Privacy breach at Veterans Affairs

[Nemo888]

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]

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.

“I want to say to our veterans: This is unacceptable,” he said. “I used to be the minister of national revenue, for example. An employee cannot go [into] a file on everyone.”

Mr. Bruyea’s complaints should not come as a surprise to the Harper government, however. The documents he has obtained show a September, 2006, meeting took place at the Prime Minister’s Office – involving senior political aides Keith Beardsley and Danielle Shaw – to discuss the “alleged harassment” of Mr. Bruyea with Veterans Affairs officials.

Notes of the meeting, which was triggered by Mr. Bruyea’s letters to the PMO, reveal there was a general discussion about the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and a specific discussion of Mr. Bruyea’s massage-therapy claims.

Mr. Bruyea alleges top bureaucrats deliberately exaggerated his post-traumatic stress condition in an attempt to discredit his public criticism of the Veterans Charter.

“Manipulation of psychiatric files has been typically associated with Stalinist regimes,” he said in an interview at his suburban home in Ottawa’s south end, where he lives with his wife. Because veterans on disability are financially dependent on Veterans Affairs, he said it can be very scary to challenge the department. He described the reaction to a 2006 phone call from the department urging him not to take his concerns to the minister.

“This struck terror into our hearts, fundamental terror,” he said.

He says his troubles date back to that one week in May, 2005.

On May 9, 2005, then-prime minister Paul Martin was flying back from the Netherlands after attending Victory in Europe celebrations. All three opposition leaders had joined him and were on board – the Conservatives’ Stephen Harper, the Bloc Québécois’ Gilles Duceppe and the NDP’s Jack Layton.

Seizing the rare opportunity to strike a deal, Ms. Guarnieri, then veterans affairs minister, managed to bring all four leaders together at the front of the plane to hammer out a plan that would see the new Charter approved within a week with virtually no debate.

With all parties on side, barely a word of concern was voiced as the legislation zoomed through Parliament.

Even though he would not be affected by the new charter, Mr. Bruyea said he felt compelled to testify.

He points to a 2005 Veterans Affairs report still on the government’s website, which explains the department’s rational for the new policy in plain language. It notes the department’s financial liability to disabled vets had grown from $5.6-billion in 2001 to $7.9-billion in 2004.

“A shift to greater use of lump sum payments combined with customized rehabilitation services would serve, over time, to regain control of an alarming future liability scenario,” states the government report.

Ms. Guarnieri, who will soon retire from politics and recently described the in-flight deal as the highlight of her career, said she remembers meeting Mr. Bruyea but does not recall seeing his personal medical information.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Published Thursday, Oct. 07, 2010 10:57AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Oct. 07,

Senior Veterans Affairs officials acted in an alarming and inappropriate way as they widely circulated the personal medical information of a veteran, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner says.

Jennifer Stoddart’s investigation found the complaint made by Gulf War veteran Sean Bruyea is well-founded and the commissioner is now launching a broader investigation into the department that manages a wide range of programs for Canada’s veterans.

Veterans have run out of answers as to why their sacrifices are treated with such neglect or even cavalier disregard. —Sean Bruyea, retired captain and critic of Veterans Affairs

“What we found in this case was alarming,” Ms. Stoddart said in a statement.

“The veteran’s sensitive medical and personal information was shared – seemingly with no controls – among departmental officials who had no legitimate need to see it. This personal information subsequently made its way into a ministerial briefing note about the veteran’s advocacy activities. This was entirely inappropriate.”

Veterans Affairs minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said the Privacy Commissioner’s findings are “embarrassing” for the government “What happened is grave and unacceptable,” he said.

Mr. Blackburn said the government has hired a privacy expert to develop new privacy rules and all staff will receive new training on how to handle private information. He also said penalties for mishandling personal information will become “much stricter.”

The privacy breaches investigated occurred in 2005 and 2006. Ms. Stoddart confirmed the department contravened the provisions of the Privacy Act in the way it handled the veteran’s information. Her statement does not identify Mr. Bruyea, but Mr. Bruyea has confirmed he is the one who filed the complaint.

The Privacy Commissioner’s office confirmed that two ministerial briefing notes about Mr. Bruyea went far beyond what was necessary and included sensitive medical information.

Ms. Stoddart also expresses concern that Veterans Affairs sent several large volumes of Mr. Bruyea’s personal and medical information to a hospital that it administers without his permission.

The Privacy Commissioner is recommending that Veterans Affairs immediately improve its privacy polices and provide training to employees about how to handle private information.

Citing the investigation, media reports and telephone calls to her office, Ms. Stoddart said plans are underway for a wider audit of Veterans Affairs.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

The year-long investigation stemmed from a complaint by Bruyea, whose medical and financial information was contained in briefing notes prepared for the then-Veterans Affairs minister in 2006.

"What we found in this case was alarming," Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said in a news release Thursday.

"The veteran's sensitive medical and personal information was shared -- seemingly with no controls -- among departmental officials who had no legitimate need to see it. This personal information subsequently made its way into a ministerial briefing note about the veteran's advocacy activities. This was entirely inappropriate."

This is a serious violation of the federal Privacy Act, which says an individual's information must only be shared in government on a need-to-know basis.

Harper reacted angrily to the finding when asked to comment on it by reporters on Thursday in Winnipeg.

"The government has absolutely no tolerance for the behaviour that went on here. We asked the privacy commissioner to look into this matter," he told reporters following a press conference at an aerospace plant in Winnipeg.

"The fact that some of the bureaucracy had been abusing these files and not following appropriate process is completely unacceptable. And we will ensure that rules are followed, that the recommendations of the privacy commissioner are implemented –- that if this behaviour continues there will be strong action against it.

"Our veterans are people who have put their lives on the line for this country and it is completely unacceptable that rules are being broken in this manner."

Stoddard also confirmed that she has fielded complaints from other veterans. She said her office will audit the Veterans Affairs department's use of private information, examining both its policies and practices.

Bruyea said at a news conference Thursday that the commissioner's finding was a vindication and called privacy violations "morally disgusting to all Canadians."

Bruyea's medical information, including diagnosis, symptoms and prognosis, were also found in a 2005 briefing note under the former Liberal government. Stoddard's investigation also revealed that Veterans Affairs sent volumes of Bruyea's medical information to a veterans' hospital without his consent.

The privacy commissioner said she was concerned that officials from several branches of Veterans Affairs, including policy and communications, were involved in discussing and contributing to the briefing notes.

The March 2006 note under the Conservative government was to brief the minister on Bruyea's participation in a press conference in which he was critical of the department.

Besides his advocacy work, the note contained his medical information and some financial information.

Bruyea filed a court action against the federal government last month, asking for $10,000 in compensation.

He accused bureaucrats of wanting to use the psychiatric reports in his medical file to "falsely portray me and my advocacy to help other veterans as merely a manifestation of an unstable mind."

He said as a result, his credibility with senior Veterans Affairs officials and politicians was ruined.

Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said the department would adopt the four recommendations made by the privacy commissioner.

The department has received "a serious warning that we have to take very seriously," Blackburn told reporters Thursday. "What happened is unacceptable and we will act without delay.

"I thank the commissioner for the report and I will follow up immediately on all recommendations."

He said his department had already taken action by hiring a privacy expert to help implement those recommendations.

The department's rules around the use of private information and the penalties for breaking confidentiality rules are being reviewed, he said.

Article

 

[wildman0101]

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]

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.

“People need to suffer the consequences of their actions, because it’s the only way they would learn and other employees learn as well,” Ms. Bruyea said, holding her husband’s hand as the couple spoke on CTV’s Question Period Sunday.

Mr. Bruyea, a Persian Gulf war veteran, is suing the federal government for $200,000.

Within days of testifying before the Senate in 2005 against the department’s plans to switch to a lump-sum compensation system for wounded veterans – which was ultimately adopted – he had trouble accessing his benefits, Mr. Bruyea said.

He discovered he was no longer approved for visits to a psychologist or couples’ counselling under the system, he said, and the department demanded he undergo a psychiatric assessment at a hospital of its choosing.

“Something was being done with my medical file and it was clearly as a result of my advocacy for veterans,” he said.

Ms. Bruyea, who struggled to make ends meet while her husband was entangled with the government, said she had tried at times to dissuade him from speaking out, for fear of reprisals.

On more than one occasion, Mr. Bruyea’s post-traumatic stress disorder pushed him to suicide, he said, crediting his wife’s last-minute interventions with saving his life.

“Carolina had to save me a couple of times from doing myself in,” he said. “She actually had to physically stop me.”

For years, he urged the department to help him to little avail. He ultimately filed a Privacy Act request, obtaining 14,000 pages of documents that revealed his files had been shared around.

Most galling was discovering that some of the people with whom he had met in previous years and who feigned ignorance about his case had actually read his files in advance, he said.

The privacy commissioner confirmed his findings, determining that hundreds of Veterans Affairs staff had accessed his medical information and shared it with political staffers. However, it is beyond the purview of the commissioner to fine the officials responsible.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"?