# Privacy breach at Veterans Affairs



## Nemo888 (23 Sep 2010)

VAC really can't get anything right can they.

Privacy breach at Veterans Affairs ‘struck terror in our hearts’ 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/privacy-breach-at-veterans-affairs-struck-terror-in-our-hearts/article1718767/


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> VAC really can't get anything right can they.
> 
> Privacy breach at Veterans Affairs ‘struck terror in our hearts’
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/privacy-breach-at-veterans-affairs-struck-terror-in-our-hearts/article1718767/



I don't know how many persons actually clicked your link way back when and read the article; but, I think it's very interesting that VAC is claiming that the lump sum was never about the money when the Freedom of Information request and files & records obtained by Mr. Bruyea yeiled this juicy tidbit ...



> Records unearthed by Mr. Bruyea over several years and made public this week reveal bureaucrats highlighted the intimate details of his mental-health issues in several e-mails and briefings, including to former Conservative veterans affairs minister Greg Thompson and former Liberal veterans affairs minister Albina Guarnieri.
> 
> Current Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn criticized the handling of Mr. Bruyea’s medical files and vowed to implement recommendations from an upcoming report into the matter by Canada’s Privacy Commissioner.
> 
> ...



Glad to hear that you are retiring Ms. Guarnieri with that gold-plated pension and that limiting VACs financial liability to disabled vets is considered by you to be the highlight of your career. That's very telling ... it's almost as if you know you'd not be elected again.


----------



## Future Pensioner (5 Oct 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> From Question Period Friday:
> 
> Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):  Mr. Speaker, over the past few days we have announced several measures to support our veterans, especially recent veterans. We plan to address lump sum payments next week.  What we have heard about the lump sum payment is that some people, although not everyone, were having difficulty managing the amount of money when they received it in a single payment. We are in the process of looking at that, and we will be making a positive announcement for our veterans in a matter of days.




Is anyone else getting very tired of all this????

It is not enough that (as Ms. Stephenson so eloquently wrote) Veterans Affairs has made some of us feel like "scheming insurance defrauders from a John Grisham novel", now the Minister seems to be implying that some of us are not disciplined or capable enough of handling the lump sum payments on our own.  I am very tired of being treated like a second class citizen who has to fight for everything that I am entitled to and then made to feel that I am inadequate as a person because I don't manage my affairs the way that they think I should.

SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE THE "BAD MAN" STOP!!!!!!!


----------



## Dog Walker (5 Oct 2010)

Let’s see if I understand this right. 

In 2005 the government, with the support of all of the party leaders changes the rules at VAC to limit their financial liabilities towards wounded vets; at the same time they are planning to moves Canadian troops down to Kandahar where they expect the number of casualties to significantly increase?  ???


----------



## dogger1936 (5 Oct 2010)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Let’s see if I understand this right.
> 
> In 2005 the government, with the support of all of the party leaders changes the rules at VAC to limit their financial liabilities towards wounded vets; at the same time they are planning to moves Canadian troops down to Kandahar where they expect the number of casualties to significantly increase?  ???



Yes. Media please jump on this.


----------



## Wookilar (6 Oct 2010)

I don't believe in coincidences in timing and government policy changes. They were simply looking after their bottom line instead of looking after us. I wish I had something poetic to post, or something simply thought provoking, but all I've got is a sinking feeling.

Wook


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2010)

There needs to be more, a lot more than just *”recommendations”* and new rules and procedures coming from the Privacy Commissioner’s report referred to in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/watchdog-condemns-alarming-privacy-breach-at-veterans-affairs/article1747351/


> Watchdog condemns ‘alarming’ privacy breach at Veterans Affairs
> 
> BILL CURRY
> Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




I have a few ideas:

First: Jean Pierre Blackburn has to go – no matter what the price in Quebec support. His presence on the government front bench is a continuous running, pussy sore. Fire him and demand public apologies from Greg Thomson and Albina Guarnieri, too.

Second: Don’t just make penalties "much stricter” in the future, apply all the exciting ones now – to everyone involved, from the Deputy Minister on down. It will be a *national disgrace* if a single VA civil servant with any involvement in the improper sharing of information receives a performance bonus. Many need to be fired for cause – publicly.

Third: Change the Deputy Minister and most of the ADMs now.

Fourth: Make DVA a branch of DND, with a minister of state and an Associate Deputy Minister only. It is too important to remain, as it has been since the 1960s,a convenient dumping ground for people who would not, otherwise, ever be allowed in cabinet but who must be there to ensure provincial representation. DVA is a disgrace because it rarely has any real, adult, political leadership – _Gorgeous George_ Hees (1980s) being, perhaps, a notable exception.

Fifth: Prime Minister Harper to personally apologize to veterans, in the HoC, for the ineptitude and wrongdoings of DVA/VAC over the years.


----------



## Wookilar (7 Oct 2010)

I agree 100%. Now, whether this actually has any political legs in another thing all together.

I must put in one caveat however.

I spoke to the local VAC people here in Gagetown about the privacy breaches. They are pissed to say the least. It is drilled into them on how to properly handle information, especially medical information and how it is to be shared. There was more than a little bit of hurt feelings in that they are being painted with the same brush as those at the senior levels of VAC.

My experience is not expansive and only involves the offices in Edmonton, Kingston and Gagetown (and by extension, Saint John and Charlottetown). I must say that, in my experience, I have been treated with respect at all times and I believe them when they say they are very careful with my docs. One member yesterday even went so far as to explain in detail how their filing system works and why only 1 copy of my docs are supposed to exist. They are just as torqued about this whole affair as we are. This whole thing makes the front line worker's jobs much more difficult than they already are.

 :2c:

Wook


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have a few ideas:
> 
> First: Jean Pierre Blackburn has to go – no matter what the price in Quebec support. His presence on the government front bench is a continuous running, ***** sore. Fire him and demand public apologies from Greg Thomson and Albina Guarnieri, too.
> 
> ...


All great outstanding ideas - not likely to happen (think "meteorite hitting a chosen spot" odds), but this would certainly highlight the gravity of  the mistakes make.


----------



## HavokFour (7 Oct 2010)

*Privacy breach of veteran 'unnacceptable': Harper*​


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper is promising strong action following a "completely unacceptable" breach of privacy involving a war veteran who was an outspoken critic of the military.
> 
> Privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart revealed on Thursday the results of an investigation which found that the Veterans Affairs Department broke the law in its handling of the personal information of retired intelligence officer Sean Bruyea.
> 
> ...



Article


----------



## wildman0101 (7 Oct 2010)

Funny, I live in Vernon, B.C. ..And I'am amazed bt all the "support the troop's"
Logo's. I wear a black base-ball cap with same. I notice'd people, just our 
average canadian, wearing said LOGO. Then I noticed something special. 
Those old vet's are coing outa the woodwork wear ball-cap's with Regimetal
emblem's. I almost walked by a vet with a "hong kong" association. I shook 
his hand and said "thank-you". He seen the Armoured fist . smiled, slapped 
me on the shoulder and walked on with a big smile. 
My point is Veteran's Affair's if they care so much why can't you.
Get your house in order before you C@@@ on us veteran's.
This post to Veteran's Affair's and all response's will be directed to me by
PVT PM.


----------



## old medic (11 Oct 2010)

Veteran’s wife wants bureaucrats to pay for sharing medical info 
Adrian Morrow
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/veterans-wife-wants-bureaucrats-to-pay-for-sharing-medical-info/article1751885/



> The bureaucrats responsible for digging through veterans’ advocate Sean Bruyea’s medical files must be held accountable to stop such breaches of privacy from happening again, his wife said Sunday.
> 
> The privacy commissioner is launching a review of Veterans Affairs Canada. However, the government must go a step further, Carolina Bruyea said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2010)

As I understand it, and I may well be wrong, the _available_ sanctions are limited to:

1. The loss of a few days (5 days?) pay after some sort of administrative tribunal; and

2. No award of performance bonuses to those, in the executive category, who might qualify.

Both should be applied to those who participated, actively, in the information sharing. It is not, necessarily, *wrong* to have received the information which one ought not to have seen; it is wrong to have sought it, or to have kept it, or to have passed it on to others, or to have 'aggregated' it for future use, and so on and so forth. It is also wrong to not have protested that the information was being shared in an improper manner and that's why so many senior people in Charlottetown ought to be punished.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Oct 2010)

1. All, if not most of the VAC employees, belong to one or another union.

2. $200,000??? Must be born in Canada to sue the government for only that amount.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> 2. $200,000??? Must be born in Canada to sue the government for only that amount.



I read a news article that says he will only be entitled to $20,000 if he wins the suit since he's unemployed. As if the impact of what they did to him is reduced because he's retired.

I think each and every person who accessed his file inappropriately should be suspended without pay for at least a month. Set an example for others.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Oct 2010)

> I read a news article that says he will only be entitled to $20,000 if he wins the suit since he's unemployed



I read that also, but do not understand the the limit. Possibly someone can explain it.

In light of the recent awards and attempts to sue the government by new Canadians, $200k is peanuts.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I read that also, but do not understand the the limit. Possibly someone can explain it.
> 
> In light of the recent awards and attempts to sue the government by new Canadians, $200k is peanuts.




Agreed; what was good enough for Maher Arar ($10 Million) ought to be about right for the Bruyea family, too. It can be easily recouped by delaying a civil service pay raise by a month or so - a _pour encourager les autres_ sort of thing.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2010)

While the Minister may ultimately be required to fall on his sword, it appears that the bureaucrats were actually responsible for the breaches. It is they who should bear the brunt of any sanctions.


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> While the Minister may ultimately be required to fall on his sword, it appears that the bureaucrats were actually responsible for the breaches. It is they who should bear the brunt of any sanctions.



I've seen unionized public service employees fired for their transgressions ... and this one would certainly seem to be a serious breach with systemic implications throughout the department.

Anyone, who used or passed vets confidential info (or who failed to immeditely put a halt to this illegal practice) to anyone not officially requiring to see it in the official course of their duties, should be fired. It's pretty straight forward in my mind.


----------



## Rick Goebel (11 Oct 2010)

I really hate to come to the defence of bureaucrats, but I wonder how many accesses to the file were proper in terms of department procedure.  In the course of a couple of relatively simple disputes I had with government departments, it certainly appeared that every phone conversation I had and every letter they sent involved a different employee.  In a complex case with lots of contacts, I could certainly see a large number of people "needing" to access the file at one time or another.  Does anyone know how many of these accesses to the file were even alleged to be "not required"?


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2010)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> I really hate to come to the defence of bureaucrats, but I wonder how many accesses to the file were proper in terms of department procedure.  In the course of a couple of relatively simple disputes I had with government departments, it certainly appeared that every phone conversation I had and every letter they sent involved a different employee.  In a complex case with lots of contacts, I could certainly see a large number of people "needing" to access the file at one time or another.  Does anyone know how many of these accesses to the file were even alleged to be "not required"?



We have to sign Access requests for even our OWN personal assigned pension advocate to access our medical records. 

There is a systemic issue with VACs processess & policy when any one of them can then access a file without my, or my advocates, permission. If I only get one advocate, then their staffing of my file should then also be limited to an "assigned case worker(s) ONLY" and not every Tom, Dick & Harry in the department who may/may not receive a phone call or a letter on Day X. not your file? Then hand it over to the case worker to whom it IS assigned. There ... that was easy. 

Social Services manages to assign case workers (although they are swamped) and those not assigned have no right, and no business, being in that not-assigned case record ... you'd think a Federal department full of Federal Employees with such an important and privacy-heightened task could do so as well. It is NOT rocket science.

There's no excuse for just "anyone" being able to access any soldiers file. They'll certainly make excuses, but that is far from "justifying" this lack of security and discretion with Veteran's confidential medical records.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2010)

Of course files are required and in a good, functioning bureaucracy information is, routinely, collected, collated and, as appropriate, shared.

Medical information, however, is of a special order and is NOT required by anyone except a select few medical professionals - it is NEVER required by e.g. ministers.

Most bureaucrats in all departments are decent, usually modestly and sometimes very hard working, dedicated public servant who really want to _serve_. But, as in any organization, including the CF itself, some members cannot quite grasp the rules and they bend and then break those rules in a misguided effort to 'support' their organization and to 'win' every bureaucratic battle with clients.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Oct 2010)

_"it is beyond the purview of the commissioner to fine the officials responsible."_
Wow, that is really annoying though not surprising. I guess she doesn't want to get fired too.

We could just take over VAC with the priority hiring program for Vets.  If anyone one knows what credentials they need please post them. Maybe I'll ask around a bit Tuesday. Wouldn't take too many of us to straighten out these folks once we were inside and indeterminate*.

* indeterminate = job for life


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Oct 2010)

My understanding of the system VAC uses for claims is that the Adjudication Department clerk, _*who is not a medical professional*_, reviews the report of the claimants’ medical condition/claim. The Adjudication Clerk then fits the *words* from the medical professional's report into VAC's Table of Disabilities. Then, if the correct *words* are presented, and all the round pegs are fit into the appropriate holes, you may be successful with your claim.

I say words, because I have experienced this on several occasions where the appropriate phrase/word from the Table of Disabilities was not used. The prescription drug or treatment was refused with the option to appeal within sixty days. 

Additionally, since 2006, VAC's Medical Officers cannot recommend anything. All they do is complete a Medical Questionnaire with words and check marks. An Adjudication Clerk can and does overrule a licensed Medical Doctor, either the VAC District Medical Officer, the military MO, or a civilian practitioner

Know what a Summary of Assessment is? The Adjudication Clerk, processing a claim, checks the summary to ascertain what you have been awarded, for what and how much, then a decision is made on a claim.

 I fail to see what reviewing the Summary of Assessment has to do with a claim that is currently being assessed. VAC updates it after every decision is made.

If you appeal, guess what? That same Summary of Assessment is reviewed by the board members of your Review Hearing, or at the final appeal stage, the members of the Appeal Hearing when making their decision on your claim. The VRAB is supposed to be independent and impartial, so why do they have access to the claimants’ Summary of Assessment?

*Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB)*

*Our Vision*

To demonstrate fairness, competence and excellence in service to Canadians by providing independent, consistent and reasonable decisions that are grounded in law.

*Our Values *

Impartiality, Excellence, Integrity, Respect, Balance


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> *Our Values *
> 
> Impartiality, Excellence, Integrity, Respect, Balance



Wow. This one kills me; especially as a girl who sat in front of them with her advocate during my appeal. I blew my eustacian tube & eardrum while on duty & refuelling a herc in -65 degree weather one day at CFS Alert (NOT considered a Special Duty area). Massive infection, but I was a one-of and still required to venture outside each day to refuel the day tanks so that the station would have heat and power to cook etc. I am now deaf on the left. This is OK - it is my OWN medical information of which I am now speaking.  

At my appeal, they sat on the other end of the table, interrogating me (whoever compared them to an insurance company is 100% bang-on!!) and finally ended with a "well, if your injury was actually caused by your service, then every other Zippo who has served in Alert would be deaf too; and they are not." <--- their actual words!! My advocate then tried to argue with them that every other Zippo had not been required to also walk kms of pipes to find and replace a frozen valve just prior to refuelling a herc and the day tank, but that, due to my still being required to go outside every day afterwards for a couple hours with a massive infection that eventually developed into a tumor that had to be surgicly removed certainly held that "my service, at least then, must have _contributed_ to my condition". A couple weeks later, I got the "Denied pension" letter in the mail.

Eerily enough, my condition must worsen or "new" factors must come to light before I can file another appeal. Guess what? I can't get any deafer, so that won't happen. And, there won't be any "new" info either - seeing as how my file contained the pre-req CF98, witness statements from the aircrew and the medics (mini & Maxi), statements from all present when it occured, and one from the Station CO explaining that I was a one-of and on duty doing my job when it happened, records of conversations between Maxi & the 8 Wg B Surg discussing a medevac possibility and the super-anitibiotics that had to be flown in from Trenton to try to fight the infection etc etc. I had it all. It also contained all my medical records from before I joined the CF ... just to prove that I had never had any problems with my ears nor ear infections until that fateful incident - just in case they tried to pull the "chronic condition - not attributable to service" <--- that's actually what got me the appeal because my original claim was denied as being a "chronic condition" by them even though there was diddly squat in my military records relating to any problems or issues with my ears. 

Thanks VAC - you rock!! I have not had many opportunities to feel as belittled as you managed to make me feel that day. It's one that I will not forget.


----------



## Greymatters (12 Oct 2010)

I had one for my back denied as well, but I didnt have anywhere near as much support information or documentation as Vern had...


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> We could just take over VAC with the priority hiring program for Vets.  If anyone one knows what credentials they need please post them. Maybe I'll ask around a bit Tuesday. Wouldn't take too many of us to straighten out these folks once we were inside and indeterminate*.
> 
> * indeterminate = job for life


Until the rules change, it won't matter who's enforcing them.


----------



## Petard (14 Oct 2010)

VAC I suspect is watching this site closely, and there is certainly risk in saying really too much about anything. But I believe there is a need to have a hard look at the attitudes present in that institution, that a number of us have dealt with already.
Seeing how this Bruyea case unfolded, and Vern's story, it is certainly discouraging to anyone even thinking of making a claim, never mind an appeal.

So perhaps it is a good thing that they look closely at how these rules appear; how dare they claim integrity now?


----------



## Journeyman (14 Oct 2010)

Petard said:
			
		

> So perhaps it is a good thing that they look closely at how they appear; *how dare they claim integrity now*?


I would suggest that that is a problem with institutional arrogance. 

I doubt if they are even remotely concerned about what is said here; if they're concerned about anything, it's more likely what's being reported in the open press -- and that, only because their bosses may read it.


----------



## Greymatters (15 Oct 2010)

Petard said:
			
		

> VAC I suspect is watching this site closely...



That would be an acknowledgement that the opinions of current and former serving members actually matter to them.  Further to Journeyman's comment, I doubt most of them even know this site exists never mind what is said on it...


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2010)

Petard said:
			
		

> VAC I suspect is watching this site closely ....


If not the officials, the communications folks _should_ be....

Meanwhile, the apology:


> The Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Veterans Affairs Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture) today issued the following statement:
> 
> "I wish to hereby give an update on the case of Sean Bruyea versus the Government of Canada.
> 
> ...


More on this in these threads:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/96787.0.html
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/96784.0.html


----------



## dapaterson (25 Oct 2010)

The principle of Ministerial accountability calls for Blackburn to be fired.  Post-haste.

And I would suggest that the public accounts of Canada be examined to determine how much "Performance Pay" and "Pay at risk" was awarded to public servants within VAC in the years when this information was shared.  That should be the starting point for discussing compensation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The principle of Ministerial accountability calls for Blackburn to be fired.  Post-haste.
> 
> And I would suggest that the public accounts of Canada be examined to determine how much "Performance Pay" and "Pay at risk" was awarded to public servants within VAC in the years when this information was shared.  That should be the starting point for discussing compensation.


Agreed on both counts, but betting a loonie neither the resignation will happen.

Edited to fine tune prediction


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2010)

Minister Blackburn _may_ be one of the few ‘innocents’ in all this, but, as this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, indicates the written apology is not enough for Mr. Bruyea and it should not be enough for Canadians, either:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/apology-by-press-release-not-enough-veterans-advocate-says/article1771840/


> Apology by press release not enough, veterans advocate says
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...




My guess is that Mr. Harper will not force or even allow Mr. Blackburn to do the _honourable_, indeed _constitutionally_ required thing and resign; cabinet making with this current crop of Québec MPs is hard enough; Blackburn may not be a star but he’s not a real dog, either.

Harper should realize that a verbal apology, in the HoC, with Mr. and Mrs. Bruyea in the gallery is almost certainly the least painful way to put a political end to this. Eating a bit of crow always works.

An exemplary and punitive shuffle of one deputy minister and a few ADMs, and directors general would also help.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Oct 2010)

Here is a relevant cartoon from yesterday.  






http://media.metronews.topscms.com/images/2b/97/a193867749d49e938e511ccf7d48.jpeg


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2010)

The _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that Sean Bruyea has settled his suit with VAC. The terms of the settlement are confidential but the article reports that Bruyea said _'he'll continue his advocacy work on behalf of veterans. He thanked Mr. Blackburn and Prime Minister Stephen Harper for helping find a “dignified and expedited closure to this matter.”'_

Sadly, we may never know if any disciplinary action - lacking in force thought it may be - was ever taken against the many, many people who abused Bruyea's privacy *rights* by passing his CONFIDENTIAL information to people who had no need or right to see it. Since we know the information went, at least twice, to ministers that means that, *at the very least*, the Deputy Minister (and some others) ought to be denied any performance bonus this year and, additionally, he (and the others) ought to be required to repay any bonuses they received since this fiasco started, but ...


----------



## dapaterson (18 Nov 2010)

Some of the financial information will eventually make it into the public accounts for FY 10/11.

It is unfortunate that Government lawyers insist on non-disclosure in such cases; almost as if they feel the Government has something to hide.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Mar 2011)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/veterans-affairs-says-54-bureaucrats-disciplined-over-personal-file-leak-117606138.html

*Veterans Affairs says 54 bureaucrats disciplined over personal file leak*

By: The Canadian Press, Posted: 03/8/2011 3:42 PM 

OTTAWA - Veterans Affairs has disciplined 54 bureaucrats who improperly accessed the personal file of an activist vet.

Some were given three-day suspensions, while others were formally reprimanded.

A two-month internal investigation found that 614 employees looked at medical records and psychiatric reports in Sean Bruyea's file, but many had no need to do so.

Some of the information was included in briefing notes for a former veterans affairs minister in an attempt to discredit Bruyea.

The privacy commissioner found the bureaucrats violated the privacy law, which prompted the federal government to fast-track a $400,000, out-of-court settlement and an apology for Bruyea.

Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn says the department didn't emphasize privacy protection before the Bruyea scandal erupted and that was taken into account in meting out punishment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/veterans-affairs-says-54-bureaucrats-disciplined-over-personal-file-leak-117606138.html
> 
> *Veterans Affairs says 54 bureaucrats disciplined over personal file leak*
> 
> ...




And I'll bet they will all get their "performance bonuses" at year's end.

This is a disgraceful response by a gutless bureaucratic _centre_ in Ottawa and by the upper levels of VAC in Charlottetown.

Departments didn't have to "emphasize privacy protection," it was the frigging law! What a sadsack minister and what a useless bloody departmental management team. This stinks. Heads, beginning with the Deputy Minister, herself, should have rolled


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And I'll bet they will all get their "performance bonuses" at year's end.
> 
> This is a disgraceful response by a gutless bureaucratic _centre_ in Ottawa and by the upper levels of VAC in Charlottetown.
> 
> Departments didn't have to "emphasize privacy protection," it was the frigging law! What a sadsack minister and what a useless bloody departmental management team. This stinks. Heads, beginning with the Deputy Minister, herself, should have rolled



Can't you hear the rationalization?

And if we can the senior management, our service to all our deserving clients will suffer. And the media will hear about it, and make a really big thing about suffering veterans and widows.


----------



## old medic (9 Mar 2011)

Bureaucrats who violated veteran's privacy get ‘slap on the wrist’
Murray Brewster
Ottawa— The Canadian Press 
08 March 2011
copy at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bureaucrats-who-violated-veterans-privacy-get-slap-on-the-wrist/article1934385/


> Veterans Affairs bureaucrats who rifled through the personal files of a department critic were handed written reprimands and three-day suspensions – penalties the victim calls a “slap on the wrist.”
> 
> An internal investigation found 54 veterans bureaucrats improperly snooped through Sean Bruyea's personal files, including medical and psychiatric reports. Some of them used the information to smear the outspoken critic.
> 
> ...


----------



## GK .Dundas (9 Mar 2011)

I'm waiting for one the so called civil serpents  err oops I meant servants to sue the Government for all the  anguish  and suffering they had to endure while undergoing their draconian suspensions. And for their union to mutter darkly about the chilling effect this going to have on others in their position.


----------



## kstart (27 May 2012)

*"Review: 'no malice' in vets privacy scandal"*
http://metronews.ca/news/canada/239526/review-no-malice-in-vets-privacy-scandal/



> OTTAWA – An independent investigator who reviewed privacy violations at Veterans Affairs Canada told the Harper government in late 2010 it was appropriate to include the personal medical information of an outspoken advocate in briefing material, say internal federal documents.
> 
> The central finding of the Amprax Inc. review flies in the face of the country’s privacy watchdog, who concluded almost two years ago that two briefing notes sprinkled with the references to well-known critic Sean Bruyea’s psychiatric reports broke the law.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (28 May 2012)

Holy giant balls of shamelessness.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/28/pol-cp-bruyea-veterans-privacy-breach-consultant.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Veteran's privacy not violated, internal review found
Privacy commissioner disagrees, finding references to psychiatric reports in briefing notes broke law

An independent investigator who reviewed privacy violations at Veterans Affairs Canada told the Harper government in late 2010 it was appropriate to include the personal medical information of an outspoken advocate in briefing material, say internal federal documents.

The central finding of the Amprax Inc. review flies in the face of the country's privacy watchdog, who concluded almost two years ago that two briefing notes sprinkled with the references to well-known critic Sean Bruyea's psychiatric reports broke the law.

The report was prepared for former veterans minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn at the insistence of bureaucrats who were the target of Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart's scathing critique of the case.

The review, which cost taxpayers $24,990, didn't find "any malice" or "fault" in the actions of bureaucrats and senior department officials.

"The Minister had the right to obtain the information provided in the two notes," said the review, part of a briefing package dated Dec. 21, 2010.

"The Minister also had a need for that information. The Minister had a need for that information at those very moments. It is debatable whether he needed all of it. Most people believe he did."
'Several' notes contained sensitive medical information

The records, requested by The Canadian Press 18 months ago, were released last week under access to information laws following a complaint to the country's information commissioner.

The internal investigation by Amprax also uncovered evidence that Bruyea's private data had been stitched into more than just two documents.

It found that "several briefing notes contained sensitive medical information concerning a complainant. As well, the notes contained significant detail about how the complainant interacted with the department."

It laid responsibility for the mishandling of the information at the doorstep of the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister, but largely excused the actions as ignorance, rather than characterizing it as a deliberate smear campaign against Bruyea, who was a critic of the Conservative government's implementation of the New Veterans Charter.

"The question of malfeasance clearly do not apply in this case," the document said. "Everybody was trying to help the client. What can be reproached is a lack of sensitivity to privacy and a lack of adjustment of the policies and procedures."

It was noted some of the bureaucrats involved had retired, "but even if they were still in the system, it would not be a question of discipline. It would be a question of performance. Performance pay is the tool to deal with those situations, not discipline."

The Privacy Commissioner's Office acknowledged it was aware of the Amprax review, but declined to comment on its contents. Instead, spokesman Scott Hutchinson noted that the commissioner is conducting a comprehensive audit of Veterans Affairs.
Government 'covering its tracks': Bruyea

Bruyea was shocked at the contents of the report and said it goes part of the way towards explaining why no one was fired over his case or subsequent breaches involving other critics.

He described it as a "white wash" meant to save reputations at the expense of his own.

"It shows contractors can be hired to find any conclusion the government wants and it's pretty clear it was a pre-ordained conclusion," he said. "What I was afraid of was that the only thing the government would learn was to how to hide and cover its tracks and that's exactly what happened."

Senior officials in the current minister's office would not speak about the contents of the report on-the-record, but claimed it played no role in the government's actions and it was the privacy commissioner's findings that influenced the subsequent tightening of rules.

The company that conducted the review is headed by Alain Jolicoueur, a former career civil servant who served as deputy minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and president of the Canada Border Services Agency.

The current deputy minister at veterans affairs also served in a senior position at Indian Affairs, but not at the same time as Jolicoueur.

Codi Taylor, a spokeswoman for minister Steven Blaney, said recently announced improvements "provides targeted training to employees to ensure that they are aware of their obligations to follow the law when it comes to protecting the private information of our veterans."

She reiterated that the government believes that "any privacy violation is totally unacceptable."

Questions about the handling private information at Veterans Affairs first arose in June 2006, according to the Amprax report.

"It should have triggered serious concerns at the department level about practises around the sharing of private information.

There is no evidence that a review occurred at the level of the department to deal with those concerns."


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2012)

Holy "holding a mirror in front of a mirror", Batman!





> The privacy watchdog is looking at whether a Veterans Affairs investigation of a breach of privacy actually involved another breach of privacy.
> 
> The department hired an outside contractor, Amprax Inc., to look at how personal information about veterans advocate Sean Bruyea ended up in a ministerial briefing note in 2006.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 4 Jun 12


----------



## Wookilar (5 Jun 2012)

Seriously?  I thought that the Amprax "investigation" was absolute crap to begin with but this takes the cake.

Who thought it was a good idea to hire a (former) snr bureaucrat to investigate other snr bureaucrats in the first place? Don't these people get taught even the most basic tenets of the "front page challenge?"


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2012)

This from the House of Commons yesterday on the latest:





> _Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP):_  Mr. Speaker, cutting culture and spying on veterans. The Conservatives have a fine record, to be sure.  In terms of violations of veterans' privacy, we thought we had seen it all. But here we have a Department of Veterans Affairs' inquiry into privacy violations that is now under investigation itself for privacy violations.  The allegation has led to an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner.  Can the minister tell us why he is incapable of putting a stop to the continued violations of veterans' privacy?
> 
> _Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):_  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. Our government believes that any breach of confidentiality is totally unacceptable. That is why we do not agree with the Jolicoeur report. We do agree with the Privacy Commissioner's report and that is why I have asked the staff in my department to co-operate fully with the commissioner during her investigation.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (6 Jun 2012)

Bonuses appear bogus

Veterans Affairs managers rewarded for dodgy results
 Calgary Herald June 3, 2012
Article Link

The news that 57 of the top brass at Veterans Affairs Canada raked in nearly $700,000 in extra pay awarded in bonuses and for getting results in 2011, elicits a two-word response: What results?

The results the department has achieved in the past few years have been less than stellar, and certainly not worth an approximate breakdown of $12,200 extra per manager.

Veterans have made public a litany of complaints about the department, including shabby treatment and privacy breaches. No wonder Gulf War veteran Sean Bruyea describes the bonus situation as "way out of whack with reality."

After Bruyea claimed in 2010 that the department had misused his personal data and harassed his family in an effort to discredit his advocacy, federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said that the department had broken the law. A lawsuit was eventually settled out of court, and the department apologized, but Bruyea says every one of the civil servants in his lawsuit received bonuses.

This kind of work in the private sector would more likely result in someone being shown the door, rather than being handed a fat cheque for a job well done.

In February of this year, veterans ombudsman Guy Parent found that many veterans were also unable to appeal the department's denial of benefits because no reason was given for their claims being rejected. Without a reason given, an appeal can't go forward.

Parent also found that the language used to communicate with the veterans was convoluted and confusing, and that veterans may have been wrongly assessed but were left without an avenue of appeal because the letters they received "did not reveal where the department's decision was flawed."

One has to wonder what the managers of Veterans Affairs need to do in order to get passed over for bonuses, if the above incidences aren't enough to make a dent in their annual windfall envelopes.

The bonuses are decided upon jointly by Treasury Board and senior managers at Veterans Affairs - and the latter's involvement is pretty bad optics.

Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney needs to take charge of this mess by calling those senior managers on the carpet and instituting some guidelines by which real results are measured before bonuses are handed around.

Sadly, the impression left by all of this is of a department more interested in perpetuating and enriching itself than in helping those who risked their lives for this country and came home to an uncaring bureaucracy whose priorities have been lost. Blaney has some serious work ahead of him to correct that perception.
end


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2012)

VAC Info-machine:  Lookit all the changes made to the privacy rules!


> The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs, announced today the full implementation of key elements of his Privacy Action Plan 2.0, which was launched in May 2012. This is part of ongoing efforts to further strengthen the protection of personal information at Veterans Affairs Canada,
> 
> “Our Government recognizes that building and maintaining a strong culture of privacy demands ongoing vigilance,” said Minister Blaney. “We are pursuing the highest standards in privacy protection so that all Veterans can be confident their personal information is safe and their rights are being fully respected.”
> 
> ...



More on the new privacy plan here.


----------



## blackberet17 (2 Nov 2012)

We have one big software which basically runs the show, if you will, called CSDN, Client Service Delivery Network.

It wasn't until the privacy breaches were made public that the ACCESS CONTROLS built into the system WHEN IT WAS FIRST DEVELOPED were finally implemented (essentially turned on, for Pete's sake) roughly A YEAR after the first breach was made public.

Now it's all tracked. We can't access a file on CSDN without indicating for what purpose. Any client file which is being watched for any reason (I don't know what the criteria are) and you try to access it? You get an e-mail, to which we must respond within 24 hours, or they then send an e-mail asking your supervisor to verify the reasons.

It's just one of the new measures I know about anyway. Others are not presently within my arcs


----------



## Wookilar (2 Nov 2012)

That's interesting.

Now, to play devil's advocate kinda sorta, does that result in any kind of slow down wrt waiting for responses or clearance to look at files?

And does this really stop the higher levels briefing the minister and DMs? I do not believe that the ground level workers ever really compromised anything, it all seems to be higher level functionaries.


----------



## blackberet17 (4 Nov 2012)

Some good questions there wook.

It doesn't slow down anything, really. Reading through client files is still a paper-based process for the most part. It takes time and money to create electronic versions of all the documents in a client's file.

The Minister (or his staff, really, which is a separate entity of sorts from the VAC staff) is continuously briefed, just like any other Minister would be (Health, Treasury, Transport, etc.). And it's the ADMs' job to brief the Minister, right? Very similar to any normal CoC.

Now here's the tricky thing with the privacy breaches, and this is already public knowledge, but a lot of folks gloss over it.

I'll take the example of a good friend of mine. Rick went to a VAC District Office in Victoria BC a few years back to look into what he needed to do to apply for a pension. He was never a client before. That first point of contact created a Client Note in CSDN, essentially creating or opening an "account" for him with VAC. A few months later, he called the 1-800 number, which initiated a Client Note again, and he was sent an application form.

A couple months later, Rick completed the application as best he could, and went to the DO to drop it off. Client Note created. A Case Manager starts looking into the Rick's file, and notes something's missing from the application. She calls Rick, and leaves a message. Client Note created.

Already, we have four Client Notes created, so four accesses into this new account on CSDN, and Rick's application hasn't even left the District Office yet.

By the time his application gets to Charlottetown, and it's reviewed by a Disability Adjudicator, and the service docs are ordered and received and copies made and sent back, and the medical docs are ordered and received and you get the point, and then it all goes to a Medical Advisor, and so on, and Rick calls to check on the progress, and etc...long story short, we could have 50 different people accessing Rick's account on CSDN.

There are lots of stories and rumours regarding the privacy breaches. Some folks received suspensions, some got letters of reprimand (call it a Written Warning), some were pushed into retirement. It's not an area I can really comment on. But a lot has been in the press about "hundreds" of people accessing client files who, to some, may have had no reason to access the file. The reality is far different. The CSDN network is the electronic repository of client information. Your address is there, phone number, a lot of banal stuff. You call or write in an update to your mailing address because you've been posted? Bang, at minimum one person is going to access it.

Anyway, this is a minor vent on my part. A lot has been made about the breaches, and maybe some people were in the wrong, and others could have been just a clerk changing your postal code by a digit. Very  few of us lower peons know much about the briefing notes and all that fun stuff which has hit the press, it's out of our arcs.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Nov 2012)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/09/veteran-minister-breach-of-privacy/

Veterans minister halted ombudsman’s investigation into breach of soldier’s privacy

n investigation by Canada’s veterans ombudsman into a controversial breach of privacy was quietly shut down last year on the instructions of Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney, newly released documents reveal.

Blaney asked the ombudsman to discontinue a probe that his predecessor had ordered in January 2011, after the confidential medical information of veterans advocate Sean Bruyea was spread around the department in an alleged smear campaign.

Information from a psychiatrist’s letter was stitched into a ministerial briefing note at the same time Bruyea, an outspoken critic, was publicly criticizing a controversial overhaul of veterans benefits in 2006.

Former veterans minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn asked the ombudsman to investigate Bruyea’s privacy breach, even though the office of the privacy commissioner was already looking in to what happened.
Related

    Disabled veterans, widows slam Harper government ahead of Remembrance Day

    Matt Gurney: Veterans deserve a job at least as much as bureaucrats

    Tories spent more than $750,000 in court battle against veterans’ pension claim

The hope was the ombudsman would get to the bottom of why the personal information of Bruyea and others was rifled through by bureaucrats — motives that were not the focus of the overarching privacy audit by commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.

But in July 2011, just two months after Blackburn went down to electoral defeat, Blaney — Blackburn’s replacement at the cabinet table — wrote to ombudsman Guy Parent to ask that the probe be halted.

“I have since been able to carefully review this case with my officials,” Blaney wrote in the letter, obtained by The Canadian Press.

“We have determined that the best course of action is a review by the office of the privacy commissioner. In this way, the commissioner can complete an assessment of the department’s actions and conclude on its compliance with the requirements of the Privacy Act.”

Lisa Monette, a spokeswoman for the ombudsman, said Parent agreed the privacy commissioner was best positioned to review the matter, but that the ombudsman “stood willing to assist as needed.”

A spokesman for Blaney, Niklaus Schwenker, said the minister acted swiftly to refer the matter to Stoddart, and reiterated that the Harper government has “brought forward sweeping privacy improvements within the department.”

The federal government settled a lawsuit with Bruyea out of court and has implemented a series of measures meant to tighten up the handling of personal information within the department.

Veterans Affairs is in the unusual position of holding a vast amount of personal data — including medical files — on ex-soldiers, some of whom turn into outspoken critics.

    Obviously they’re trying to hide something

A number of advocates other than Bruyea have claimed their files were used to discredit them within the department and political circles.

One of the country’s most decorated veterans of the Bosnia war, retired sergeant Tom Hoppe, is one of those who says officials were snooping in his records in 2006.

Hoppe, who plans to protest by not wearing his medals on Remembrance Day, said no one has atoned for the violations of personal privacy.

In an audit released a few weeks ago, Stoddart gave the veterans department a thumbs-up, suggesting it had cleaned up its act.

Blaney’s letter startled New Democrat veterans critic Peter Stoffer, who said it calls into question the independence of the ombudsman.

“When he gets a request to look into something, that office should have the independence and the staff to do so,” Stoffer said. Precisely why the privacy breaches occurred remains an unresolved issue, he added.

“They had a change of heart — why? There’s no question the government suddenly changed its mind and didn’t want the ombudsman to look into it. Obviously they’re trying to hide something.”

Schwenker pointed out that Parent had the option of continuing with the investigation.

“The Office of Veterans Ombudsman does not follow our direction and is fully independent,” he said late Friday. “The independent ombudsman is free to pursue any case he wishes and MP Stoffer knows this full well.”


----------

