Secret documents : Le Devoir jumps to conclusions
Following the publication of a news item in Le Devoir this morning, I sent out this press release:
Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, September 3, 2009 - The daily paper Le Devoir published a tendentious and sensationalist report this morning about the nature of the documents left by former Foreign Affairs minister Maxime Bernier in a private residence more than a year ago.
The reporter, Bahador Zabihiyan, concludes from the outset, without quoting any official or expert, that the documents “are a real mine of information whose divulgation would risk causing injury to the security and foreign policy of Canada and its allies, as well as provide crucial information to their enemies.”
It should be reminded that during the independent investigation that followed the incident, the Security and Intelligence Bureau of the Privy Council Office examined the documents and the final report concluded that “Our review of the documents in question concluded that their disclosure would not have caused significant injury to the national interest. No special operational information as defined by the Security of Information Act was present. No classified material from allied governments nor from NATO (…) was contained in the briefing material.” (See section 5.2 of the report).
The journalist grounds his assertion not on the nature of the information itself – which he has not seen – but on the fact that the word “Secret” is marked on sections of the documents, which was obviously already known; and on the fact that paragraphs were taken out by civil servants before he obtained the document, which was totally predictable since we’re talking about secret documents. The civil servants simply deemed it prudent to keep the content of these sections secret, even if releasing it would not cause any significant injury to national interest.
The Member of Parliament for the Beauce notes that “There is nothing new in this report. It is simply the interpretation of one journalist, who offers nothing specific and concrete on which to base his assertions.”
You can leave a response.
Donc, du a un manque de nouvelles interessantes dans notre societe, quelqu’un a pris la decision de reprendre une vieille histoire. On peux-tu passer a autre chose et regler des choses plus importantes. Bonne journee!
Très bon timing au Devoir! Sortir ça à la veille d’une possible campagne électorale fédérale qui relèguera à l’arrière-plan les élections municipales! Après ça, on s’étonne quand on se fait dire que les médias sont biaisés.
“The civil servants simply deemed it prudent to keep the content of these sections secret, even if releasing it would not cause any significant injury to national interest.”
Actually, civil servants can not do this. Are you suggesting that the broke the Access to Information laws?
According to the Act:
Information obtained in confidence
13. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that was obtained in confidence from
(a) the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof;
(b) an international organization of states or an institution thereof;
(c) the government of a province or an institution thereof;
(d) a municipal or regional government established by or pursuant to an Act of the legislature of a province or an institution of such a government; or
(e) an aboriginal government.
OR
15. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information
(a) relating to military tactics or strategy, or relating to military exercises or operations undertaken in preparation for hostilities or in connection with the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities;
(b) relating to the quantity, characteristics, capabilities or deployment of weapons or other defence equipment or of anything being designed, developed, produced or considered for use as weapons or other defence equipment;
(c) relating to the characteristics, capabilities, performance, potential, deployment, functions or role of any defence establishment, of any military force, unit or personnel or of any organization or person responsible for the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities;
(d) obtained or prepared for the purpose of intelligence relating to
(i) the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada, or
(ii) the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities;
(e) obtained or prepared for the purpose of intelligence respecting foreign states, international organizations of states or citizens of foreign states used by the Government of Canada in the process of deliberation and consultation or in the conduct of international affairs;
(f) on methods of, and scientific or technical equipment for, collecting, assessing or handling information referred to in paragraph (d) or (e) or on sources of such information;
(g) on the positions adopted or to be adopted by the Government of Canada, governments of foreign states or international organizations of states for the purpose of present or future international negotiations;
(h) that constitutes diplomatic correspondence exchanged with foreign states or international organizations of states or official correspondence exchanged with Canadian diplomatic missions or consular posts abroad; or
(i) relating to the communications or cryptographic systems of Canada or foreign states used
(i) for the conduct of international affairs,
(ii) for the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada, or
(iii) in relation to the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities.
So, it is not possible as you suggest that the Civil Servants simply decided not to release that information. Will you please clarify your statements for the record?
@ Jim Young,
“Will you please clarify your statements for the record?”
No, I am not at all suggesting that civil servants broke the law.
There is a difference between “could reasonably be expected to be injurious” and “not cause significant injury”. Something can reasonably be expected to cause some injury without causing any *significant* injury.
My understanding is that the civil servants took out parts of the documents because they deemed it prudent (that is, it could reasonably be expected to be injurious in some way if they were disclosed). But nonetheless the report last year concluded that “their disclosure would not have caused significant injury to the national interest”.
Bonjour M. Bernier,
votre réaction me fait trop rire. Je pense que la meilleure technique serait de simplement accepter le fait que cette histoire de document était la porte de sortie la moins honorable pour un ministre.
En réponse à Monsieur Geebee,
Je pense au contraire que d’avoir démissionné suite à cette histoire de documents est un geste humble et honorable de la part de Monsieur Bernier. Et le fait qu’il poursuit en politique malgré cette ‘tempête’ démontre qu’il assume ses responsabilités et fait le choix de continuer au lieu d’abandonner complètement ‘le bateau’… Ce n’est certainement pas le chemin le plus facile…