# Government wants more secrets kept under wraps longer (forever)



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2013)

> The prime minister's national security adviser, federal lawyers who work on terrorism cases and intelligence analysts in the Privy Council Office would be forever forbidden from discussing sensitive aspects of their work under proposed new rules.
> 
> The Harper government wants to pull the cloak of eternal secrecy over past and present employees of nine federal agencies and those who used to toil at two now-defunct branches.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 16 Jun 13

Canada Gazette posting:  _"Order Amending the Schedule to the Security of Information Act,"_ 8 Jun 13


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jun 2013)

I prefer a gradually release of secrets based on realistic timeframes. I really don't care if it embarrasses someone later on. Now the only secrets I would accept is where people have risked their lives to get us information. Their names and only information that would id them should be protected, unless they wish for it to be released upon the normal timeframes.


----------



## Tralax (17 Jun 2013)

I don't see why the public needs to know any security based information.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (17 Jun 2013)

This looks like someone digging for a follow up on the recent NSA leak. Reaching pretty far there .  :

We retain secrets not to protect governments, but individuals.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jun 2013)

Tralax said:
			
		

> I don't see why the public needs to know any security based information.



Governments and political leaders have a a habit to deem everything "security based" or some other words to cover up embarrassments. For a democratic government to flourish we need to know what they are up to. Knowing much of what they do will eventually be public might help them steer the correct path. As I mentioned there are some caveats, but they should be the exception and not the rule.


----------



## MeanJean (17 Jun 2013)

Tralax said:
			
		

> I don't see why the public needs to know any security based information.



If things could be kept secret forever then where would the accountablilty be?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Governments and political leaders have a a habit to deem everything "security based" or some other words to cover up embarrassments.



I agree, even though the release times may be decades or a hundred years, the affected parties still would not be able to be held accountable but at least those embarrasments or mistakes would not be hidden for ever.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jun 2013)

MeanJean said:
			
		

> If things could be kept secret forever then where would the accountablilty be?
> 
> I agree, even though the release times may be decades or a hundred years, the affected parties still would not be able to be held accountable but at least those embarrasments or mistakes would not be hidden for ever.



Rather naïve don't you think?  There are things in our historical documents that may be over a hundred years old and still cause embarrassment to the Government and the country.  Of course, 'revisionists' can rewrite history to change many things.  When I went to school Louis Riel was a traitor and murder.  Today he is a hero and schools are named after him.  This still does not remove the fact that there are things in our historical documents that may cause embarrassment. 

Stop to think of what Government policies we had over a hundred years ago, that would not stand up to a litmus test of our Charter of Human Rights today.  Has it even been a hundred years since women were enfranchised with the right to vote?  As our society evolves, one can easily look back as little as a couple of generations to see instances of things that were acceptable then, but are not now.  Do you see any "Whites Only" water fountains around anywhere?  Is the Canadian Government not currently apologizing to aboriginal peoples for their treatment in Residential Schools?  The sins of our fathers and forefathers are still being apologized for today by our Government/society.  Political Correctness quite evident in the news every day.


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Jun 2013)

Tralax said:
			
		

> I don't see why the public needs to know any security based information.



Jews? There were never Jews living in Germany. Nor where there any Christians in Turkey. We were particularly lucky to find North America empty when we got here.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jun 2013)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> We retain secrets not to protect governments, but individuals.



False.

We retain secrets to protect the Government and nation.  

We do have the Official Secrets Act, and many here are bound by it.  

Individuals are protected by Federal and Provincial Laws and of course Acts such as The Charter of Human Rights.


----------



## jpjohnsn (18 Jun 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Rather naïve don't you think?  There are things in our historical documents that may be over a hundred years old and still cause embarrassment to the Government and the country.  Of course, 'revisionists' can rewrite history to change many things.  When I went to school Louis Riel was a traitor and murder.  Today he is a hero and schools are named after him.  This still does not remove the fact that there are things in our historical documents that may cause embarrassment.
> 
> Stop to think of what Government policies we had over a hundred years ago, that would not stand up to a litmus test of our Charter of Human Rights today.  Has it even been a hundred years since women were enfranchised with the right to vote?  As our society evolves, one can easily look back as little as a couple of generations to see instances of things that were acceptable then, but are not now.  Do you see any "Whites Only" water fountains around anywhere?  Is the Canadian Government not currently apologizing to aboriginal peoples for their treatment in Residential Schools?  The sins of our fathers and forefathers are still being apologized for today by our Government/society.  Political Correctness quite evident in the news every day.


And yet, South Africa did quite well with their truth and reconciliation approach.   I have no issues with things that could bring us harm being kept out of the public's sight (as for nuclear weapons, for example) but this worries me.  In 50 or 75 or even a hundred years time, all the details of the Abbottabad raid, for example, will become public because everyone involved will be dead and the details will not bring harm to anyone.  I can't see that there would be that many secrets that won't be rendered impotent by the passage of time.

And if this new culture of secrecy is being used to cover up things that would embarrass the government or actions that run counter to our laws or values, perhaps we should be more than a little worried.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jun 2013)

Information that has an operational impact, ie informants, should remain a secret.

Nationally embarrassing secrets should be made public. 

Look at the US. Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman.  Drone strikes that waste civilians but somehow gets reported as "killing high level terrorists." The US keeps getting caught lying.

Lack of accountability is what happened to Blackwater in Iraq.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We do have the Official Secrets Act, and many here are bound by it.



Actually, we don't.  It was repealed and replaced by the Security of Information Act in 2001.


----------



## Robert0288 (18 Jun 2013)

Either way, from the Security of Information Act:



> “person permanently bound to secrecy” means
> 
> (a) a current or former member or employee of a department, division, branch or office of the federal public administration, or any of its parts, set out in the schedule;


source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/page-5.html#h-5


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jun 2013)

As I recall from the article, they wish to expand who is covered by that shedule.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> And if this new culture of secrecy is being used to cover up things that would embarrass the government or actions that run counter to our laws or values, perhaps we should be more than a little worried.



"New culture of secrecy"?  What new culture?  Since man crawled out of the ooze, he has kept secrets.  You, yourself are keeping secrets right now.  Not that I really care, but who is jpjohnsn?  You have an anonymous name on a website forum.   Should we all know what your real name is; where you live; your tombstone data (DOB, place of birth, members of your family, Blood Group, etc.), where you work; where you play; what drinks you drink; what you smoke; what kind of auto you have; and every other tiny detail of your existence?  

Actually; I am more than a little worried right now.  Why do so many people think it is their "RIGHT" to know everything about everything?   Just because the Government has secrets, does not mean that the public need to know about them.  Some of those secrets are what are keeping those "SHEEP" safe from the "WOLVES".  Do those "SHEEP" really need to know all the secrets that are kept on many levels, by a large number of people, in order to keep them safe?  Do those same "SHEEP" not have locks on their doors?  Shall we ask them to give us copies of their lock combinations/keys?  Would they feel safer if everyone had copies of their security devices to access their homes at any convenience?   

Secrets are secrets for a reason.  If the criminals/bad guys/enemy knows everything, and you have no secrets, then you are likely not going to like the society you are dealt.  

Freedom comes at a price.  Keeping secrets is one of the costs involved.  If you are so confident that you do not have to maintain any secrets of your own, please feel free to post your security measures and personal info here for all of us to know.  You know you will be safe doing so?  Right?  ........ and please be sure to include your banking information as well. 





Need I add  :


----------



## Tralax (19 Jun 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "New culture of secrecy"?  What new culture?  Since man crawled out of the ooze, he has kept secrets.  You, yourself are keeping secrets right now.  Not that I really care, but who is jpjohnsn?  You have an anonymous name on a website forum.   Should we all know what your real name is; where you live; your tombstone data (DOB, place of birth, members of your family, Blood Group, etc.), where you work; where you play; what drinks you drink; what you smoke; what kind of auto you have; and every other tiny detail of your existence?
> 
> Actually; I am more than a little worried right now.  Why do so many people think it is their "RIGHT" to know everything about everything?   Just because the Government has secrets, does not mean that the public need to know about them.  Some of those secrets are what are keeping those "SHEEP" safe from the "WOLVES".  Do those "SHEEP" really need to know all the secrets that are kept on many levels, by a large number of people, in order to keep them safe?  Do those same "SHEEP" not have locks on their doors?  Shall we ask them to give us copies of their lock combinations/keys?  Would they feel safer if everyone had copies of their security devices to access their homes at any convenience?
> 
> ...



Great post.  

I'm not a forces member (yet, hopefully), however I am in management and there are things that we have to withhold from our associates whether its for their own good, the companies interests or a combination of the two.  Sometimes if everyone knew everything it would create widespread panic.  

For example: we have a bonus system at work based on sales, profit etc.  we are now almost 1/2 through our fiscal year and we are in line for the first $0 bonus we have had since our store opened.  If we painted that picture nice and clear to everyone I'm sure that we would have a full range of negative emotions from the associates.  Well yes we do tell them we aren't on track and that sort of thing we don't want them to really freak out...Not with 1/2 the year left.  Why cause all that unnecessary grief??

I know that my environment is very minor compared to a federal government scale but just imagine what would happen there was transparency.  The public would be scared to death of their shadows I'm sure.  Not to mention reading some little blurb in a newspaper cannot give the subject proper understanding, people would be reading some small article, drawing their own conclusions and believing that it said something completely different than the truth.


----------



## jpjohnsn (19 Jun 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "New culture of secrecy"?  What new culture?  Since man crawled out of the ooze, he has kept secrets.  You, yourself are keeping secrets right now.  Not that I really care, but who is jpjohnsn?  You have an anonymous name on a website forum.   Should we all know what your real name is; where you live; your tombstone data (DOB, place of birth, members of your family, Blood Group, etc.), where you work; where you play; what drinks you drink; what you smoke; what kind of auto you have; and every other tiny detail of your existence?
> 
> Actually; I am more than a little worried right now.  Why do so many people think it is their "RIGHT" to know everything about everything?   Just because the Government has secrets, does not mean that the public need to know about them.  Some of those secrets are what are keeping those "SHEEP" safe from the "WOLVES".  Do those "SHEEP" really need to know all the secrets that are kept on many levels, by a large number of people, in order to keep them safe?  Do those same "SHEEP" not have locks on their doors?  Shall we ask them to give us copies of their lock combinations/keys?  Would they feel safer if everyone had copies of their security devices to access their homes at any convenience?
> 
> ...


Your  : notwithstanding...
Of COURSE there is a need for secrets!  No one can dispute that.  But how many secrets need to be kept forever?  Even now, some of the most tightly kept secrets of WW2  are being released.  I don't think every single piece of information from that conflict is going to be released but a blanket ban on release ad infinitum would be overkill, no? 

Now when I say "new" I mean the directives by the current government to place restrictions on more and more people under their control with respect to exchanging information - even information not germaine to the security of our nation.

Some examples:

Preventing scientists from publishing or talking to the press: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468

Muzzling librarians and archivists (!?!) http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Ottawa+muzzling+librarians+free+speech+intolerable/8146848/story.html

Great swaths of pretty damning information being removed from the audit report on the Duffy Affair http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/damning-findings-removed-from-sen-mike-duffy-s-audit-report-documents-1.1286005
I mean, even the government's own backbenchers have complained about not being allowed to speak. (for some, that's probably a good thing but still...)

After the Adscam fiasco the Conservatives ran on a platform of transparency but, since being elected, things are getting more and more opaque as information has to pass through more and more layers of bureaucracy and diseminated by fewer and fewer speakers.



			
				Tralax said:
			
		

> I know that my environment is very minor compared to a federal government scale but just imagine what would happen [if] there was transparency.  The public would be scared to death of their shadows I'm sure.  Not to mention reading some little blurb in a newspaper cannot give the subject proper understanding, people would be reading some small article, drawing their own conclusions and believing that it said something completely different than the truth.


"Don't worry your pretty, little, head, Dear, we know what's best for you"?  Yes, we don't need to know absolutely everything right now but there are things that we should know.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Yes, we don't need to know absolutely everything right now but there are things that we should know.



And why "should" you know?  Will it satisfy some perverse hidden desires that you may have?  There is a need to know and a need not to know.  If you don't need to know, then stop sticking you nose into it.  The fact that "inquiring minds WANT to know" is not a legitimate reason.  Often it only leads to persons not having the "complete story" creating a bigger mess of things.  It leads to rumours, speculation, innuendo, and numerous problems that muddy the waters and leads to more confusion and could lead to the dismissal of the people who are for the most part working hard with good intentions to benefit their nation and society.  Perhaps ( and only perhaps ) the example of the recent arrests and trial in the MSM of Montreal mayors could be cited here.  Do you need to be privy to all the information, right or wrong, that is being collected in these cases, or should you just wait until it is all analysed and the truth can be made public?  There is a time and a place for everything.  Knowing just for the sake of knowing is not a legitimate reason.

I can site an example of where historical military documents will never lose their classification.  Unit War Diaries will never lose their classification.  Does this mean that they will never be seen?  No.  They are kept "under lock and key" and accessible by those who need to know in order to do research.  They are not open to public display.  They do contain, at times, passages that may cause "harm" to the Unit and/or nation.  Unlike published works that may be "edited" and "revised" over the years like Uncle Tom's Cabin or some of Mark Twain's works, Unit Diaries and other historical documents can not be.  Does everyone really need to know what is transcribed in them?  Other than those in academia who need access to historical facts or to conduct research on changes to society, what does the release of any information transcribed in those documents actually achieve?  For most it is UFI.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Yes, we don't need to know absolutely everything right now but there are things that we should know.




Let's take this a little further.

You still think that 





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ......we all know what your real name is; where you live; your tombstone data (DOB, place of birth, members of your family, Blood Group, etc.), where you work; where you play; what drinks you drink; what you smoke; what kind of auto you have; and every other tiny detail of your existence?
> ..........to include your banking information as well.



For most it would be UFI.  For some it may be quite relevant, especially your banking information.  Should you have the "Right" to keep that secret?  You seem to be arguing that you should not.


----------



## jimbuller (19 Jun 2013)

I wonder why those critics of this law never took mention of the secrecy surrounding the activities of the Communist Party of Canada which is the recruiting base of communist countries and their hostile intelligence agencies for closet communists assigned to penetrate the Government of Canada  to steal its secrets when it is common knowledge that it is the staging ground for such traitors. When it comes to government secrets I myself do not want to know what they are. Once an intelligence officer or director swearS under oath that he will fulfill his duties mentioned, it means that he submits himself to laws and regulations. Hence, he must suffer the consequences if he violates his oath of secrecy.

The Communist Party of Canada appears to be a harmless organization with headquarters at 290A Danforth Avenue under the cover of a billboard sign Greek Democratic Alliance but it has done so much damage to the economy by infiltrating its agents to be Premiers and Prime Ministers, dictates them to tax companies heavily and vigorously, thereby discouraging domestic and foreign investments, abet economic sabotage and unreasonable demands in the collectivebargaining table, stage illegal strikes and slowdowns, and negatively influence policies that should have made us the envy of Europe like how Singapore has been. Knowing the secrets of the Communist Party of Canada should be the aim and objective of this critical poster instead on picking on a harmless Government of Canada which submits itself to the laws of the land, the constitution and also town regulations. 

The justices of the communist Soviet Supreme court would never had thought or willed that the millions of victims of Stalin were to be entitled to personal injury claims and compensatory damages in the amount of 10 million dollars which were awarded to Arar when malice was gleaned from his intentions when he refused to bring his case to United Nations but instead picked on CSIS, as an agent of influence for the Communist Party of Canada. Lawful authorities were used to assurances from Assad that the most the Canadian terrorists with dual citizenships were made to do were to toil in the gardens of Syria which they were really made to do until the change of heart.


----------



## GAP (19 Jun 2013)

Ohhh weee !!!! 


now where did I put that  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## jimbuller (19 Jun 2013)

Documented, MITROKHIN ARCHIVES. Published 1995.


----------



## jimbuller (19 Jun 2013)

And when I say that the intelligence officer should maintain complete secrecy,  I mean complete with no saving clauses nor exceptional clauses for who usually falter but the Soviet, Cuban, Chinese and French mole. Again documented, MITROKHIN ARCHIVES.


----------



## jimbuller (20 Jun 2013)

Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois are equally at fault too. According to an international survey, countries that promote the English language has the most number of investments, so numerous that they have to import qualified workers from "Philippines with respect to Singapore". The survey still remains valid. Why? Why would I, a foreign businessman invest in a country whose language I remain ignorant of?"  It would hamper office and management efficiency!. Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois refuse to acknowledge the validity of the survey because if Quebec registers a budget deficit, the federal government is there to fill in the void. Besides, sabotaging the economy of Quebec would alienate the voters and vote for them and not for the federal government. "Canadian capitalism does not work", Parti Communiste du Quebec.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2013)

jimbuller:  Welcome to Milnet.ca.  A bit more on-topic, please - more reading than posting suggested for now.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Jun 2013)

It appears that, along with the swallows returning from Capistrano, the loons have returned from Lake Wacky-wacky-woo-woo.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jun 2013)

What happens when the Shepard steps from the path of righteousness and decides that making a deal with the wolves is more monetarily beneficial than just protecting the sheep? 

If there is no accountability how do we catch them?

What about Shepards who are negligent in their duties? If they let their guard down, do something stupid etc.. and your proverbial sheep die as a result how can their be restitution if the Shepard just covers it up and no one knows. Blames someone else.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> What happens when the Shepard steps from the path of righteousness and decides that making a deal with the wolves is more monetarily beneficial than just protecting the sheep?
> 
> If there is no accountability how do we catch them?
> 
> What about Shepards who are negligent in their duties? If they let their guard down, do something stupid etc.. and your proverbial sheep die as a result how can their be restitution if the Shepard just covers it up and no one knows. Blames someone else.


What's the matter?  Don't you trust the current systems of internal checks and balances?  Just trust the system like the system trusts you ....


----------



## classicenglish (21 Jun 2013)

And most remember my friend, they won't act indecisively, hastily, discriminately without evidence to buttress their findings. Examples? Brunet of RCMP, etc. You get to be part of their 'fraternity' by merit. Just look at me. I am a South African black and I decide on very very important issues. No bull!


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2013)

classicenglish said:
			
		

> And most remember my friend, they won't act indecisively, hastily, discriminately without evidence to buttress their findings. Examples? Brunet of RCMP, etc. You get to be part of their 'fraternity' by merit. Just look at me. I am a South African black and I decide on very very important issues. No bull!


Nice try - off you go, then!

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> What happens when the Shepard steps from the path of righteousness and decides that making a deal with the wolves is more monetarily beneficial than just protecting the sheep?
> 
> If there is no accountability how do we catch them?
> 
> What about Shepards who are negligent in their duties? If they let their guard down, do something stupid etc.. and your proverbial sheep die as a result how can their be restitution if the Shepard just covers it up and no one knows. Blames someone else.



50 sheep?, no we have always had 49.........


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jun 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> 50 sheep?, no we have always had 49.........



We've always been at war with Eastasia


----------



## KevinB (24 Jun 2013)

:facepalm:

Some things need to be secret.  How long to do they need to be secret is the issue, as for a true democracy you cannot have blanket secrecy.

One needs to find a balance - somewhere that security methods are not divulged, but at sometime when the people or issues are no longer relevant those should be released, it is part of history and needs to be released to the public to educate the public.

If you believe in a nation of sheep you've already lost and are on the way to a true Police State.

Special Compartmentalized Information release needs to be managed, however a blanket no is not in anyone best interest.


----------

