It's not just China. It's Russia and India, and a lot of it is in plain sight. CSIS has made it clear it's not just federal - it's provincial and municipal, too.
The recent NSICOP report points out that parliamentarians are held back by SOIA. The report suggests that changes need to be made in parliament to be able to deal with sensitive information, evidence, etc. But what about parliamentary privilege? It's almost as if our security agencies are hamstringing politicians using SOIA as a threat.
I think there is a more practical issue here, which is that SOIA should be amended to ensure that MPs have other avenues for public disclosure and shouldn't be restricted to parliamentary privilege alone.
Yes, MPs could use parliamentary privilege and not face legal or criminal sanction, and there is nothing preventing them from doing that now, but it's limited only to what people say on the record in the House or committee.
As soon as they step outside, they're not protected, which means they would not be able to answer any questions or provide context, or explanations, or further information. Part of the sensitivity of the information is about trying to ensure it's presented in a way that is accurate, and being able to explain it publicly is part of that.
I think you're wrong on this; SOIA is preventing parliamentary privilege. There is/has been a lawsuit to overturn this. Parliamentarians cannot discuss NSICOP as part of house business, or in committee. We don't need public disclosure, we need MP's to be able to act on information presented by government agencies. If they can't act without fear of reprisal using SOIA, it's an absurd catch-22 because the report implicates MP's, the people responsible for acting on the report.
The stated reason in the NSICOP report was that evidence can't be presented to MP's without spoiling ongoing methods used by canadian intelligence. It's like an admission that no one can be trusted, and the system is inherently flawed.
There were two conflicting court of appeal decisions. One said privilege applied, the other did not. In my non-legal opinion, privilege prevails. I was a legislator for five years.
An important article. I wish more Canadians (and media) were paying attention. Trying to counter all of the disnfo put out is bind-boggling.
The recent NSICOP report points out that parliamentarians are held back by SOIA. The report suggests that changes need to be made in parliament to be able to deal with sensitive information, evidence, etc. But what about parliamentary privilege? It's almost as if our security agencies are hamstringing politicians using SOIA as a threat.
I think there is a more practical issue here, which is that SOIA should be amended to ensure that MPs have other avenues for public disclosure and shouldn't be restricted to parliamentary privilege alone.
Yes, MPs could use parliamentary privilege and not face legal or criminal sanction, and there is nothing preventing them from doing that now, but it's limited only to what people say on the record in the House or committee.
As soon as they step outside, they're not protected, which means they would not be able to answer any questions or provide context, or explanations, or further information. Part of the sensitivity of the information is about trying to ensure it's presented in a way that is accurate, and being able to explain it publicly is part of that.
I think that's the better context.
I think you're wrong on this; SOIA is preventing parliamentary privilege. There is/has been a lawsuit to overturn this. Parliamentarians cannot discuss NSICOP as part of house business, or in committee. We don't need public disclosure, we need MP's to be able to act on information presented by government agencies. If they can't act without fear of reprisal using SOIA, it's an absurd catch-22 because the report implicates MP's, the people responsible for acting on the report.
The stated reason in the NSICOP report was that evidence can't be presented to MP's without spoiling ongoing methods used by canadian intelligence. It's like an admission that no one can be trusted, and the system is inherently flawed.
There were two conflicting court of appeal decisions. One said privilege applied, the other did not. In my non-legal opinion, privilege prevails. I was a legislator for five years.