The territory’s privacy commissioner believes the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPP) needs better implementation and a greater understanding by the public.

Diane McLeod-McKay told reporters this morning she does not feel the act needs the big changes suggested in a recent review.

McLeod-McKay issued her response to the territory’s recent review on the act.

Instead of larger changes to the act, she argued, a few minor alterations could be made.

“The ATIPP Act affects every single person in Yukon, which makes this a very important discussion for all Yukoners,” McLeod-McKay said.

“Yukon’s ATIPP Act is a good piece of legislation that protects the rights of citizens to control their own personal information.

“Some relatively small changes to the act would benefit citizens, but I am concerned that the review report suggests large changes are necessary. In my view, such changes would reduce the privacy rights of Yukoners.”

In a nine-page document that will be available today on the information and privacy commissioner’s website, McLeod-McKay specifically addressed six concerns coming out of the government’s report.

Beginning with the issue of ATIPP privacy rules being too challenging, she argued the legislation is no more complex than any other piece of territorial legislation.

The challenges, she said, are related more to the lack of full implementation than the act itself.

“The ATIPP Act as it is currently written is a sound piece of legislation, if implemented properly, would do what it was intended to do, which is enable individuals to exercise control over their personal information when engaging services delivered by Yukon government departments,” she wrote.

“Any proposed amendments to the ATIPP Act that could negatively impact individual control must be carefully considered and minimized as much as possible to ensure that the privacy rights afforded to citizens are not eroded.”

McLeod-McKay also responded to the review’s assertion that the act’s definition of “personal information” is too broad.

She argued it’s not clear how the definition could be narrowed without having a negative impact on an individual’s right to information privacy.

“If a public body collects recorded information about an identifiable individual, then the ATIPP Act should apply to the information so that the individual can exercise control over this information,” she wrote.

McLeod-McKay then went on to defend the “silo approach” taken, with each government department defined as a public body.

If all Yukon government departments were treated as one body in order to remove barriers, she pointed out, it would violate a number of key privacy principles, “and citizens’ privacy and other rights would be at risk.”

She later clarified that there could be some tweaks made to allow for limited data-sharing among departments where necessary that would continue to uphold privacy provisions.

However, McLeod-McKay does not support the wholesale transfer of data to one larger site, as that would put privacy at risk.

She also responded to the suggestion that the ATIPP Act prevents innovation because personal information can’t be shared.

“There are ways for the Government of Yukon to be innovative, without reducing the protection of privacy,” she said.

McLeod-McKay then went on to address the concern that individuals aren’t able to verify what personal information is being used and where it is.

Every public body is responsible under federal privacy laws for knowing what information it has and where that information can be found, she noted.

“The majority of individuals know what services they engage in government and to whom they provide their personal information,” McLeod-McKay said.

“(The) Yukon government is not that large. It should not be a hopeless task, as is suggested by the report, for an individual to locate their personal information after they provide it to a Yukon government body.”

The government’s report also suggested there’s a lack of public understanding around the act.

“It is not the ATIPP Act that is to blame for the public’s lack of awareness about it,” McLeod-McKay said.

“Instead, the Government of Yukon and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner should seek ways to improve public education about the ATIPP Act.”

To that end, McLeod-McKay’s office is set to hold two public information sessions about the act.

The first is set for from 11 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on Jan. 20.

The other one is scheduled for 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 23.

Both sessions will happen at the Whitehorse Public Library.

McLeod-McKay emphasized she wants to ensure there’s a more informed public dialogue going forward.

The Yukon government is moving toward plans to draft and seek public feedback on potential amendments to the act.

McLeod-McKay is encouraging Yukoners to contact the ATIPP office in the Department of Highways and Public Works, their MLA or her office to share any concerns.