• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Veterans Review and Appeal Bd: pressure to reject claims, spying, junkets (MERGED)

It gives one the impression these past few years that anyone who is the veteran's friend soon finds himself under cowardly attack.  If only the rotten fruit could be pared from the tree that is VAC.  Some of these self serving people need a taste of their own medicine.  >:(
 
Well, it certainly goes to show what the hell all us average folk have to put up with and what we are up against when VAC is willing to devour it's own like that!!

Time for a 100% overhaul from top to bottom of a VAC system and it's people that obviously values itself too highly while trodding on those it's supposed to be there for.

Their priorities are obviously NOT where they are supposed to be; dump 'em all and start from scratch.
 
ArmyVern said:
Well, it certainly goes to show what the hell all us average folk have to put up with and what we are up against when VAC is willing to devour it's own like that!!

Time for a 100% overhaul from top to bottom of a VAC system and it's people that obviously values itself too highly while trodding on those it's supposed to be there for.

Their priorities are obviously NOT where they are supposed to be; dump 'em all and start from scratch.
All we need is a Minister (or higher) to stand up and say, "the rules must change, and they will change".  After all, we've seen other instances where a Minister wants something (examples here, here, here, here, here and - even if it's not entirely within government rules - here), and it happens pretty quickly.  While the bureaucrats may be partly to blame re:  how they wield their discretion, if the rules were changed properly, the bureaucrats would have less wiggle room (or have to wiggle in a different direction).

Hey, I can dream, can't I?  ;)
 
As a person who has had 2 health assessments sent by Dr to VAC where someone signed for it...and now both are missing...this privacy stuff does not surprise me. Heaven knows who is looking at mine....
 
Agreed. This stuff fires up my paranoia like nothing else. I'm no (im)famous Vet advocate or anything lol but it always scares me when these privacy issues come up.

Like Vern said, if they are willing (and able) to treat one of their own like this...what are they willing to do to me?

Mind you, then we get into the discussion of whether the (Ret) WO was really "one of their own" or whether he was always seen as "one of us." I wonder if the retired Maj's on the Board get treated like this?

Wook

edit: Has anyone done an Access to Information request on their own file? I know it can be done, but the VAC website was a little light on the details (but my google-fu search skills are not very good).

 
Time for new rules.....
A prominent, long-standing member of the country's Veterans Review and Appeal Board had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign meant to discredit him using his private medical information as ammunition, The Canadian Press has learned.

The behind-the-scenes fight involving Harold Leduc has been so bad and so vicious that the Canadian Human Rights Commission quietly ordered the veterans board to pay the decorated, former warrant officer $4,000, including legal costs, for harassment he'd suffered from other agency members.

Leduc, who spent 22 years in the military, claims he was a target for gossip, innuendo and intimidation because he often sided with veterans in his review decisions ....
The Canadian Press, 12 Feb 12

They were called Santa Claus, often behind their backs.

Adjudicators at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board who sided too frequently with ex-soldiers got the dismissive moniker from some of their peers, according to a long-standing member who has broken his silence.

The slight was made possible by a subtle, but profound, change to the way the agency — now at the heart of another veterans' privacy scandal — began dissecting its decisions shortly after the Conservatives came to power.

The agency posts its overall favourability rating online, showing the percentage of times the independent board rules in favour of veterans who have appealed their benefit rulings by federal bureaucrats.

But in 2007, in addition to tracking favourable decisions by region, the board began measuring the number of times panel members were involved in decisions that came down on the side of former soldiers and RCMP members, according to PowerPoint presentations obtained by The Canadian Press.

Cases are heard by two-member review panels and appeals by three members. If one adjudicator rules in favour, the decision is a win for the veteran, regardless of what other members say.

The slicing and dicing of those statistics had far-reaching implications and is one of the tools board chairman John Larlee and his deputy used to lean on members perceived as overly-generous, says long-standing member Harold Leduc.

He has been embroiled in a long-running dispute with the board, including allegations of two privacy breaches.

"We sure felt the pressure. I know I felt it," Leduc said in an interview. "I'm not sure what board staff was saying behind my back, but I know with other members they'd call them Santa Claus because they're giving too much away."

He said board members were warned in 2008, prior to the arrival of John Larlee as the new chairman, that if their favourability rating for decisions was too high they would be called on the carpet ....
The Canadian Press, 13 Feb 12
 
Wow.

"We sure felt the pressure. I know I felt it," Leduc said in an interview. "I'm not sure what board staff was saying behind my back, but I know with other members they'd call them Santa Claus because they're giving too much away."

He said board members were warned in 2008, prior to the arrival of John Larlee as the new chairman, that if their favourability rating for decisions was too high they would be called on the carpet ....

The above confirms for me that there is a quota system (call it by any other name  ::)) occuring within VAC and, that at the end of the day, Vets don't matter; cash does.

Yep, an overhaul is definitely required.

Especially when one considers that we (Ie: vets) know that VAC has, despite what they'd admit to, some sort of process in place whereby the common SOP is to "deny" most submitted claims on their first go round. Knowing full well that the vast majority of those initially denied just give up rather than continue on the humiliating, degrading, hoop-jumping, adminstrative burden that they call their appeals process.

Thus, the above quoted bit of enlightenment, for me, only indicates to me that they are max 'quotaing' appeal claim files; those files where members actually dug-in and fought for themselves. But those appeal files are already drastically reduced by those huge volumes of initial-denials by VAC that never go to appeal.

While they are overhauling the whole stinking mess that is VAC, why don't they start from scratch and give veterans a fair shake? An impartial shake? By that, first thing to go needs to be the "you can appeal this rejection if any new evidence comes to light" because new evidence of NON-IMPARTIALITY by VAC in their approval/rejection of files has just been revealed for all to see.

Now, go ahead VAC. Based on that new and public evidence, you should be able to employ all your usual lot of summer-students in Charlottetown to go through each and every file you've ever rejected and actually give it a good, honest, impartial and fair going over and considertation that you should have been doing all along. Exactly as the vets deserve; vets are not here to save you money at the expense of their health --- despite what the bureaucratic rule-makers and policy overlookers might like to think.
 
Nemo888 said:
VAC sees vets as the enemy. Seen.

And yet it always surprises me vets never act like the enemy no matter how bad they are treated.

At what point do vets stand up for themselves. Cause let's face it...no one else cares except us.
 
Not exactly confidence inspiring, I am awaiting decisions on two separate claims with VAC. I hope it does not end up at the VRAB level. Harold Leduc is a real stand up guy, we was the Sigs platoon 2 i/c when I was in battalion back in the mid 80's.
 
Vets department and board struggled for years to contain privacy leaks

By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/vets-department-and-board-struggled-for-years-to-contain-privacy-leaks-139472873.html

OTTAWA - Veterans Affairs Canada and the independent board that reviews claims of ex-soldiers grappled with allegations of leaked personal information long before a privacy scandal blew up in public.

A series of leaked documents show the department and the agency tried — and ultimately failed — in the spring of 2009 to tighten up the system and clamp down on bureaucrats who'd been rifling through the files of veterans advocates and opponents.

A May 28, 2009 letter, signed by the deputy chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, noted that a working group from the agency and the department itself had been assembled to examine privacy issues.

"Security Services has recently released two communiques on this topic, and will continue to educate employees on a regular basis," wrote James MacPhee in a letter to follow board member Harold Leduc, whose medical file had become the source of gossip and innuendo around the review agency.

The letter noted that staff at the review board were to be given mandatory privacy training.

MacPhee assured the former warrant officer that his privacy invasion was taken seriously and that federal officials were looking at restricting access to the computer data base where the files were held.

Yet, the department was not fully galvanized to action for another 18 months until the scandal involving advocate Sean Bruyea blew up in public — prompting among other things a major audit of procedures and practises by the country's privacy watchdog.

Access to the data base was not tightened until the fall of 2010 as part of the Harper government's damage control exercise following revelations Bruyea's medical records were sown into a ministerial briefing note.

A spokeswoman for the review board, Danielle Gauthier, said the independent agency took steps a year before the department to safeguard information and also adopted many of the steps taken by Veterans Affairs in its clean up efforts.

"The Chairman has made privacy and the protection of personal information top priorities at the board," she wrote in an email response to questions posed by The Canadian Press.

"When a privacy breach occurs, we take immediate steps to address it, including corrective actions and disciplinary measures where appropriate."

Despite that, the board was the source of a 2011 release of a report on Harold Leduc that had not been vetted for private information.

A request to interview board chair John Larlee was denied last week.

Liberal attempts to get the privacy issue heard by a House of Commons committee were swept behind closed doors this week.

"This information just strengthens the needs to deal with this in public," said Liberal veterans critic Sean Casey.

"It's apparent that Harold Leduc is only the tip of the iceberg. A Parliamentary committee is supposed to delve into these things."

NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer said it's amazing the Harper government is asking Canadian to trust that it will protect online privacy in the controversial surveillance bill, yet it allows bureaucrats free rein with some of the country's most vulnerable citizens.

"It is simply not credible for the department to claim they've cleaned up their act," Stoffer said.

Officials at the federal Privacy Commissioner's Office confirm that, in addition to conducting a major audit of Veterans Affairs, it is pursuing 12 separate complaints from individuals about the department.

All of the protests were filed in 2010.

Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said in the House of Commons this week that he's open to strengthening privacy guarantees even further, but that the 10 point action plan implemented following the Bruyea case was having a positive effect.

Yet, Bruyea himself cast doubt on that Thursday, saying his battles with the department did not end with the 2010 settlement of his lawsuit against the federal government, which saw a $400,000 award for damages and legal costs.

He was initially able to track the leak of his information through Privacy Act requests. Most of the original 12,000 documents he received related to the 2005-06 timeframe.

His pursuit of more up-to-date records has hit a brick wall because the department has apparently stopped answering his requests. Before the gate came down he'd received an additional 18,000 pages — enough information for him to file further complaints last year with Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.

Four of those complaints have come back as well-founded, according to letters obtained by The Canadian Press.

Bruyea was apparently accused last week by the deputy minister of veterans affairs in a private meeting of having an axe to grind and being biased.

"I don't need to believe in conspiracies to see that (Veteran's Affairs) culture is really just a conspiracy of incompetence," he said.

Bruyea noted that the department has had a comprehensive policy on personal information since 1999 and all departments have been required to follow federal Treasury Board privacy guidelines since 1998.

That should have been enough to safeguard his medical files, as well as those belonging to Leduc and others, and promise to fix the system are merely window dressing, he said.

"Had (Veterans Affairs) followed either of these plans, none of any of these breaches would have happened," he said. "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. What we are talking about is ineptitude and a complete disregard for not just the law but the humanity of the victims."
 
Vets board member says privacy raided after he sides too often with veterans

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/vets-board-member-says-privacy-raided-after-he-sided-with-veterans-139181419.html

By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

AJW500011939_high.jpg



Harold Leduc gestures during an interview in Ottawa, Tuesday Feb.1, 2012. Leduc, a prominent member of the country's veterans review and appeal board had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign meant to discredit him and his decisions using his private medical information. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

OTTAWA - A prominent, long-standing member of the country's Veterans Review and Appeal Board had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign meant to discredit him using his private medical information as ammunition, The Canadian Press has learned.

The behind-the-scenes fight involving Harold Leduc has been so bad and so vicious that the Canadian Human Rights Commission quietly ordered the veterans board to pay the decorated, former warrant officer $4,000, including legal costs, for harassment he'd suffered from other agency members.

Leduc, who spent 22 years in the military, claims he was a target for gossip, innuendo and intimidation because he often sided with veterans in his review decisions.

It is the latest, and potentially the most wide-ranging, in a series of privacy breaches, which the Conservative government claimed was cleaned up at the department that oversees the care of ex-soldiers and RCMP.

In late 2010 following the privacy scandal involving advocate Sean Bruyea, the government said it instituted tighter controls over the personal information of veterans and who had access to files.

Yet, in the spring of 2011, an investigation report, which included Leduc's personal information and examined the toxic in-fighting at the independent agency, was released un-censored following an access to information request.

"I am writing to notify you of a privacy breach that resulted in the improper disclosure of personal information," said a July 6, 2011 letter to Leduc from the access co-ordinator of the veterans board, who apologized and described the incident as a clerical error.

Two years previously, the deputy chair of the board acknowledged in another letter, that Leduc had been the victim of a more serious breach, where over 40 officials accessed his file that included medical information. Some of the officials were from veterans affairs, others included those who oversaw the review and appeal board.

"I was devastated because it was a huge breach of trust that they can't go back on," Leduc said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "I'm very embarrassed about my service-related disabilities and I don't think that's anybody's business, but mine. I was just shocked and devastated."

Board chairman John Larlee declined a request for an interview, but spokeswomen for both the agency and the veterans affairs minister released statements in response to a series of questions posed by The Canadian Press.

Both Danielle Gauthier and Codi Taylor said safeguarding privacy has been of the utmost concern.

"When a privacy breach occurs, we take immediate steps to address it, including corrective actions and disciplinary measures where appropriate," Gauthier wrote in an email Friday.

Neither of them would address Leduc's circumstance, citing privacy concerns. They declined to explain how his privacy could have been violated twice — or what measures were taken in response.

"Minister Steven Blaney believes that any violation of our Veterans privacy is totally unacceptable," Taylor wrote in an email.

"Our government took action over a year ago to ensure disciplinary measures for those who violate the law. Our government wants to ensure that the privacy of all veterans remains protected which is why Minister Blaney instructed departmental officials to look at how the Privacy Action Plan could be updated."

Taylor would not explain what new measures might be introduced - or when.

The Canadian Press has obtained a series of documents, emails and findings, which stretch back almost four years and paint a picture of a 24-member board that has become a viper's nest of intrigue, division, and petty vendettas.

The board is the place veterans can turn to if they're unhappy with the decisions of department bureaucrats. Two member review panels and three member appeal panels adjudicate their grievances.

If one member says "yes," the decision must go in favour of the veteran, regardless of how other members feel.

"I was told — I think as far back as January 2007 — directly by one of my colleagues, who said: 'A bunch of us are keeping an eye on you because we've been told you have certain conditions and so, we think you are biased'," Leduc said.

He was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder following over two decades of service in the military. And it was the conversations with other board members that prompted him to begin asking questions of officials about his privacy.

The gossip escalated to outright harassment after the Conservative government re-appointed him to a five-year term in 2007, said Leduc, who has also been awarded a veterans ombudsman commendation.

His fear that his medical reports had been spread around was realized in early 2009, but unlike Bruyea, the privacy commissioner was unable to investigate.

He said Jennifer Stoddard told him that Veterans Affairs Canada, or the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic arm of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office, would have to carry out the probe.

Leduc asked for a judicial investigation under the veterans review board legislation, but the chair, John Larlee, chose instead to hire an outside investigator to conduct "a workplace assessment," according to a Dec. 7, 2009 letter.

"This is a genuine attempt for an objective, independent 3rd party to assess VRAB as a workplace and make the Board a better more productive place to work for everyone," Larlee wrote.

But the situation dissolved into tit-for-tat harassment claims. At least two other board members filed against Leduc, who among other things was also being pressured to submit to a Health Canada psychological assessment.

He said the harassment was aimed at getting him to quit.

Philip Chodos, who was hired to do the assessment, took it upon himself to attempt to mediate among the warring parties, according to a series of emails.

What remains unclear was whether that was within his mandate. He eventually gave up on the mediation attempt and filed his investigation report with the board.

Leduc was told the document focused on him, but he could not see it. It was suggested he apply for a copy under access to information laws.

Before he got the chance last spring, the unedited copy was released to someone else, in violation of the Privacy Act. Federal officials won't say who obtained the document.

A veterans affairs official, speaking on background, claimed that staff had been disciplined in relation to the un-authorized release. But neither Gauthier, nor Taylor would confirm that.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission became involved in the summer of 2010 with a mediation of its own. It sided with Leduc and ordered the board to compensate him and cease harassment.

The document trail shows senior bureaucrats in PCO and in the veterans minister's office promised to try and bridge the divide, but to no avail.

"I'm sorry to learn about this situation and how it has affected you," former veteran affairs minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn wrote on July 19, 2010, referring to Leduc's first privacy breach.

"I note that the management of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has taken this matter seriously and has conducted an investigation, apologized to you and put in place measures to prevent similar situations in the future."

When the second privacy breach occurred, Harper's office took notice.

"We are very troubled to review the concerns you outlined," wrote Salphie Stephanian, an assistant to the prime minister, in an Aug. 12, 2011 email. "Our government regards the protection of personal information as a priority. We have been in contact with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Steven Blaney. His office is aware of the situation, and you can be assured that an appropriate response is forthcoming."

Yet, when asked what action was taken, Taylor pointed out that the board was meant to be an "arms-length, quasi-judicial body."

Senior government officials say Leduc was offered further mediation last fall, but he declined.

In a letter to Harper, Leduc pleaded for a judicial investigation of the board, saying he didn't want to take legal action or go to the media.

He said later in an interview last week that he kept his silence for years because he believed going public would only harm veterans.

But with continued in-fighting and no action by government, he said he had no choice but to speak out.

"The matter needs to be investigated ASAP if the government and people of Canada truly care about veterans as they've stated in the law," he said.
 
Advocates want privacy-leaking veterans board disbanded and replaced

http://www.theusatimes.com/story/news/advocates-want-privacy-leaking-veterans-board-disbanded

AJW500011939_high.jpg


OTTAWA - A leading veterans organization says the agency at the centre of the latest privacy scandal involving ex-soldiers should be disbanded.

Canadian Veterans Advocacy is responding to the case of former warrant officer Harold Leduc, who claims his personal medical information and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress became fodder for gossip and innuendo around the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Mike Blais, the executive director of the advocacy group, says the idea that Leduc was targeted because he often sided with veterans in review decisions brings into question the integrity of the entire board.

He says the board should be dismissed at once.

Both the Liberals and NDP say the Harper government should heed Leduc's advice and call a judicial inquiry into the review board, which has long been a source of complaints from the veterans community.

New Democrat veterans critic Peter Stoffer says the Conservatives have promised to either overhaul or abolish the board and it's about time they lived up to their pledge.
 
VRAB Mr Harold Leduc - victim of alleged smear campaign - Privacy Breaches - on CBC Radio As It Happens TONIGHT at 6h30PM
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/
 
Ok, we get it, you don't need separate threads for related stories.

Merge coming shortly.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
More on how the Board treats some applicants:
They once referred to her as "the little woman" and suggested the post traumatic stress she'd suffered as a peacekeeper in the Bosnia war meant she couldn't handle the rigours of service.

"It was so patronizing, it was unreal," Rhoni Speed of Ottawa said of her 2008 appearance before a panel of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the independent agency where ex-soldiers turn to fight for benefits.

The word "respect" repeatedly bounced off the walls in the House of Commons on Monday as MPs debated an opposition motion to halt possible cuts at Veterans Affairs Canada.

But Speed said there's not much respect when the doors of the hearing room are closed.

She related her 1990s experience as a reservist intelligence photographer in the war-torn Medak region, where Canadian troops fought a violent battle with Croatian forces and uncovered a massacre of Serbian civilians. There was little appreciation, however, from the two civilians who sat in judgment of her claim.

"The whole feeling throughout was I was a little woman and I couldn't deal with life," said Speed, who finally was granted a disability benefit in 2010 after several appeals. "It was easier in Bosnia than it was here."

It wasn't the seemingly endless bureaucratic process that got her down as much as it was the snide, often disrespectful comments that rained down from a board that was supposed to provide an impartial but sympathetic hearing ....
The Canadian Press, 6 Mar 12
 
I have heard similar stories from more than a few people. I have yet to end up in front of the VRAB (2 in the works lol), but i have been working with the BPA for some time now and I am impressed with them (for the most part).

I think I like the BPA because it is all based on what the lawyer says, it's fairly white/black on whether or not we have enough to make a case. I may not agree with it necessarily, but at least I can understand it.

The behaviour of some of the people on the VRAB...don't understand so much.

Wook
 
Sorry to rain on your parade.

BPA is giving you their opinion, which does not mean VRAB will agree no matter how logical or the amount of factual evidence you have.
 
Oh understood.

I have more than enough experience with the entire VAC system to know that facts only get in their way  ;D

Wook
 
Back
Top