Private Member's Bill C-593

Conservative MP Mr. Laurie Hawn for Edmonton riding in the Parliament House Debates logs which  can be found at this link. I read several comments by the MP that has some concern for Veterans. This below comment by MP Hawn in April 2014  is in advance of the latest tabled amendments to the  DVA Act discussed yesterday and I am trying to connect the dots as to how it went from this comment  below to the tabling of amending the DVA Act as discussed yesterday with access to personal information by departmental government agencies outside of DND and DVA.

openparliament.ca/politicians/laurie-hawn/                      

Laurie Hawn   Edmonton Centre, AB

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

I know I'm going to run out of time, so I'm going to throw out two or three things and let you chew on them.

Sean, I basically agree with most of your recommendations. A couple I disagree with and a couple I agree with partially or whatever. This is going to sound like a crass question, but it's the reality, and you've mentioned that. Philosophically cost is no object; practically speaking there are limits. So I guess to what Mr. Lizon said, if you could put some priority to these, that would be helpful. That's not to say the ones at the bottom don't matter; it's just that there are some practical realities that we have to deal with.

One of the issues I've been seized with for a long time is access and barriers and burden of proof. We can argue about the amounts of various benefits and so on, and those are all fair points. How much would it alleviate at least part of the problem if we lowered the burden of proof—i.e. dropped the insurance company mentality and made access easier? By that I don't just mean burden of proof, but I mean things like turning an 18-page form into a 5-page form—which is happening, by the way—and making sure the website is more friendly for those who can use the website and so on. How much would that go to it?

The other one is I'm tabling a private member's bill tomorrow that isn't the be-all and end-all, but it will address at least partially the issues of transferring medical information from DND to VAC and giving the member control over his or her own medical information. I can't go into details, because it hasn't been tabled yet. If you could chew on those three things.... I'm sure you have a cost to this. Is that a fair statement?

I sent an email to MP Hawn to explain to me in lay persons terms what the C-593 means for Veterans and will advise if I get a reply.

laurie.hawn @ parl.gc.ca

Love to read that...if it happens LOL Thanks Sparrow

thanks sparrow great stuff . really burden of proof and reducing paperwork complete BS !!!

ya want to deal with burden of proof and the insurance coy mentality the loss of privacy part of this does absolutely nothing to help .

how about this revamp VRAB you fracking spuds!!!!!

yup it reduces one piece of paper of course that's a piece of paper YOU WANT but the GOC doesn't want you to have.

boys I sighed on knowing full well I was giving up a lot of my rights and I was fine with that.

I fully expected when I was out I would get those rights back.

now they want to start nibbling away at those rights and treat us like second class citizens .

NO I want the same rights as all Canadian citizens including the right to privacy .

WE did our part to uphold these rights now that we are done with that we deserve to enjoy them.

always question authority

propat

I find this “proposed” bill C-593 … very peculiar. Is it to expedite efficiency or just a red herring for more ulterior cost cutting? Aka... blowing a buck on our dime and every other taxpaying Canadian.

And what’s this proposed bill got over other signed consent that’s always been in place.
Not the vac 928e (3rd party) but a general vac goc one I signed 20 copies of in the last few years (catch-22).

Better inter-governmental dept. communication? My arse. It’s money. And perhaps a precursor to what the goc may have to contend with post isis/isil for our guys and guys.
Who knows. Assumptions abound and although this bill is only proposed, let’s not get complacent. WERE TALKING PRIVACY AND INFO HERE.

Just my opinion. Pinger.

Sparrow, you won’t get a straight layman answer from MP Hawn

If anyone can,Sparrow can deliver!

The question here is why ?

What is the reason behind having the minister share our private info to the authorities.

I did some digging and found a read that was written by David MacLeod.


Laurie Hawn’s Private Member’s Bill Will Violate Privacy of Serving Military Personnel and Veterans, According to Veterans Advocate

This was written by David T. MacLeod and submitted to Defence Watch:

On April 9, 2014 the Honourable Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP for Edmonton Centre, tabled his Private Member’s Bill C-593 entitled the Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Former Members Personal Information Act. Hawn incorrectly claims that veteran’s do not have access to their medical files. The Bill is a thinly veiled effort to violate veterans and serving RCMP and soldiers’ privacy.

The bill would allow the “…Minister of Veterans Affairs to release personal information relating to a veteran to the appropriate authorities if disclosing that information would be in the public interest”.

Public interest?!? It is never in the “public interest” to have privacy violated. If veterans’ privacy rights are violated then you dear reader – whoever you are – are next. Changes to the act would allow government unfettered access to your personal information. Canadians should be concerned about the erosion of their privacy.

Currently, serving or former RCMP or CAF members easily obtain a copy of their medical records by using a simple access to information form. The forms are readily available online or in a variety of military and government offices. When veterans apply to Veteran Affairs Canada (VAC) for disability services and benefits a consent form is signed and their records are transferred in their entirety. Hawn is creating a problem that does not exist – unless you consider the challenges veterans have created for the current government.

The act would allow any veteran to have his or her files accessed and transferred between departments. Transferring information between departments would allow the government to place pressure on advocates, monitor activities of the wounded, and monitor anyone with past service. Bill C-593 will inadvertently provide government with information about our spouses.

Canadians should be worried. But, if the Justice Department were functioning appropriately you would not be reading about Bill C-593. In Dec 2012, Edgar Schmidt sued the federal government for failing to verify if proposed Bills violate the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bill C-593 is proof that Edgar Schmidt is right.

Privacy should never be a veteran issue and in this case it is not. Canadians should be concerned about the erosion of privacy. Bill C-593 must be defeated or immediately challenged in the courts.

Here is another read, Written by Barry Lamb on Friday, 18 April 2014.

Note: He gives and explanation on the receiving a certified copy of our medical records.

However, he does not give and explanation of the purpose, and or reason, of Veterans Affairs Canada to release information to the appropriate authorities.

Larry Maguire, Member of Parliament for Brandon-Souris has seconded the Honourable Laurie Hawn's Private Member’s Bill entitled the Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Former Members Personal Information Act.

"Since I was first elected I have been in constant contact with local veterans and retired RCMP members. I believe this legislation is long overdue and I will work with all Members of Parliament to ensure it is passed into law," said MP Maguire.

This bill addresses a problem frequently heard from veterans: that they cannot access their own medical files in order to access benefits to which they are entitled. This bill enshrines their right to that information in law and puts the power to request that information and share it with the Department of Veterans Affairs where it belongs: in the hands of the veteran.

Specifically, this bill takes action on two fronts:

1. This bill will guarantee that members of the Canadian Forces (CF) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) will receive a certified copy of their medical records when they are released from the CF or the RCMP, or at any time after that upon request.

2. The bill also allows Veterans Affairs Canada to release information to the appropriate authorities and departments if disclosing that information would be in the public interest or would clearly benefit the veteran to whom the information is related.

"As a former fighter pilot, I like to take action. One of the main reasons I got into politics was to take action and make sure that Canada’s veterans would be well cared for and, in fact, better cared for. This bill does exactly that. This bill will put in law a veteran’s right to access their medical records," said MP Hawn.

Letters to the Editor

Brandon Sun - PRINT EDITION
Questionable veterans bill won't win my vote

By: None

Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2014 | Comments: 0

I would like to have every veteran to read Bill C-593. Ask the question, why do we need a bill like this?

First off, we can get our medical records when we request them with no issues. Second, VAC gets the medical records with no issues. So why the bill?

In my view, until and explanation as to the purpose of the part of the amendment that allows for the minister to share our private info is brought forward, I now can say that I am certainly against that part of the amendment, and the amendment has indeed been implemented.
In fact without and explanation, it is indeed, a breach of our privacy.

Further, this part of the amendment should be cause for a legal review.

just another blatant attack on vets . will these frackers never stop it one hit after another. I realize this GOC consider us the enemy but wholly crab guys cut us a break cant you find another enemy to attack for a while say ISIS. oh right you are doing that.

the guys you are sending will be vets some day thus future enemy. not a bad idea having your enemy fight your enemy .

you may be as evil and corrupt as people say you are but you are as smart as they say you are as well.

WELL DONE YOU FRACKIN NUMMERS!!!!!

propat

RE: Email response from MP Hawn in part reads as follows:

Thank you very much for contacting the office of the Hon. Laurie Hawn, Member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, about amending the DVA Act.

Mr. Hawn welcomes hearing from Canadians and being made aware of their views.

Laurie would like to ensure that his constituents are well-served. Due to the high volume of email correspondence, priority response is given to residents of Edmonton Centre.

Well folks, I am not in Edmonton ~ perhaps someone who is can get more information then I was able to.

Finally,

I have found what appears to be and explanation as to the purpose of the amendment.
Read it, and decide for yourself if you feel it warrants merit.


Laurie Hawn Responds: My Private Members Bill Is Intended To Protect The Public Interest and Veterans

By Laurie Hawn
Conservative MP
Defence Watch Guest Writer

I am concerned about what I consider to be over-the-top comments by David MacLeod about veterans issues and my Private Members Bill C-593. Nothing that I have ever done has been intended for anything other than the overall benefit of veterans.

I know that there are always people looking to be insulted or looking for ulterior motives when there are none; but to suggest McCarthy-an motives is simply too much.

My Private Members Bill C-593 is intended to enshrine a procedure that is not applied uniformly or expeditiously; to speed up the process of transitioning from being a soldier to being a client of VAC; and to protect the public interest and the veteran in difficult circumstances.

We heard many times during our recent committee hearings about delays in accessing medical files and a feeling of being abandoned after leaving the CAF.

I have personally heard the same comments from several other retiring soldiers. Yes, the procedures are there, but they do not appear to be applied uniformly, and C-593 simply intends to prescribe the procedure. If that turns out not to be required, I’d be happy to amend the bill.

The “public interest” is defined as:

1. the welfare or well-being of the general public; commonwealth: health programs that directly affect the public interest.

2. appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest.

It does not mean that the individual “public” has any right or reason to have personal details of veterans. To suggest that the “thinly veiled intent” of C-593 is to invade privacy or to intimidate anyone is the height of paranoia. Why would I or anyone else be interested in satisfying anyone’s inappropriate personal interest of that nature? That makes no sense on any level, and some folks may need to give their heads a shake.

The intent of that section of the bill is to allow the Minister to share relevant information with appropriate agencies, such as police and other emergency services, to prevent crimes such as carrying out threats of personal violence or other acts that would clearly not be in the “public interest” nor to the “benefit of the veteran”.

I and others have seen such threats first-hand. It could also save a veteran’s life, in the event of a potential suicide, or, for example, to prevent the administering of an anti-biotic that the veteran might be allergic to, in an emergency situation. That would be both “in the public interest” and to the “clear benefit of the veteran.”

We have concluded committee testimony and are in the process of initiating what we are all determined will be broad and significant changes to the Veterans Charter. All members of all parties are working very harmoniously to that end and we will continue in that spirit.

I would simply invite David MacLeod and others to hold their fire and give those who are actually on their side some credit for trying, even while they may question the results. No matter what we do, it will never be fast enough and it will never go far enough.

So there you have his explanation as to the purpose of the amendment, and he gives a couple of valid situations, and or reasons why this could be helpful to us.
However, with every positive, there's bound to be a negative.
So in this particular case, do you think the positives far outweigh, any negatives that you may find ?

Mr. Hawn has been told by many advocates and current members of the CF. If you want to make sure a retiring/medically released member gets a copy of their medical file then contact the CMP (Chief of Military Personnel) and have it on the list of being released.

In other words make it a Standard Operating Procedure!

Teen,

He may have been told that, which makes perfect sense, but decided to add it to the bill, for perhaps thinking it will be for certain in place.

The thing here is what I have stated with regards to the sharing of info, I am thinking now that the intention of this amendment was brought forward with our best interest at mind.

However, just because the good intention is there, that in itself, does not qualify for what is right.
It is true that examples were given as to the reasons behind it, and the fact that it may save lives deserves merits.
However, I cannot help in coming to the realization that we as Veterans now have no say, and no control on our own private info, I am not comfortable with that, no disrespect to the MP, but my own privacy is just that, mine.
It is my view that there should have been a clause stating "EMERGENCY ONLY" I would not have a problem with that.
But as it written, and stands today, our privacy is gone, and that I have a problem with, even though good intention were brought to light, in the argument for this amendment.

Again, no disrespect to Mr. Hawn.
Any one individual that is willing to help us the Veteran, should always be welcomed with respect.

However, we as Veterans do, and should always keep in check with respect to how we view opinions, and or implementations that affect each and everyone of us.
For the most part it is simply ones point of view, that is brought forward to react to others, and as always to have a discussion on these different points of views amongst ourselves.