied on one of its so-called enemies, (aboriginal activist) Cindy Blackstock. Spied on her Facebook page, they were snooping her, tracking her, because she was speaking up for First Nations children.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“What’s to say they’re not doing it to others?”

While Clement has agreed to work with the commissioner, it’s not clear if her other recommendations will be entertained by the government. Chris Parsons, a privacy scholar with the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto, said the government has little incentive to change the current system or increase oversight.

“As revelations come out, that could be hurtful to government,” Parsons said. “There’s an understandable political value in not (enhancing) these audit powers. You can just imagine the first audit is performed and it reveals very high amounts of personal information being collected from various sources . . . . It could be politically unhelpful.”

Read more about: