Private Member's Bill C-593

Something that all vets and their families should note: Conservative MP Laurie Hawn has tabled a private member's bill to modify the Department of Veteran's Affairs Act that ought to concern us all. It reads as follows:

6.61 (1) Personal information relating to a person referred to in subparagraph 4(a)(i) may be made available to appropriate authorities if the Minister is of the opinion that the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure or that disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates.

(2) The Minister shall notify the Privacy Commissioner appointed under section 53 of the Privacy Act in writing of any disclosure of information under subsection (1) prior to the disclosure where reasonably practicable or in any other case without delay after the disclosure. The Privacy Commissioner may, if he or she deems it appropriate, notify the individual to whom the information relates of the disclosure.

Essentially, this is an end-run around our right to privacy in order to permit this government to pull the same stunt they did to Sean Bruyea and others, making it legal for politicians and anyone else the minister so chooses to have access to the personal and medical information of veterans WITHOUT NOTIFICATION. No doubt, this is couched in the false notion that it will provide the ability for veterans to access medical services and be proactive for helping veterans. However, we already have a mechanism that accomplishes this: signed consent for the release of information. Moreover, these invasive measures are restricted to CF Veterans, not RCMP or police forces. Time to take a stand, write and complain to your MP, share this post, and vote your conscience in 2015.

No Cons for 2015

What purpose would this policy serve? What is the end goal to modify this DVA Act? Why now? Where does this violation of privacy end?
Is this an overt method to keep Veterans quiet using a form of fear mongering?

The only reason that appropriate authorities (I read police forces), should be told about a Veterans' medical file, is in an extreme life and death situation. Like the case of the Vet who was killed by police out west. But even then, they knew he suffered from PTSD, because his mother told them, but they still decided to go in hot, rather than allow his mother or doctor, to talk him down. So if police are going to ignore significant medical information provided to them, why bother releasing it in the first place? I mean, if they cared about his medical condition, they could have used several non-lethal means to disarm him, rather than shooting and killing him. He only had a hatchet, so they could have tried tear gas, sting grenades, tasers, a net gun, bean bag gun, heck even rubber bullets would have done the job, without ending his life.

wholly crap will these frackers never fracking stop its just one attack after another. we should not vote our individual conscience in 2015 we should vote our collective conscience.

we decide right here how we ALL should vote ,if you are willing to participate, and then we ALL vote that way.

propat

cprtrains do you have a link to this bill. I'd like to read what is in para 4(a)(i). I was aware that Hawn wanted to table a bill to have a copy of a releasing CF members medical file given to them upon their release. His intention was to reduce red tape and wait time as the applicant can photocopy and attach medical info to their application.


However he said absolutely NOTHING about the above and you are right this is an end play to violate a person's right to privacy. So I'd like to see the list of people referred to in para 4ai.

POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE MINISTER

Marginal note:Powers, duties and functions of Minister

4. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend and apply to

(a) the administration of such Acts of Parliament, and of such orders of the Governor in Council, as are not by law assigned to any other department of the Government of Canada or any Minister thereof, relating to

(i) the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces or merchant navy or in the naval, army or air forces or merchant navies of Her Majesty, of any person who has otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to war, and of any other person designated by the Governor in Council, and


(ii) the care of the dependants or survivors of any person referred to in subparagraph (i); and



(b) all such other matters and such boards and other bodies, subjects, services and properties of the Crown as may be designated, or assigned to the Minister, by the Governor in Council.


R.S., 1985, c. V-1, s. 4;
2000, c. 34, s. 11.

seems to me that's it well at least they left dependents and survivors out FOR NOW.

propat

Found the link to the bill:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6529992&File=24#1

If this Bill is to be for both CF and RCMP why is there a special clause for CF members only? Yes this is an invitation to violate a CF Veteran's privacy!

The way in which I understand the amendment is to clearly eliminate the red tape that authorities have to go through to obtain personal information on a certain individual who has formerly been in the armed forces.

Is it, or is it not a breach of our privacy ?

Well yes one could say it is, however, if they wanted personal info on any one of us before this amendment was put in place, they could obtain it, but the time in which to obtain it, would take much longer, and may come to late to address what indeed they are seeking.

Also, the way I read it clearly states that the authorities seeking the info have to follow a procedure that has to go through the minister, and it is the minister that makes the call in rather it is in the public interest to do so, and if it outweighs our invasion of privacy.
It also refers to making such a call if it is to benefit the individual.
Further, the minister has to notify the Privacy Commissioner of any such call made to allow for any disclosure in writing,  prior to the disclosure where reasonably practicable or in any other case without delay after the disclosure.
Also, the Privacy Commissioner may, if he or she deems it appropriate, notify the individual to whom the information relates of the disclosure.

So for me when I first read it, the first thing that came to mind was WTF !
However, after reading it over, and looking at the procedure that has to be followed in obtaining any such info, I think now, I have a better understanding where they are going with this.
If the intention here is to help Veterans, I am all for it.
If the intention is to simply invade our privacy, obviously I would be against it.

I have my doubts that this amendment was put in place to simply invade our privacy, and this is why, yes we are Veterans, but we also are Canadian citizens,
any attempt to invade our privacy without proper cause, would be subject to be heard by the courts.

So for me,  for the moment, I don't see this as some sort of  attack on us, I see it as perhaps a way in which to help.
Time will tell I guess.
One more thing to consider here, if any of us do fall into this situation where there has been disclosure, make certain they have a dam good reason for doing so.

Of course, as always, just my own opinion on the matter.

Also, my thoughts and comments are geared towards security issues only, anything else I would definitely be against it.

The thing with this is, normally the only time people outside of VAC, may need or seek our private information, is to either administer medical treatment, or to determine entitlement to a benefit (such as CPP(D)). But in my experience, if they need the info, they ask you to complete an access to information form, and I've yet to be told that the process took too long. And if we are incapapble of signing the form, it should be the responsibility of of NoK.


But if this bill does get passed, and they do abuse our privacy, it will be too late to do anything about it. The damage was likely already done. And most of us do not have the money saved up to hire a lawyer to take them to court, if we are even notified of the breach.

Rex,

I fully agree, my comments reflected only security issues, edited my post to reflect that.

I may have mistaken the amendment to only include, and or mean security issues.

lets face it they steel our info a lot more than we know ya they got caught a couple of times and had to pay but if this law was in place they wouldn't have had to pay as it would be a free for all.

if you want MY personal information , well how about for a novel idea , YOU ASK ME!!!!!!!!! sounds a little crazy I know but I guess I like it better this way.

I see nothing good for vets coming from a system where one minister that will do whatever harper says decides who your info goes to and lets the privacy minister know whenever he can get around to it and that minister who also will do whatever harper says may let you know only if they fracking feel like it.

let them keep steeling it the old way if we catch them and have the time and resources we can have our day in court and can win. with this obscure amendment relying on the OPPINION of a minister well boys YOU WILL HAVE NO WINABLE LEGAL RECORSE!!!!!

always question authority

propat

Just a thought here, could this amendment be implemented for the data on those receiving awards from Veterans affairs for PTSD ?

It is true that the government has stated that they plan on working on ways to reach out and help those of us who suffer from PTSD.

If this is indeed the case, I have no problems with that, as this may help in them being able to reach out to those to ensure that each and every one of us is getting the best available support possible.

What is missing here is the lack of reasons for this amendment.
In other words define proper authorities.

So I think if one is to contact their MP, this definition of proper authorities, would be a good place to start.

ever read orwell's 1984 ya give these guys enough rope boys they just may hang YOU with it.

always question authority

propat

trooper you have made some really excellent points as I thought along the same lines. But my question is this, and it is simple.

What does passing on medical information with the Ministers permission through the Privacy Commissioner to anybody have to do with a CF or RCMP member receiving a copy of their medical file upon release?

Actually two questions...

Why does this only apply to CF veterans and not/not the RCMP?