Author Topic: Information About LEGAL ACCESS to VAC MEDICAL FILES BY INVESTIGATIVE BODIES  (Read 1581 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

PTE_Molgat

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Information About LEGAL ACCESS to VAC MEDICAL FILES BY INVESTIGATIVE BODIES

I called the Privacy Commissioners Office and spoke to one of the investigators there.  I had a productive conversation in regards to what happens when an outside investigative body like the RCMP and The Canadian Intelligence Service wants access to VAC Med files.  You were right that they can get access to our files and only have to supply in writing the reasons why they need access to a VAC medical file.  This written request has to be made to the ATIP coordinator at VAC who can accept the request or deny the request. 

The thing is these investigative bodies have to supply in writing  some seriously valid evidence that  has to involve a legitimate criminal threat or a criminal act that has taken place  or is about to take place which involves the disabled Veteran in question. These written reasons have to include the investigators name, the organization he or she comes from the date of the request.  The ATIP coordinator as I had said can accept this or refuse the request because the reasons are unacceptable. Never the less the request form this investigative body has to be attached to the file of the disabled Veteran as an official document.

I  Know how the RCMP operates they would obtain a proper Criminal Code Search Warrant authorized by a Judge in which case VAC would have to give them access to the file but a copy of the Search Warrant and the name of the investigator and the investigative organization be it federal, provincial or municipal has to be attached to the said medical file as an official document.  In this scenario the Affidavit which are the reasons implicating the disabled veteran with criminal activity is in the possession of the Police and or security Service and the courts.  This affidavit in question which are the reasons presented to the judge where the investigator has to swear on a bible as being the truth and is accepted by the judge who signs the search warrant can be sealed if there is reason to protect an ongoing investigation.  If the Affidavit is sealed by court order it can be challenged in court by a lawyer representing the disabled veteran.   The judge hears from both sides and decides if all of the information, or part of the information in the affidavit  can be released to the disabled Veteran and his lawyer.  The investigative body would have to have some pretty heavy duty grounds that are true and involve a legal investigation to do this.  This route as far as the RCMP are concerned would be the desired way to go because all they have to do is present the authorized Criminal Code Search Warrant. 

I looked at the the Security Offenses act and section 2 states clearly that a legitimate offense has to be criminal in nature.

Powers of the Attorney General of Canada
2. Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, the Attorney General of Canada may conduct
proceedings in respect of an offence under any law of Canada where

(a) the alleged offence arises out of conduct constituting a threat to the security of Canada
within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, or

(b) the victim of the alleged offence is an internationally protected person within the meaning
of section 2 of the Criminal Code,
and for that purpose the Attorney General of Canada may exercise all the powers and perform all
the duties and functions assigned by or under the Criminal Code to the Attorney General.
1984, c. 21, s. 57.



If the evidence in question is proven to be not true and exaggerated on part of the investigator of the investigative body equates to a freaking lawsuit.

The thing is the rules are quite clear in regards to accessing a disabled Veterans file.  In short the disabled Veterans has to be involved with a criminal act or is going to commit a criminal act i.e. under he criminal code or as described by the Security Offenses Act, is a danger to his or herself or the Public.  Other than that if you are involved in peaceful protest guaranteed by the Charter of Rights in regards to Veterans rights issues with the Government and are not breaking any laws of the land their is no legitimate reason for any investigative body to access your medical file. If their is they have to leave a copy of the written request on your file. 

Now their is of course the possibility of that an investigator calls a contact with VAC who accesses your file and verbally updates the investigator.  I am sending the RCMP ATIP coordinator a request for a complete copy of my personnel service file, all files that have been open on myself since 2006 to present, all surveillance video that has been taken of me and any requests made about myself to any other Federal institution in particular Veterans Affairs Canada and access to my medical file either written or verbally, all information supplied by another Federal institution about myself and what legal grounds to justify inquiring and receiving personal information  about myself from any Federal Institution. 

Its a fine line and by requesting an ATIP from the RCMP will give me a clear indication if my privacy has been violated in regards to my protesting activities.  Can hardly wait to see what happens. 

I asked the Privacy Commissioner investigator why 8 pages of my file are under consultation with VAC ATIP.  It was said that it is most likely a third part involvement and VAC ATIP has to contact the said third party in regards to disclosure.  This 3rd part could be a Police agency or even the office of the Minister of veterans affairs the former Mr. Thompson.  The investigator said the usual reason for holding back pages of your med file is 3rd party involvement who has to justify why the info can not be handed over to me which is about me. 

Hope this gives you a better picture of how the game is played. It is an offense to alter or destroy documents on an investigative file or medical file when an ATIP request is made.



Security Offences Act (R.S., 1985, c. S-7)
Act current to January 29th, 2011
Attention: See coming into force provision and notes, where applicable.
Table of Contents

Security Offences Act
S-7
An Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Security Offences Act.
1984, c. 21, s. 56.
Powers of the Attorney General of Canada

2. Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, the Attorney General of Canada may conduct
proceedings in respect of an offence under any law of Canada where
(a) the alleged offence arises out of conduct constituting a threat to the security of Canada
within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, or
(b) the victim of the alleged offence is an internationally protected person within the meaning
of section 2 of the Criminal Code,
and for that purpose the Attorney General of Canada may exercise all the powers and perform all
the duties and functions assigned by or under the Criminal Code to the Attorney General.
1984, c. 21, s. 57.
Powers of Attorney General of a province

3. Subject to section 4, section 2 does not affect the authority of the Attorney General of a
province to conduct proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in that section or to exercise
any of the powers or perform any of the duties and functions assigned by or under the Criminal
Code to the Attorney General.
1984, c. 21, s. 58.
Fiat of Attorney General of Canada

4. (1) Where the Attorney General of Canada believes that an offence referred to in section 2
has been committed in any province, the Attorney General of Canada may issue a fiat to that
effect and may serve the fiat on the Attorney General of the province.
Effect of fiat
(2) Where a fiat issued pursuant to subsection (1) is served on the Attorney General of a
province, the fiat establishes the exclusive authority of the Attorney General of Canada with
respect to the conduct of any proceedings in respect of the offence described in the fiat.
1984, c. 21, s. 59.
Fiat filed in court
Print http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/S-7/20110129/section-.html
1 of 2 3/25/2011 1:40 PM

5. (1) Where proceedings are conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada in
respect of an offence in relation to which a fiat has been issued pursuant to subsection 4(1), the
fiat or a copy thereof may be filed with the court in which the proceedings are conducted.
Fiat constitutes conclusive proof of facts stated therein
(2) A fiat or copy thereof purporting to have been issued pursuant to subsection 4(1) by the
Attorney General of Canada that is filed with the court pursuant to subsection (1) is conclusive
proof that proceedings in respect of the offence described in the fiat may be conducted by or on
behalf of the Attorney General of Canada and is admissible in evidence without proof of the
signature or official character of the Attorney General of Canada.
1984, c. 21, s. 60.
Role of RCMP

6. (1) Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are peace officers have the
primary responsibility to perform the duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to any
offence referred to in section 2 or the apprehension of the commission of such an offence.
Arrangements

(2) To facilitate consultation and cooperation in relation to the carrying out of the duties
assigned to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under subsection (1), the Minister of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter
into arrangements with the government of a province concerning the responsibilities of members
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and members of provincial and municipal police forces with
respect to the performance of duties assigned to peace officers in relation to any offence referred
to in section 2 or the apprehension of the commission of such an offence.
R.S., 1985, c. S-7, s. 6; 2005, c. 10, s. 34.
Review of Act after five years

7. (1) After July 16, 1989, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of
Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
Report to Parliament
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is
undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as Parliament may authorize,
submit a report on the review to Parliament including a statement of any changes the committee
recommends.
1984, c. 21, s. 69.
Print http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/S-7/20110129/section-.html
2 of 2 3/25/2011 1:40 PM






Section from Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act describing what is a National Security Threat.
“Service” means the Canadian Security Intelligence Service established by subsection 3(1);

“threats to the security of Canada” means
(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and
(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,
but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).
R.S., 1985, c. C-23, s. 2; 2001, c. 41, s. 89; 2005, c. 10, s. 13.

Eric Rebiere (Former Cst. RCMP 37515)