Cabinet Shuffle- (Wednesday 26 July).

[brihard]

I don’t think reasonable citizens would actually expect to see TS SCI TK/SI/HA material (which I hear tell can be pretty unremarkable ), but the fact that all material must be made available for consideration by vetted parties of an investigative body as representative of those citizens is not an unimportant principle of our society.

For sure, but to my mind that’s what the classified review bodies are for. I’m not sure how a public inquiry could even be set up to ingest that kind of material for review unless it was all pre-vetted by DOJ.

For comparison, in a criminal prosecution involving classified material, the provincial court that has to try the facts doesn’t get anything of classified origin until it’s either declassified, or until DOJ has already redacted everything of concern. Before such a case ever hits provincial trial court, any classified redactions will, if necessary, already have been litigated in a closed session of federal court with a security cleared judge and counsel. The AG has absolute override authority to say that certain information will never see the light of day in court, and the most the trial court can do is dismiss charges.

That’s all a tried and tested process for criminal matters- incidentally the case law for that is Ribic, which came from some Serbo-Canadian who was prosecuted for using a CAF officer as a human shield in FRY. The classified material in that case was pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.

For a public inquiry? Just figuring out how to intake and pre-vet all that materially in (classified) camera before ever providing what’s left to the public inquiry would be ire the ordeal. It would cause much delay, too.

The benefit of the cleared intelligence review bodies is that they can consider all of it, and then draft reports tailored for both CLASS and UNCLASS release.

 

[dapaterson]

Note that the current opposition party refuses to participate in classified briefings / classified committees.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Note that the current opposition party refuses to participate in classified briefings / classified committees.

That's a political strategy being gamed by both sides. The government knows that if it dumps information in that venue, the opposition can't talk about it openly. It could include politically explosive information that doesn't really need to be classified. Then the opposition has to fight to get it declassified, and the government strikes a mournful tone about the opposition wanting to exposing national secrets and risk the safety of confidential informants, etc, etc. The opposition knows this, and refuses to take the bait.

 

[brihard]

That's a political strategy being gamed by both sides. The government knows that if it dumps information in that venue, the opposition can't talk about it openly. It could include politically explosive information that doesn't really need to be classified. Then the opposition has to fight to get it declassified, and the government strikes a mournful tone about the opposition wanting to exposing national secrets and risk the safety of confidential informants, etc, etc. The opposition knows this, and refuses to take the bait.

The opposition refuses to sit at the grown up table where classified matters are properly examined and addressed. They cannot simultaneously clamp their hands over their ears, and also pretend to be taking the matter seriously. They’re putting politics over meaningful involvement in a major national security issue. It’s a profoundly disappointing lack of political maturity.

With that said, sitting as they are outside of government, they probably choose to see the issue entirely through an electoral lens and not a policy one. So be it, but colour me unimpressed.

 

[dimsum]

It's OK to do something useful even if it doesn't fix everything.

Yeah, that really calmed down the folks when that was brought up regarding CFHD or pay increase.

So, just the trudeau agenda of no irons and purple hair. Nothing about equipment, recruiting or all those other things a modern military,depends on to,do their job.

It could be just me but the initial "message to the troops" has always been a pretty standard message, regardless of MND or party.

 

[Kirkhill]

Part of the problem is deciding what is Classified and who gets to decide.

There is a lot of open source literature and debate about governments all over the world burying political issues under national security blankets.

I am strongly of the belief that a public enquiry is necessary because the issue of foreign interference is in the public domain and it impacts directly on the public as individuals. The issue is not simply an in-house one for Ottawa and the Civil Service.

 

[brihard]

Part of the problem is deciding what is Classified and who gets to decide.

There is a lot of open source literature and debate about governments all over the world burying political issues under national security blankets.

I am strongly of the belief that a public enquiry is necessary because the issue of foreign interference is in the public domain and it impacts directly on the public as individuals. The issue is not simply an in-house one for Ottawa and the Civil Service.

FWIW, often the level of classification is less about the informational content and more about the sources and methods used.

If CSIS learned from a human source and a wiretap of a foreign diplomat’s residence, backed up by an NSA SIGINT intercept, that the second-assistant-secretary of commerce at the embassy of whatever in Canada went and saw Oppenheimer and found it so-so, that would be highly classified and compartmented. Not the fact that the foreign diplomat wasn’t enthralled with Oppenheimer, but that they’re subject to wiretap, HUMINT source reporting, and FVEY SIGINT sharing. This is to protect sources and methods that, in the very next report, could identify something profoundly significant to the security of Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

Understood.

Now how about cabinet confidences and deliberations by the PMO, TB and the PC?

Political or National Security?

Or both?

 

[dapaterson]

This is to protect sources and methods that, in the very next report, could identify something profoundly significant to the security of Canada.

Like their opinion of Paul Gross' movies.

#MenWithBrooms

 

[brihard]

Understood.

Now how about cabinet confidences and deliberations by the PMO, TB and the PC?

Political or National Security?

Or both?

Potentially both. Specifically for any cabinet confidence, the Canada Evidence Act allows the Clerk of the Privy Council, or a minister of the crown, to prevent compelled disclosure in a court or body. I’m not able to speak to how this overlaps with PCO and TB deliberations, but I suspect there’s often going to be enough overlap for this confidence to capture it? I know we have others here who can confirm or refute that.

Cabinet confidence is totally distinct from national security/international relations privilege, and isn’t actually a classification issue. It’s more a matter of protecting the convention of the executive being able to consider and deliberate on government policy and actions without it being disclosed. As soon as they do something, there will usually be one or more legal mechanisms that can be employed to challenge or review something.

 

[Kirkhill]

Potentially both. Specifically for any cabinet confidence, the Canada Evidence Act allows the Clerk of the Privy Council, or a minister of the crown, to prevent compelled disclosure in a court or body. I’m not able to speak to how this overlaps with PCO and TB deliberations, but I suspect there’s often going to be enough overlap for this confidence to capture it? I know we have others here who can confirm or refute that.

Cabinet confidence is totally distinct from national security/international relations privilege, and isn’t actually a classification issue. It’s more a matter of protecting the convention of the executive being able to consider and deliberate on government policy and actions without it being disclosed. As soon as they do something, there will usually be one or more legal mechanisms that can be employed to challenge or review something.

I think that most of the interference issues will likely fall under PMO, TB, PC rules because, in my opinion, the crux of the matter is who knew what when and what did they do about it.

Do I have any confidence that information will be volunteered? No.

But a public beating is often useful.

 

[brihard]

I think that most of the interference issues will likely fall under PMO, TB, PC rules because, in my opinion, the crux of the matter is who knew what when and what did they do about it.

Do I have any confidence that information will be volunteered? No.

But a public beating is often useful.

I suspect most of the hard “what’s the other side saying/planning/doing” will be security intelligence covered by national security/international relations privilege, or else privileged as ongoing police investigation. The PMO/TB/PC side of things is more “what are we going to do about it?”; formulating police, deciding responses, etc.

Both would really help the public to understand the problem and what’s being done, but I doubt much of either would be disclosed. Both can absolutely be protected at the whim of the government.

 

[Kirkhill]

I suspect most of the hard “what’s the other side saying/planning/doing” will be security intelligence covered by national security/international relations privilege, or else privileged as ongoing police investigation. The PMO/TB/PC side of things is more “what are we going to do about it?”; formulating police, deciding responses, etc.

Both would really help the public to understand the problem and what’s being done, but I doubt much of either would be disclosed. Both can absolutely be protected at the whim of the government.

Perhaps that might disincline the opposition from getting involved.

 

[brihard]

Perhaps that might disincline the opposition from getting involved.

Perhaps, but I still feel that that’s an immature decision that puts partisan politics first. The opposition has a role to play, both in the House and in parliamentary committees. This is also a perennial issue that will remain a problem under all future governments for the foreseeable future. I’m of the opinion, perhaps naively, that major national security trends should be tackled objectively, collaboratively, and maturely. Each of the LPC and CPC will have to take handoff of that particular baton from each other over time.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps, but I still feel that that’s an immature decision that puts partisan politics first. The opposition has a role to play, both in the House and in parliamentary committees. This is also a perennial issue that will remain a problem under all future governments for the foreseeable future. I’m of the opinion, perhaps naively, that major national security trends should be tackled objectively, collaboratively, and maturely. Each of the LPC and CPC will have to take handoff of that particular baton from each other over time.

Agreed, but just as elections are no time to discuss policy and hard cases make bad law it is asking a lot for either side to put the partisan aside. And it is both sides that are involved here. As much as the opposition is trying to score points to remove the government the government is equally engaged trying to deflect those efforts and retain power. No saints here.

 

[brihard]

Agreed, but just as elections are no time to discuss policy and hard cases make bad law it is asking a lot for either side to put the partisan aside. And it is both sides that are involved here. As much as the opposition is trying to score points to remove the government the government is equally engaged trying to deflect those efforts and retain power. No saints here.

Largely agreed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The opposition refuses to sit at the grown up table where classified matters are properly examined and addressed. They cannot simultaneously clamp their hands over their ears, and also pretend to be taking the matter seriously. They’re putting politics over meaningful involvement in a major national security issue. It’s a profoundly disappointing lack of political maturity.

With that said, sitting as they are outside of government, they probably choose to see the issue entirely through an electoral lens and not a policy one. So be it, but colour me unimpressed.

The whole trudeau government has shown a disappointing lack of political maturity since they've taken power. Single minded political subservient dedication to the ideas and whims of a leader who wants to transform our country into a post national, world government state and wiping out the middle class. Despite what it's citizens want or can physically afford. Working slavishly for that goal instead of their constituents.

The opposition has sent lists of people for Commissioner and rules for committee as well as goals of the commission to trudeau. He has refused to consider them or even acknowledge receipt. That is kicking the can down the road for election purposes, if you want to place blame for inaction. The ball has been squarely in trudeau's court for some time. It is he who is sitting on it. Not the opposition. All they can do is tour the country and expose the malfeasance of the trudeau party and keep Canadians informed.

Of course trudeau is also on the road electioneering, hands over ears, refusing to address Canadian security and election interference, or to sit down at the grown up table. So, he too "chooses to see the issue entirely through an electoral lens and not a policy one. So be it, but colour me unimpressed" also.

 

[brihard]

The whole trudeau government has shown a disappointing lack of political maturity since they've taken power. Single minded political subservient dedication to the ideas and whims of a leader who wants to transform our country into a post national, world government state and wiping out the middle class. Despite what it's citizens want or can physically afford. Working slavishly for that goal instead of their constituents.

The opposition has sent lists of people for Commissioner and rules for committee as well as goals of the commission to trudeau. He has refused to consider them or even acknowledge receipt. That is kicking the can down the road for election purposes, if you want to place blame for inaction. The ball has been squarely in trudeau's court for some time. It is he who is sitting on it. Not the opposition. All they can do is tour the country and expose the malfeasance of the trudeau party and keep Canadians informed.

Of course trudeau is also on the road electioneering, hands over ears, refusing to address Canadian security and election interference, or to sit down at the grown up table. So, he too "chooses to see the issue entirely through an electoral lens and not a policy one. So be it, but colour me unimpressed" also.

You are, of course, completely free to believe that nothing is being done on this file by the government in power because it’s not publicly visible.

 

[Good2Golf]

The opposition has sent lists of people for Commissioner and rules for committee as well as goals of the commission to trudeau. He has refused to consider them or even acknowledge receipt. That is kicking the can down the road for election purposes, if you want to place blame for inaction. The ball has been squarely in trudeau's court for some time. It is he who is sitting on it. Not the opposition. All they can do is tour the country and expose the malfeasance of the trudeau party and keep Canadians informed.

His M.O. Gaslighting. Opposition, or his own who displease him.

 

[lenaitch]

I know very little of national security legislation, but was peripherally involved in a public/judicial inquiry at the provincial level. Every person, agency or department that has standing gets to have legal representation - at public expense; and each counsel gets to examine every witness in order to represent their client's interests. When it comes down to a witness having to say to counsel 'I can't tell you that' or 'I can't produce that' (material evidence such as objects, documents and records typically has to be entered into evidence by a witness, if for no other reason, context), they will want assurance that they are not in contempt, and I can foresee every instance of that happening being subject to a voire dire or judicial review by the courts. In other words, horribly bogged down in procedure. The public servants who have carriage of classified information will not allow themselves to be cannon fodder for politicians or senior bureaucrats.

I doubt any manner of in camera vetting to alleviate some of this will satisfy the cover-up crowd.