# Leaking Information To Canadian Media



## Queen For A Day (4 Mar 2017)

The National Military Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association has said:

"that the limitations on freedom of expression imposed by articles 19.36 and 19.37 of the QR&O are excessive, unreasonable and draconian. The scope of the restriction in article 19.36 is so broad that, on its face, it prohibits a CF member from writing a history essay on a military subject for a university course." 

- Submission on the Operation of Canadian Military Law - National Defence Act and Bill C-25 (June 2003)
My questions:

Does anyone know if these QR&O have been amended since 2003?

And if so, what are the processes or channels in place, say for a Corporal to go through, if he lawfully and legally would like to speak with the CBC on camera. I know he cannot be barred from doing so, however, I also know that he/she cannot wear their uniform or use their rank, or for that matter even state that they had the permission in the first place. So in effect, how does a member legally approach the media without having the Chain of Command come down on them like a hammer.

The only reason I mention this, is it seems that there is no mechanism for any member to legally and lawfully approach the media with a concern.

Are they entitled to speak with PA without going through the months long wait of getting an approval from the chain of command?

I think we can cut down the illegal leaking if the CMP or CRS authorized members to legally speak to the media.

Thoughts/Comments/Suggestions

Q


----------



## mariomike (4 Mar 2017)

Queen For A Day said:
			
		

> Thoughts/Comments/Suggestions



Saw this. Not sure if it is what you are looking for, or if up to date. But, here it is,

19.36 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION

19.37 – PERMISSION TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION

19.375 – COMMUNICATIONS TO NEWS AGENCIES


----------



## Queen For A Day (4 Mar 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Saw this. Not sure if it is what you are looking for, or if up to date. But, here it is,



Thank you kindly, but no. 

I am trying to find out if these have been modified at all in order that they be brought in line with the Charter's (s.2), or are they the same as they were since 2003?

Any Ex JAGS in these fora?

Q


----------



## dapaterson (4 Mar 2017)

At least 19.36 has not been revised since June 2000.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 Mar 2017)

Queen For A Day said:
			
		

> Thank you kindly, but no.
> 
> I am trying to find out if these have been modified at all in order that they be brought in line with the Charter's (s.2), or are they the same as they were since 2003?
> 
> Any Ex JAGS in these fora?



Why do you need a military lawyer (or anybody else on these means) to do the simple research of looking at the previous versions.  You do know that the archived versions to year 2000 are linked on the publically available QR&O pages, don't you?  Or did you post your question without looking at the references?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2017)

If they are in the current QR&Os doesn't that indicate that they are still in effect?


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Mar 2017)

If your unit really is JTFX, you probably shouldn't be jumping in front of CBC cameras.  :2c:


----------



## FJAG (4 Mar 2017)

This is a link to the relevant QR&Os:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-19.page#cha-019-36

The note on the bottom of article 19.36 indicate that it was promulgated by the Minister of National Defence on 15 June 2000 and not amended since. 19.37 and 19.375 would have been issued concurrently.

If you look at the top of article 19 you will see the record of amendments and links to the archived older copies. There is no record of an amendment to either 19.36 or 19.37 so we are still operating on the original June 2000 order as written.

 :cheers:


----------



## Queen For A Day (4 Mar 2017)

First off, thanks to all for the respectful responses. I guess I should have use a better word than _amended_. I will use the proper legalese. 

Has anyone seen any "orders amplifying or implementing" QR&O 19.36 and 19.37?

I am looking for a manual similar to ADM(PA) Policy Manual on Social Networking. I understand that a number of General Messages have been released regarding Acceptable Use of Social Media Networks including a news article about forcing members to sign documents while at JPSU.

So, I will ask again if anyone has seen any other regulations, rules, orders and instructions, correspondence publications, directives or aide memoires regarding engaging the media.

Again, thanks for taking part in this thread. I am writing an article for a peer reviewed journal about the CAF's inability to recruit and retain millennials. Lack of clear guidance by the chain of command is the sentence that I need evidence to back up. 

Q

And yes. I see the irony in my request.


----------



## FJAG (4 Mar 2017)

Queen For A Day said:
			
		

> First off, thanks to all for the respectful responses. I guess I should have use a better word than _amended_. I will use the proper legalese.
> 
> Has anyone seen any "orders amplifying or implementing" QR&O 19.36 and 19.37?
> 
> ...



The publishing of the QR&O is its "Implementation". As far as amplification is concerned, I can't help you. You may wish to get in touch with the Public Affairs branch. Their contact page is here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/contact-us/media-contacts.page 

You may also wish to look at the DAOD on Public Affairs Policy. It is located here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-2000/2008-0.page

All the related DAODs are linked in the left sidebar.

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (4 Mar 2017)

Bear in mind that leaking information, besides potential legal/disciplinary/administrative actions, may separately result in a security review that could result in the loss of your security clearance and/or reliability status. This can be an instant show stopper professionally and result in release due to loss of a basic requirement of our job. The security process would be separate from everything else and in its own right can end your career and stop you from getting other federal employment.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Mar 2017)

I'll throw this here, because it's possible that V/Adm Norman may not end up being the only individual put under the microscope.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

As for any embarrassment the GoC might have been feeling as a result of said leaks, well, as the old saying goes "if the shoe fits, wear it".  Only they know if the shoe fits.  Highlites mine



> DND leak investigation started under Tories, expanded under Liberals
> 
> Expert says where Liberals and secrets are concerned it's 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'
> 
> ...


----------



## MAJONES (15 Mar 2017)

Shades of Billy Mitchell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell


----------



## RedcapCrusader (13 Apr 2017)

Sure, the Bar stated what they did... However, the following still applies:

19.14 - IMPROPER COMMENTS

(1) No officer or non-commissioned member shall make remarks or pass criticism tending to bring a superior into contempt, except as may be necessary for the proper presentation of a grievance under Chapter 7 (Grievances).

(2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:

if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or

if seen by, heard by or reported to those under him, might discourage them or render them dissatisfied with their condition or the duties on which they are employed.


----------

