Liberal Minority Government 2021 - ????

[The Bread Guy]

If Gladue Reports are worthwhile, then they should be applied to everyone with background problems, not people with background problems who belong to a specific ethnic ground.

They're called Presentence Reports for non-Indigenous folks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As long as the factors are identical, the name doesn't matter.

 

[YZT580]

As long as the factors are identical, the name doesn't matter.

oh but it does. Applying a different name for different ethnic groups is as much demonstrating bias as utilizing the N word.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The most transparent government ever.

Also:

Trudeau government has adopted dozens of secret cabinet orders since coming to power

Government refuses to reveal whether any of the orders are related to the convoy protest, COVID or Ukraine

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government has adopted 72 secret orders-in-council — hidden from Parliament and Canadians — since coming to office, CBC News has learned.

A review by CBC News of nearly 8,900 orders-in-council (OICs) — or cabinet decrees — adopted by the federal government shows the number of secret or unpublished OICs has been rising since Trudeau came to power in 2015.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/secret-orders-in-council-1.6467450

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The most transparent government ever.

Also:

Trudeau government has adopted dozens of secret cabinet orders since coming to power

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/secret-orders-in-council-1.6467450

I imagine this will fizzle out quickly. After all "the Harper Government started it. We just are keeping the practice up."

 

[The Bread Guy]

The most transparent government ever.

Also:

Trudeau government has adopted dozens of secret cabinet orders since coming to power

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/secret-orders-in-council-1.6467450

Brought to you by the bought-and-paid-for media

 

[brihard]

I'd be willing to bet that a bunch will be under the Investment Canada Act - decisions based on security intelligence regarding the permissibility of different foreign companies acquiring Canadian corporations, where national security concerns necessitate a 'no'. This is something we've gotten more conscious of in the past few years.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

'No more logic': WestJet CEO blasts Feds' vax mandate - BNN Bloomberg

The chief executive officer of WestJet is calling on the Canadian government to drop its vaccine mandate for travellers, saying the policy has "no more logic."

www.bnnbloomberg.ca

The current crop in Ottawa need to go. Here is hoping the business community finally starts to get out the knives.

 

[Jarnhamar]

where national security concerns necessitate a 'no'.

Hiding OICs from the elected Parliament though?
That's greasy.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Hiding OICs from the elected Parliament though?
That's greasy.

Real greasy....especially the sub-committees.

 

[brihard]

Hiding OICs from the elected Parliament though?
That's greasy.

Not at all, if the OICs are based on classified national security intelligence. Much of Parliament isn't cleared for that. We see the same issues with national security intelligence review and oversight.

I'd certainly like to know why there are so many more in this particular year, but the existence of classified OICs in the first place doesn't surprise me. We cannot trust the integrity of our classified intelligence to the stupidest or least-security-conscious member of Parliament...

 

[brihard]

Real greasy....especially the sub-committees.

We don't know if it's shared with NSICOP or NSIRA. That's the very nature of classified review and oversight. They may well have looked at it but we as the public don't get to know that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not at all, if the OICs are based on classified national security intelligence. Much of Parliament isn't cleared for that. We see the same issues with national security intelligence review and oversight.

I'd certainly like to know why there are so many more in this particular year, but the existence of classified OICs in the first place doesn't surprise me. We cannot trust the integrity of our classified intelligence to the stupidest or least-security-conscious member of Parliament...

In my limited engagement with classified material, where there is an unusually large amount of 'secret stuff' it usually relates to the inexperience of those doing the classifying as opposed to whether or not the actual material needs to be protected by a special classification.

Inexperienced people tend to err on the side of caution.

I recall, with great joy, taking over positions from certain risk averse staff people who had choked the files with 'secrets', and then having a big shredding party within a day or two of going through it all.

 

[Jarnhamar]

We cannot trust the integrity of our classified intelligence to the stupidest or least-security-conscious member of Parliament...

We're trusting it to someone with multiple ethical violations, someone who admires China's dictatorship, and who tried to pressure the attorney general to bend Canadian laws to suit the needs of a proven unethical company.

Canadians vote in members of Parliament to represent their interests. The current government hasn't built up very much "trust us" credit IMO.

 

[brihard]

In my limited engagement with classified material, where there is an unusually large amount of 'secret stuff' it usually relates to the inexperience of those doing the classifying as opposed to whether or not the actual material needs to be protected by a special classification.

Inexperienced people tend to err on the side of caution.

I recall, with great joy, taking over positions from certain risk averse staff people who had choked the files with 'secrets', and then having a big shredding party within a day or two of going through it all.

Depends. Some stuff you might see classified Secret and be exposed to at the army tactical level, sure... Some other parts of the National Security world, damned near anything can speak to sources, methods, or degree of penetration of an adversary.

We're trusting it to someone with multiple ethical violations, someone who admires China's dictatorship, and who tried to pressure the attorney general to bend Canadian laws to suit the needs of a proven unethical company.

Canadians vote in members of Parliament to represent their interests. The current government hasn't built up very much "trust us" credit IMO.

That speaks to a very distinct matter, the need for better national security review. The shortcomings of NSICOP have been spoken on a fair bit. We don't have a proper equivalent to the fully empowered and security cleared congressional committees the Americans have. That said, regardless of the shortcomings we may presently have, on any given day executive decisions may need to be made based on highly classified material that absolutely cannot be compromised, but which absolutely must be considered in key decisions on things like can a certain foreign company but key parts of our infrastructure. We can want a better system (or better players within it), but the business itself must go on while we strive for that.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

We don't know if it's shared with NSICOP or NSIRA. That's the very nature of classified review and oversight. They may well have looked at it but we as the public don't get to know that.

It's Ottawa "Top Secret-SA" therefore the media will know about it by tomorrow

 

[brihard]

It's Ottawa "Top Secret-SA" therefore the media will know about it by tomorrow

Yup, exactly. Which is why the actually serious stuff is dealt with on a serious STFU basis.

 

[GR66]

Might some of the OICs have to do with Canadian aid to Ukraine or the financial measures against Russia/Russian citizens? Not all secrets are necessarily evil.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Might some of the OICs have to do with Canadian aid to Ukraine or the financial measures against Russia/Russian citizens? Not all secrets are necessarily evil.

I will agree on that point, however, if they were very much things that would reach the news cycle anyway, why keep the Opposition and other Parliamentary committees in the dark?

The problem with democracy is that if it's to be maintained, it needs to transparent. Anything that blurs that transparency, even if necessary, blurs that transparency; and opens the door to further allowances.

In cases where "Yes this is something we don't want on Hansard because XYZ..", fine. You can have those with the proper clearance be kept in the loop, but off the mic about it. Making everything so secret that even those who are trusted to keep said secrets can't see it... that's not just protecting information; that's withholding the truth.

Our current government has played fast and loose with every imaginable rule we have to protect our democracy, to a degree that has rivaled the previous government they attacked for a lack of transparency. My spidey senses are tingling that this is more than just "Protecting Canada and Canadians."

 

[brihard]

In cases where "Yes this is something we don't want on Hansard because XYZ..", fine. You can have those with the proper clearance be kept in the loop, but off the mic about it. Making everything so secret that even those who are trusted to keep said secrets can't see it... that's not just protecting information; that's withholding the truth.

But we don't know that that's the case. Again, we have NSICOP and NSIRA with oversight roles. Either or both may have seen some or much of this, but be constrained by security clearances for discussing it. We don't get to know what's at the table there, and what level of detail may have been disclosed to this very select audience.