|
Rearranging
Deck Chairs on the Titanic
Perry
Gray, Chief Editor VVi
VVi
08 Oct 2010 db
For
any Veteran who has the misfortune of tangling with the bureaucracy known as
VAC, the revelations of abuses of private information by Sean Bruyea, Tom
Hoppe, Louise Richard and Pat Stogran probably were not as shocking as for
most Canadians. There has been
plenty of evidence for many decades that VAC and the federal government have
been both irresponsible and breaking its own laws.
If
any Canadian is willing to forgive VAC for lack of knowledge of privacy law
and protecting personal information, then the following must be considered.
In 2005, VAC required the representatives of the Veterans organisations
invited to attend the inauguration of the New Veterans Charter to sign a
non-disclosure agreement. Anyone who did not wish to sign was not invited.
If this is not enough, similar non-disclosure agreements had to be
signed by the appointees to the advisory group created to review and advise
VAC on the NVC. Ironically, VAC would not allow anyone to keep a copy of this
agreement.
VAC
has been administering such information since it was first created.
VAC must handle sensitive information about Veterans’ medical
conditions, finances and other things protected by the Privacy Act and other
federal legislation. Knowing how
to properly handle personal information is a basic principle of information
management (IM). Every government
employee given access to such information should know the policy for effective
information management.
The
federal policy is discussed on the Treasury Board website:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/index-eng.aspx
These
guidelines are designed for all Government of Canada employees and are relevant to a wide
variety of environments. Institutions are encouraged to use these guidelines
as a base that can be added to and customized to reflect institutional
policies, procedures, directives, guidelines, tools, and best practices.
Most
of the information that has been illegally shared is defined as protected.
Protected
information refers to specific provisions of the Access to Information Act and
the Privacy
Act and
applies to sensitive personal, private, and business information.
Protected
C: Compromise of a very limited amount of
information could result in exceptionally grave injury,
such as loss of life.
Protected
B: Compromise could result in grave injury,
such as loss of reputation or competitive advantage.
Protected
A: Compromise could result in limited
injury.
Note: Avoid
sending or storing any information above the security level for which your
institutional network has been rated (normally Protected
A or B).
For
more information, consult your institution's security policy. Inform your
manager of any issues requiring attention. You can also contact the IM
specialists and your security office representative for advice on managing
security-classified, i.e. protected or classified, information.
Veterans
of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police received regular
instructions on protected information during their careers.
Much of the information stored in personnel files is defined as
protected.
The
same definitions apply to client information within VAC:
personal
information,
which is information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any
form, including information about an individual's race, age, personal address,
or medical history-the Privacy
Act imposes
legal controls on the collection, use, retention, disclosure, and disposal of
personal information;
Please
note that the Privacy Act imposes legal
controls on personal information. There
are designated IM specialists in the federal government, who are responsible
for ensuring that the guidelines are followed and also that new employees are
informed of these guidelines. There
is a senior executive appointed who is “responsible for ensuring the appropriate management direction, processes
and tools are in place to efficiently manage information under the control of
the department…” Managers
at all levels are responsible for “managing information as an integral part of their program and service
delivery”.
All
federal employees should be aware of the proper management of information.
Information is to be used only for appropriate purposes:
“An
organization may collect, use or disclose personal information only for
purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the
circumstances.”
Those
circumstances are in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act,
which can be found at
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/P-8.6/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_1-gb:l_1
This
legislation received assent in 2000 and for good reasons:
“ in
an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and
exchange of information, rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of
personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of
individuals with respect to their personal information ”
So
the federal government was well aware of the problems of protecting personal
information and had introduced legislation to deal with the proper use as well
as the consequences for improper or illegal use.
By
sharing electronically or on paper any information about Veterans, VAC
disregarded several federal acts.
The
Prime Minister has stated that it was the fault of bureaucrats of VAC;
however, documents and e-mails were circulated in the office of the Minister
of Veterans Affairs (MVA) and the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO).
The latter is one of the most powerful offices in the government and
consists of the prime minister and his top political staff, who are
charged with advising the prime minister on decisions, making the office a wholly
political body.
Are
Canadians really expected to believe that none of the political staff of the
minister and the PMO had any knowledge of the illegal use of Veterans’
personal information?
Where
were all the IM specialists responsible for compliance with government policy
and guidelines? Surely over the
span of many years, at least one employee realised that personal information
was not being managed in accordance with guidelines and federal laws. After
all, Veterans’ personal information had been sent to the MVA and PMO in 2005
as revealed by CBC and other media sources.
Ignorance
of the law is not a valid defence in these cases or in general.
In fact it is a fundamental legal principle holding that a person who
is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law
merely because he or she was unaware of its content.
Canadians should expect its Members of Parliament to have some
knowledge of basic law because they are our lawmakers.
The
Prime Minister is not willing to take responsibility despite his government
campaigning before 2006 to ensure that the federal government was more
accountable. His government was
very proud of its Federal Accountability Act and John Baird (as President of
Treasury Board) described it as the "toughest anti-corruption law ever
passed in Canada".
So
what can Canadians expect from its government in the wake of this national
scandal? So far very little.
The
MVA will follow the four recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner, whose
agency has indicated that this is a systemic problem.
The minister stated that he holds the Veterans Ombudsman responsible
for failing to advise him of the magnitude of the problem.
This is very disingenuous because his office was given copies of
documents containing Veterans’ personal information and therefore already
had evidence of the problem.
The
Privacy Commissioner is responsible for “investigating complaints,
conducting audits and pursuing court action under two federal laws (Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents
and Privacy Acts)”. The commissioner can only make recommendations and has no
enforcement power, nor is she able to levy penalties for violating the Privacy
Act. So some other federal agency
must prosecute the guilty or not as the MVA has not stated what will happen to
anyone involved.
There
have been recommendations that the Auditor-General conduct an investigation.
This seems like a good idea because of the role of the AG:
“holding
the federal government accountable for its stewardship of public funds. The
Office audits departments and agencies, most Crown corporations, and many
other federal organizations; it is also the auditor for the governments of
Nunavut, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories.”
This
may not be a long term solutions. Consider
what was written in a report for a previous AG audit:
“In
our 1998 audit of Veterans Affairs Canada, we reported on the provision of
disability pensions to veterans and other eligible recipients and on the
changing nature of the Department's clients. The objective of our audit was to
determine whether the Veterans Affairs Portfolio, which includes Veterans
Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, was managing the
disability pension program in a way that ensured that high-quality decisions
were being made consistently and in a timely manner.”
Sean
Bruyea, Louise Richard, other Veterans and their dependants, and I met with
staff of the AG in 2004 to highlight some of the systemic problems that
Veterans frequently experience with the inconsistencies and untimely deliver
of disability pensions and other services.
Reading the AG reports just reminded us that VAC does not abide by
federal policy and guidelines. VAC
does provide plenty of information that it does; however, the AG concluded:
“The
Department has expended considerable effort to respond to our recommendations.
It has taken action in each area discussed in our 1998 chapter and completed
the corrective action for certain recommendations. Several initiatives,
including the planned revisions to the table of disabilities and greater use
of the departmental review process, are under way. In addition, the Department
is working on a number of initiatives that address the needs of its Canadian
Forces clients. These initiatives focus on meeting the needs of these clients
under existing legislation. In January 2000, a joint VAC-DND (Veterans
Affairs-National Defence) Task Force was established to examine the way in
which Veterans Affairs Canada does business and to redefine programs and
services for Canadian Forces clients. This task force is scheduled in May 2001
to provide options for the Minister to take to Cabinet. It is too early to determine whether the expected results of the
above-noted initiatives will be achieved in a timely manner.”
VAC
is also willing to blame others when convenient:
“(AG)
recommended that Veterans Affairs Canada develop service standards for its
role in preparing a first application for disability pension benefits. The
Department's response in 1998 stated that it chose not to include service
standards on the time to carry out these services, because most of the
activities involved in case preparations lie outside the Department's control,
either with outside agencies or applicants.”
The
New Veterans Charter was one of the results of the task force established in
2000. Its critics included Sean
Bruyea and Louise Richard, who became the targets of malicious defamation by
VAC.
The
systemic problem here is that it is difficult to determine what agencies or
persons will effectively provide solutions.
The politicians are blaming bureaucrats in spite of their own
legislation that emphatically states that politicians are ultimately
responsible. The illegal
use of personal information involves hundreds of politicians and public
servants. Can Canadians really expect them to purge the federal system
of the guilty and change the policy to avoid a repetition?
It
is seriously doubtful because there have been examples of abuses in other
government offices. Natural
Resources Minister Christian Paradis is embroiled in a similar scandal because
his political assistant, Sebastian Togneri, acted inappropriately with regards
to providing information as required by the Access to Information Act.
The Information Commission is conducting a systemic investigation into
"political interference" in access requests in 15 government
departments.
The
Information Commissioner “investigates complaints about federal
institutions’ handling of access requests. The Information Commissioner has
strong investigative powers to assist her in mediating between dissatisfied
information applicants and government institutions. As an ombudsperson, the
Commissioner may not order a complaint to be resolved in a particular way,
though she may refer a case to the Federal Court for resolution.”
Those that involve important principles of law or legal interpretation may
be referred to court.
What
are the prospects that any of the investigations will result in legal action?
Michel
Drapeau, a Veteran and a lawyer, has been involved in the VAC and Natural
Resources scandals. He said
the Togneri case could lead to first-ever charges under the Access to
Information Act and it deepens his concern about the erosion of the public's
right to know.
Canada
has certainly been embarrassed by its government, which prides itself as being
a world leader in democratic principles and practices. It is apparent that the CF and the RCMP, which defend and
enforce our laws, should expect more from their government.
This
illegal activity should not be swept under any carpet, as if a scandal of this
size would fit under any carpet. Our
basic democratic system has been grossly violated by thousands of politicians
and public servants, who were entrusted with creating and implementing our
laws. There have been at best
vague assurances that solutions will be implemented.
There is no specific mention of prosecuting the guilty legally.
This is not very impressive when compared to the requirements of
Veterans to be willing to sacrifice life and limb on behalf of Canada.
Can we expect anything on the scale of the Somalia scandal of 1993 that
greatly damaged the morale of the CF, and tarnished the domestic and
international reputation of Canadian soldiers?
I
consider the current scandal to be far worse than the 1993 event that was
considered “Canada's national shame".
The Somalia Inquiry was never able to examine top level governmental decision-making
and it is time that Canada look seriously at how it is governed.
There are indications in more than 15 federal departments as well as
political offices that information is being grossly mismanaged.
This
is not the time be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (to
do something pointless or insignificant that will soon be overtaken by events,
or that contributes nothing to the solution of a current problem).
It is time to demand that the Prime Minister and his ministers act
responsibly to end the illegal activities and punish the guilty.
This includes people from the PMO and below. Canada cannot expect other countries to practice democratic
principles, if it is unwilling to do the same.
It is the worst example of national hypocrisy.
|
Canadian Forces Chief of Defence Staff Military Family
Fund:
