A couple of days ago I had a bit of a rant about police misusing (or at a minimum, appearing to misuse) authority to stifle criticism. A few minutes ago I had a nice rant about Harper’s proposed privacy changes, with an implicit text of “you can’t trust these people to handle private data correctly without strict legal oversight”.
And now I read this story, in which private details about a critic’s medical and psychiatric history become part of a minister’s briefing? It’s such a perfectly timed example that I almost don’t believe it:
Psychiatric report of veterans critic inserted in minister’s briefing: documents
Confidential medical and financial information belonging to an outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs, including part of a psychiatrist’s report, found its way into the briefing notes of a cabinet minister.
Highly personal information about Sean Bruyea was contained in a 13-page briefing note prepared by bureaucrats in 2006 for then minister Greg Thompson, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.
The note, with two annexes of detailed information, laid out in detail Bruyea’s medical and psychological condition.
The documents, for example, contain a quote from a 2005 letter from Bruyea’s psychiatrist that warned his “mental condition is deteriorating and he is now actively experiencing suicidal ideation,” a condition the doctor suggested was the result of the department’s treatment of him.
The March 20, 2006, briefing also contained references to Bruyea’s chronic fatigue syndrome, tension headaches, as well as other medical complaints.
And it divulged details about his pension and what Veterans Affairs spends on his treatment, including the number of doctor appointments he had during the previous year.
[… lots more in the linked article]
Note that while Bruyea started making enemies in the previous Liberal administration, this briefing is all Conservative. And all slimy:
Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, a lawyer and expert in privacy law, expressed shock on viewing the documents.
Drapeau said it was the worst breach of privacy he’d seen in decades of practising law, calling it “totally, totally illegal” under the federal Privacy Act, which allows for the collection of information for specific purposes.
“The way I read the briefing note, it clearly comes across that this is a way to impugn his reputation and to come across as someone who is less than stable, less than able to speak confidently and accurately about veteran’s issues,” Drapeau said in an interview Tuesday.
Unless I misread the text, this wouldn’t be illegal anymore if C-29 passes (although I would argue it would still be unconstitutional).
Hmm. misusing authority as part of a plan to stifle a critic? Misusing private data as part of that plan?
Can we kick these bums out yet?
