OTTAWA––In a national ramp-up of secrecy, the RCMP has stopped routinely identifying the names of victims of accidents, car crashes and crimes.

The force won’t say when or why it adopted the new approach, which was slammed Thursday by privacy experts, a victims’ advocacy group, and the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.

The Mounties say they are bound by the 30-year old federal Privacy Act – and refuse to explain why secrecy is suddenly the new default, even in cases where a victim’s family may wish their loved one’s name known to the public.

“At a time when we’re struggling to reach out to these families to provide the support . . . this just makes it way more difficult,” said Andrew Murie, CEO of MADD Canada, the anti-drunk driving organization.

“It’s a disastrous decision, for (our ability) to provide support for these families.”

As recently as five months ago, the RCMP appeared to be identifying victims of tragic car accidents in Saskatchewan and Alberta. According to a recent report in the Calgary Herald, however, the Mounties have now stopped identifying victims of a range of crimes –– including homicides.

Sgt. Greg Cox confirmed the policy, saying the RCMP is a federal institution and must comply with the law. But Cox said it isn’t “new” and downplayed it.

He said if there’s an investigative reason, the law allows the police to make an exception and release the information. Yet even then, the decision to disclose remains up to the RCMP alone –– not the family of a victim.

It appears to have nothing to do with delaying publication so that a victim’s next of kin can be notified. In fact, Cox said it doesn’t matter if the victim’s family wants to waive privacy rights.

“You cannot give permission to release someone else’s information, deceased or not, so getting next of kin permission, that actually is not even a factor,” Cox told the Star. “You can’t give permission to release someone else’s information. It’s not yours to give.”

The impact of the new approach is broad, affecting millions of Canadians and their families’ right to know. While the RCMP investigates crime on the national scale, as well as serving as provincial and territorial police in eight jurisdictions, they also serve as the municipal and rural police in about 180 communities across Canada.

That includes the small community of Judique, on the western side of Cape Breton, N.S. It was there, in July 2013, that 17-year old Logan MacIntyre and 19-year old Morgan MacIntyre were killed in a car crash, along with 20-year old Joel Chandler from nearby Port Hood.

Mary Anne MacIntyre, Logan and Morgan’s mother, said she had not heard about the RCMP’s new policy until she was contacted by CBC news, which first reported it Thursday.

“I wanted people to know my sons, I wanted (them) to know what wonderful boys they were,” MacIntyre told the Star Thursday.

“And being ‘Victim A’ or ‘Victim B’ is just, to me, feels so cold . . . . I want people to know, because they were so special.”

The purpose of the Privacy Act is to protect Canadians’ personal information collected by government agencies. The law also guarantees individuals the right to access that information.

Ann Cavoukian, the former privacy commissioner of Ontario, said privacy is all about an individual being able to make decisions about how their information is used, “not the state, not the government, not a business, not a bureaucracy.”

“This is what really bothers me. Privacy laws are often used as a shield not to disclose information which may be eminently (able to be disclosed), but you might have to take an additional step like seeking the consent of the individual.”

David Fraser, a privacy law expert with McInnes Cooper in Halifax, said the Privacy Act was not expressly written to stop the identification of all victims. On the contrary, he said, police forces could just as easily read the “antiquated” law the other way, because it allows for disclosure of information if it is consistent or compatible with the reason it was collected in the first place.

Fraser believes that with some exceptions –– cases of suicide or victims of domestic assault or revenge porn where victims may not come forward if their identities are published –– the RCMP could rely on what he says is a “public interest override” to non-disclosure.

“In my experience within the RCMP, outside the RCMP, across the board with government institutions, it’s easier to say no and to point to privacy laws in order to justify withholding information . . . and then you’re essentially turning the onus around to the person who wants the information.”

The Conservatives recently passed legislation further emphasizing victims’ rights in dealing with the criminal justice system. That legislation, Bill C-32, includes a provision that states victims are entitled to have their privacy considered by authorities in the release of personal information.

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

But the RCMP said the change in policy related to the 30-year old Privacy Act, not the recently passed legislation.

Valerie Lawton, spokesperson for the federal Privacy Commissioner’s Office, said Daniel Therrien was not available for an interview and declined to comment on the RCMP’s policy, other than to say that the Privacy Act “does not absolutely prohibit the disclosure of personal information.”

“Given that it is up to the RCMP to determine whether public interest outweighs privacy concerns, you would need to speak with them about how they exercise this discretion,” Lawton said.