# NDP & Liebrals Leak Confidential Documents



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2015)

> Ezra Levant
> 
> 20 hrs ·
> 
> ...


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ezra-Levant/131404586952777



> Canadian diplomats have quietly warned members of Parliament that the “best weapon” for fighting the Islamic State is diplomacy and finding a “political solution” — a message that appears to run counter to the Conservative government’s emphasis on military action.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced earlier this week that the government would extend its military mission against ISIL to the end of March 2016, and authorize Canadian air strikes in Syria as well as Iraq. He said the objective was to “degrade” ISIL so it can no longer launch attacks, either in the region or abroad.
> 
> ...



http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/best-weapon-against-isil-is-political-solution-foreign-affairs-says

I can think of two people who likely won't be invited back.

The Conservatives didn't have to invite the other parties, to a confidential meeting, but did.

There is a certain amount of trust that is expected, even if unspoken.

The NDP and Liberals have shown they can't be trusted to help protect Canadians, or our deployed service people. 

Their only goal is points in the polls and smearing the Conservatives.


----------



## Inspir (28 Mar 2015)

And they want to be involved with more oversight of CSIS/CSEC?  :


----------



## Occam (28 Mar 2015)

> Ezra Levant



Sorry, I tried, but I was unable to muster any GAFF after reading that far.


----------



## Sythen (28 Mar 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Sorry, I tried, but I was unable to muster any GAFF after reading that far.



I also like to attack the messenger instead of the message.


----------



## brihard (28 Mar 2015)

Sythen said:
			
		

> I also like to attack the messenger instead of the message.



I'd still like to see other sources on this before I form an opinion on it. Levant's credibility is justifiably shot. Not many 'journalists' end up on the wrong and losing side of a defamation lawsuit for making stuff up. When a judge rules someone to have a 'reckless disregard for truth', and when their political leanings are well known and decidedly oppositional to the politicians being written about, I'm going to err on the side of skepticism. That's just me though.

So where's the beef? What's the word from other sources on these allegations?


----------



## FSTO (28 Mar 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'd still like to see other sources on this before I form an opinion on it. Levant's credibility is justifiably shot. Not many 'journalists' end up on the wrong and losing side of a defamation lawsuit for making stuff up. When a judge rules someone to have a 'reckless disregard for truth', and when their political leanings are well known and decidedly oppositional to the politicians being written about, I'm going to err on the side of skepticism. That's just me though.
> 
> So where's the beef? What's the word from other sources on these allegations?



John Ivison of the National Post mentioned it.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/27/john-ivison-leaks-opposition-antics-c51/

"Just this week, we have seen the opposition parties leak the details of a closed-door briefing on Iraq given to MPs by Mark Gwozdecky, director of the Middle East bureau at the Department of Foreign Affairs. The briefing note, which suggested “the best weapon against [the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham] is good governance and inclusiveness,” was used as a stick to beat the Harper government’s strategy of using only “hard tools.”

Earlier in the week, details of the Conservative motion on extending the mission in Iraq, which had been provided to the opposition in advance, were leaked, with the government blaming the opposition.

The leaks have only added to the Harper government’s genuine determination to keep the opposition parties, and the NDP in particular, far away from any decision-making role in the security of the country."


----------



## dapaterson (28 Mar 2015)

And how many articles cite "unnamed government sources"?

Everybody leaks, and everybody claims to be shocked, SHOCKED to discover that it's happening.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Mar 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'd still like to see other sources on this before I form an opinion on it. Levant's credibility is justifiably shot. Not many 'journalists' end up on the wrong and losing side of a defamation lawsuit for making stuff up. When a judge rules someone to have a 'reckless disregard for truth', and when their political leanings are well known and decidedly oppositional to the politicians being written about, I'm going to err on the side of skepticism. That's just me though.
> 
> So where's the beef? What's the word from other sources on these allegations?



How about the Ottawa Citizen article cited in the same post?


----------



## Occam (29 Mar 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How about the Ottawa Citizen article cited in the same post?



After searching, the only reference I can find to "Ottawa Citizen classified briefing notes" leads to Ezra Levant's website(s).


----------



## Ostrozac (29 Mar 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And how many articles cite "unnamed government sources"?
> 
> Everybody leaks, and everybody claims to be shocked, SHOCKED to discover that it's happening.



From Yes, Minister:

Bernard: That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's being charged under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Mar 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> From Yes, Minister:
> 
> Bernard: That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's being charged under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act.


 :nod:



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I'd still like to see other sources on this before I form an opinion on it.


My personal beef:  is ANYONE who's "obtained" the briefing note sharing the note with the readers/viewers/listeners?  Or do the media think we can't understand these documents, so THEY know what's best from them?


----------



## George Wallace (29 Mar 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> After searching, the only reference I can find to "Ottawa Citizen classified briefing notes" leads to Ezra Levant's website(s).



Other than Ezra Levant, do you think any of the other news agencies will admit to posting "Leaked Confidential Documents" or the information held within?  They will creatively editorialize what was leaked to circumvent the obvious.


----------



## Occam (29 Mar 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Other than Ezra Levant, do you think any of the other news agencies will admit to posting "Leaked Confidential Documents" or the information held within?  They will creatively editorialize what was leaked to circumvent the obvious.



Yes, I understand that - but I don't even see any articles on the Ottawa Citizen site that refer to being in possession of leaked classified documents.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Mar 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Yes, I understand that - but I don't even see any articles on the Ottawa Citizen site that refer to being in possession of leaked classified documents.



 ???


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Other than Ezra Levant, do you think any of the other news agencies will admit to posting "Leaked Confidential Documents" or the information held within?  They will creatively editorialize what was leaked to circumvent the obvious.



If they are not likely to admit to posting "leaked confidential documents", why would they admit to being in possession of such documents?

They have so far skirted around the issue in their writing/releases, hiding/omitting/disguising the fact that two members of Opposition Parties divulged sensitive information to them.   Plausible deniability?     :dunno:


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2015)

Anything written by or with Ezra Levant's name anywhere near it is suspect to me and probably just right wing trite, of little value.


----------



## Occam (29 Mar 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> If they are not likely to admit to posting "leaked confidential documents", why would they admit to being in possession of such documents?
> 
> They have so far skirted around the issue in their writing/releases, hiding/omitting/disguising the fact that two members of Opposition Parties divulged sensitive information to them.   Plausible deniability?     :dunno:



So we're back full circle to Ezra Levant making an unverifiable claim.  There doesn't appear to be any evidence supporting his claim of leaked classified documents, either the Ottawa Citizen posting excerpts or admitting they have them, for that matter.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Mar 2015)

Even a 'Conspiracy Theorist' can be right once in a while.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Mar 2015)

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/best-weapon-against-isil-is-political-solution-foreign-affairs-says

The article doesn't mention "classified".

Everyone is welcome to assume for his own satisfaction whether a memo presented at a closed-door meeting and "obtained" by the media without attribution was intended to be publicly distributed or not.  Your decision may be influenced by your understanding of whether everything not classified is automatically a good go for promulgation.  Ezra Levant's involvement is irrelevant.


----------



## McG (29 Mar 2015)

The article is three days old, and I have seen no statement from the government objecting to classified information being released.  If there were validity to the claim, I would have expected several headlines of PM and cabinet ministers publicly decrying the leak.  

According to what is in the media, the memo's thesis is that the Middle East crisis requires a solution with military and political components.  This is not new thinking from which Canadians should be shielded; it is practically dogma.


----------



## Occam (29 Mar 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/best-weapon-against-isil-is-political-solution-foreign-affairs-says
> 
> The article doesn't mention "classified".
> 
> Everyone is welcome to assume for his own satisfaction whether a memo presented at a closed-door meeting and "obtained" by the media without attribution was intended to be publicly distributed or not.  Your decision may be influenced by your understanding of whether everything not classified is automatically a good go for promulgation.  Ezra Levant's involvement is irrelevant.



Thanks for the link - using the various search terms I tried, it's obvious why I wasn't able to find it myself.

As MCG pointed out, nobody else (government included) seems to be making much of this except for Ezra Levant.  It's for precisely that reason that it's entirely relevant that he's the source of a story alleging that classified info was divulged to person(s) not cleared or authorized to receive it.  There are certain journalists (and I'll use that term loosely) whose works need to be taken with a healthy dose of salt because of their blatant political spin - he's but one of them.


----------



## X Royal (29 Mar 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> There are certain journalists (and I'll use that term loosely) whose works need to be taken with a healthy dose of salt because of their blatant political spin - he's but one of them.



Same can be said about certain members here.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2015)

The government may not be making much of a deal about this in order to minimize the significance of the story to outsiders. The best way to judge the truth  or seriousness of these allegations would be to see if the Liberals and NDP will be invited to future closed door meetings or not.

You may recall the NDP in particular are prone to do stupid stuff like this (the potential of the UAE to provide troops and material assistance in Afghanistan was scuttled due to an NDP leak; one can only speculate how things may have happened differently with an Islamic military force engaged in Afghanistan against the Taliban), which makes me wonder why on earth anyone would be inviting them into these meetings in the first place.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Mar 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The government may not be making much of a deal about this in order to minimize the significance of the story to outsiders. The best way to judge the truth  or seriousness of these allegations would be to see if the Liberals and NDP will be invited to future closed door meetings or not.
> 
> You may recall the NDP in particular are prone to do stupid stuff like this (the potential of the UAE to provide troops and material assistance in Afghanistan was scuttled due to an NDP leak; one can only speculate how things may have happened differently with an Islamic military force engaged in Afghanistan against the Taliban), which makes me wonder why on earth anyone would be inviting them into these meetings in the first place.



This is precisely why the situation is win-win for the opposition parties:

Win Nr 1 - leak documents to embarrass the government; and

Win Nr 2 - when you're not invited back, claim the government is secretive.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Mar 2015)

Judging by the posted material the leak is minimal, basically everyone knows a political solution is the end game, just that no one wishes to speak the obvious which is the political solution requires the dismemberment of Iraq.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

One way to reduce the _leakage_ is to make access to information easier, but, as the _Globe and Mail_'s Bill Curry explains in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that journal, there are problems:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeaus-open-government-plan-guaranteed-to-make-waves-in-ottawa/article26962569/


> Trudeau’s ‘open government’ plan guaranteed to make waves in Ottawa
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




The easy one first: reform of question period is _looooooong_ overdue. The first reform I would like to see is "no scripts," it should be "out of order" for a member to read *anything* while asking his question. If a question is too full of data to be memorized then it should be a written question. I agree with weekly or bi-weekly 'Prime Minister's Questions' with the PM not being required to attend QP on any other days.

Access to Information is sticky. Of course legitimate SECRETS can and will be excluded, but first we need to retrain everyone in what a SECRET is not: something stupid that embarrasses a minister or a general is not a SECRET and misclassifying information to avoid embarrassment should in itself, be a serious breach of the _Access to Information Act_ which ought to have very severe consequences, including imprisonment. (In my personal experience several senior and junior officials and officers, up to and including ADMs and LGens were guilty of just such abuses of the security classification system, and they were worthy of nothing but our contempt.)

The hard one is "Cabinet Confidences." The very rock upon which our system of government rests is the _confidentiality_ of the advice which public servants and political advisers offer to ministers. Anything which impedes that good advice will do real damage to both the machinery of government and democracy, itself.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2015)

My question to many who think that they should know everything is this two part question:

"Do you have a home alarm system?"

"Will you post your alarm code here?"


----------



## McG (26 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My question to many who think that they should know everything is this two part question:
> 
> "Do you have a home alarm system?"
> 
> "Will you post your alarm code here?"


That is a bit red herring.  As noted by ERC, Protected and Classified information would have to be excluded from an “open government” initiative.  Your analogy to a home alarm code is an analogy to Protected and Classified information.


----------

