Private Member's Bill C-593

Tx for the clip at 1746 Trooper

But his response seems a little too vague, warm and fuzzy for me.
Pray tell where else is this general public interest going to? Who?

" 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. "

I say the afore-mentioned height of anyones paranoia is much less than this governments record of dismal failure to veterans. This MP (Lauren:) Hawn is a vet, works for us as an MP and is accountable on our payroll. I have seen too many best/good intentions fail redundantly for years and I'm an optimist.

Why can't he just say in plain english to veterans how he's trying to help? To everyday regular veterans? O.K. the bill is gobble-de-gook to the goc somewhere, but the common vet is left out of that language... and on the street.



This all makes me sad but hey... let's keep them accountable.

Bill 593 ?  If it sounds like shyte, smells like shyte, tastes like shyte... it's probably same ole shyte. pinger.

pinger,

Your point of view is what is needed here, this is what it's all about, how do we feel about this amendment, what, if any are the positives?
What, if any are the negatives ?
Does this amendment make you feel that your privacy has been violated ?
Who is accountable for any errors that may or may not occur with respect to disclosure, of this amendment ?
Do you feel that this amendment was put in place for others reasons, other than what was explain by Mr. Hawn ?

These are all questions that we should be discussing, we have some knowledgeable members here that can certainly aid in perhaps attempting to contact Mr. Hawn in informing him on any suggestions that may open the door for implementing or changing the amendments passed.

He does state that he would be happy to amend the bill with respect to the medical files, perhaps, he also would consider amending the info sharing part.
That shows me he is open to suggestions.

To me as it stands today we have three choices,

1. We accept it as it stands today.

2. We respectfully make and attempt to have it amended to eliminate the fear of privacy invasion.

3. We make and attempt to have it completely removed through legal means.

Personally, as I have stated, I would be happy with a clause stating the sharing of any info would be shared in and emergency situation only.
This way I think that the amendment would benefit the Veteran, and would also protect the government from any future law suits.
Anything other than and emergency, would be considered as and invasion of privacy.

In closing,

the prevention of any one suicide is by far, I think the main reason for this amendment, and that to me would be considered and emergency.
I am totally for any prevention in this area, and I highly commend Mr. Hawn for that.
In reality, there really should be no other reason to share our info, other than and emergency.

As always, just the way in which I see it.

Could one of the reasons for the sharing of personal information be to determine if a Veteran is living outside of Canada while collecting Sisip LTD or ELB? Secondly, is the information being shared between departments simply military related medical files and Pers File 490 or is the personal info about current facts and figures of individuals specifically post release data? My little Maltese dog has a chip identifier  embedded into her skin ~ is this next for us Veterans?

1. my personal info is mine period . it should not be used for the well being of the public but for the well being of ME.

2. is this particular rule being applied to MOP,S as well????

3. how about ALL first responders??????

4. never ever have to tell you if who when or why they gave it out !!!!!

this is a huge crock of crap!!!!!

you all know if these frackers can find some underhanded sideways retarted reason to reduce ore eliminate your pension that satisfies the the welfare or well-being of the general public part of this crap as they are tax payers.

frack it really ya know PTSD sufferers have a hard time when they read or here citrine thing so why not eliminate free speech right . make it so no one can say anything but positive things about the time you spent in the military.

hawn sounds less like a tory and more like a communist.

again this is just another attack .

propat

Well folks sometimes changing or making changes to a bill may be implemented with good intentions,
however, these good intentions could sometimes have the opposite effect, in this particular case, our privacy may end up in the wrong hands.

Here is one of many examples of a privacy invasion, that I think could result from this amendment;

Take a Veteran who is on the radar from collection agencies, DVA has all of our contact info, and medical info, plus pension income.
We all know how sneaky these collection idiots are, they eat, sleep, and constantly are looking for ways to track you down.
Could these agencies find a loop hole in the definition of public interest, to get info on us ?
This example may or may not be the best example to use, however, my point is that our privacy may have been given out with good intentions in mind,
but ends up in the wrong hands, this in my view would mean that we as Veterans have been singled out in a privacy invasion that would have not taken place
with the general public who are in the same situation, in this case your average citizen, who is on the radar from collection agencies.

In my own view, any info that has been been given out by mistake, from this amendment, could, and should be grounds to sue.

trooper I understand that you want to see the "good" intentions of this bill. But like I said the sole purpose of his bill is to make sure retiring/medically released personnel get a copy of their medical file.

It is not meant to "single out" only CF vets that their privacy can be breached with the 'nod' of approval from the Minister then contact/inform the Privacy Commissioner. Why isn't the same breach of privacy to include the RCMP's info?

It's only CF veterans! Why? Because we do not have a collective bargaining agreement like the RCMP has and I'm willing to bet a dollar it's in their CBA for retiree's.

Laurie Hawn may think he's helping but he's not. He is creating a massive problem.

Teen,

The way in which I read the amendments is that it is in two parts,
one part being access to medical files,
and the second part deals with sharing of private information.

As far as having access to medical files, I was never aware that this was and issue,
however, this part of the amendment is not of any concern to me.

As far as the sharing of our personal and private info, that is a different story,
when I stated good intentions, what I meant by that was simply to address that the opposite of good intention could very well take place here.
Like I have said, our info could very well end up in the wrong hands.
I agree, this part of the amendment is definitely on shaky ground, and like I said should be at the very least either amended, or taken out completely.

So when you state that,
Laurie Hawn may think he's helping but he's not. He is creating a massive problem.
I am with you on that.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6529992&File=27

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.

For all intents? and medical record purposes, maybe discard the bill. Use what is in place now. In doing so, there would not be a pandora's box of privacy fiascos.
As an aside, lets remember WHO the vac minister is....

“appropriate authorities” ? Tentatively, I want to know who. Federal departments? Provincial departments? Municipalities? My doctor, the local police? Third parties?
Appropriate authorities is too Carte Blanc for me. And I’m not hiding anything.

Also… “The Privacy Commissioner may, if he or she deems it appropriate, notify the individual”
How about the Privacy Commissioner must notify the individual?

But this all reminds me of any release of info consent form, heck, they don’t tell you everytime they communicate.
But as popular as consent forms are, after you sign one where is the opting-out of consent form? Not as popular.

I’m also reminded  of some C.C. provision, where if it’s deemed you pose a danger to yourself or the public the “authorities” will….. intervene (for your own good).

Just a very rambling thoughts. pinger.

So it begs a question. What benefit does Laurie Hawn see in this bill that we do not? pinger.

pinger doesn't look like rambling to me . if ya don't mind id like to sum that up in my words.

everything he SAYS he wants to do with this is already happening.

propat

maybe so they can do what they did to Sean Bruyea and others with impunity ???????

propat

Just got word from the Ombudsman's office...this bill was dropped!!!!

Well... Alleluia. This is good.

But I still find the very proposal of this bill very offending and sinister. The audacity.
Moreover, Mr. Lauren should explain to his peers ( US ) his cockamanie reasoning
even after the fact.
To us, at a coffee table, townhall chit-chat and cut the bullshyte.

Respectfully... is he not accountable to us? or just incompetent?

This will keep happening. So, I figure knock on my MP's door before they knock on
mine come election time... very politely, but very clear and strong.

Do it to them, before they do it to you. pinger.

sweet teen thanks for that.

propat

Teen,

great news for sure.

If you ever find out what was behind the reason for dropping it, please let us know.

To be honest, I am a bit surprise to hear that, as it has already been amended.

It would be great if they actually heard our voice of opposition to the amendment, and acted in our favor.

Or is that being to optimistic ?