Cyril, thanks. The course is restricted to govt employees to allow for relatively open discussions. That would not be possible if journalists were in the mix. I once offered a course on national seciuity for journalists, but the problem is that however interested they might be newsrooms wouldn't pay for it!
Why is this restricted to govt employees. This might fit journalists also. Perhaps it would provide a better framework for their evaluation of information they come across.
Dear Wesley and all Public Servants on No, Not to Leak,
As an international publisher who has unveiled some of the biggest national security stories over the past five years, I hold great admiration for those protecting our national security interests, be it in law enforcement, the military, or domestic intelligence services and the civil service writ large.
For nearly fifty years, we have collaborated with confidential sources. It's crucial that when a story surfaces, it's handled with utmost care, recognizing that some narratives can impact individuals, corporations, or government institutions. Whistleblowers, or "Angels of moral courage" did not get to come to their decision to report on what they have seen lightly. And yet we have thousands of examples (I have published many) of said individuals being ostracized, shut down and in extreme cases, murdered to hide egregious malfeasance. The tainted blood crisis comes to mind and some should have gone to jail over that crisis as documented in Bad , published by Optimum in 2019.
Over the past few decades, the public's trust in our political and civil institutions has been under-minded by scandal after scandal within the political arena and our civil service. Restoring that public faith takes leadership within government and the civil services must come through best practices focused on objectivity, transparency, and adherence to both the code of conduct and the Rule of Law.
Our studies and research demonstrate that some in Ottawa and provincial governments believe they are the ultimate arbiters of what government should represent within our parliamentary democracy. On the Whistleblower from CSIS I was astonished to read editorials from civil servants and professors linked to the Munk School, suggesting that civil servants should strictly adhere to an oath of secrecy under parliamentary and cabinet confidentiality and that voters get their say every four years.
This year, I joined the Canadian Whistleblowers Association Advisory Board and co-authored an editorial with Pamela Forward, published in the Toronto Star on April 29, 2024 to rebut such a notion.
Since I'm not a senior Ottawa civil servant and can't attend the course, I'd be happy to share my perspective on the moral and ethical duties that our civil services all owe to the taxpayers. They pay your salaries. A civil servant's loyalty should lie within the constitution (our charter), civic duty, and the rule of law. As our editorial points out not blindly following the government of the day or any philosophically misguided politician, minister, or even the prime minister within any government.
National security and intelligence within the civil service should be first and foremost guided by those principles, so teaching a course on the subject should be guided by foundational principles of higher moral standing rather than a blind loyalty to the government of the day, no matter what your political leanings are.
If you are not fully subscribed, would you consider opening this course to an interested private sector individual? I was long, long ago the Assistant Secretary of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration where I had the great privilege of working for Robert Bryce.
Cyril, thanks. The course is restricted to govt employees to allow for relatively open discussions. That would not be possible if journalists were in the mix. I once offered a course on national seciuity for journalists, but the problem is that however interested they might be newsrooms wouldn't pay for it!
Why is this restricted to govt employees. This might fit journalists also. Perhaps it would provide a better framework for their evaluation of information they come across.
Dear Wesley and all Public Servants on No, Not to Leak,
As an international publisher who has unveiled some of the biggest national security stories over the past five years, I hold great admiration for those protecting our national security interests, be it in law enforcement, the military, or domestic intelligence services and the civil service writ large.
For nearly fifty years, we have collaborated with confidential sources. It's crucial that when a story surfaces, it's handled with utmost care, recognizing that some narratives can impact individuals, corporations, or government institutions. Whistleblowers, or "Angels of moral courage" did not get to come to their decision to report on what they have seen lightly. And yet we have thousands of examples (I have published many) of said individuals being ostracized, shut down and in extreme cases, murdered to hide egregious malfeasance. The tainted blood crisis comes to mind and some should have gone to jail over that crisis as documented in Bad , published by Optimum in 2019.
Over the past few decades, the public's trust in our political and civil institutions has been under-minded by scandal after scandal within the political arena and our civil service. Restoring that public faith takes leadership within government and the civil services must come through best practices focused on objectivity, transparency, and adherence to both the code of conduct and the Rule of Law.
Our studies and research demonstrate that some in Ottawa and provincial governments believe they are the ultimate arbiters of what government should represent within our parliamentary democracy. On the Whistleblower from CSIS I was astonished to read editorials from civil servants and professors linked to the Munk School, suggesting that civil servants should strictly adhere to an oath of secrecy under parliamentary and cabinet confidentiality and that voters get their say every four years.
This year, I joined the Canadian Whistleblowers Association Advisory Board and co-authored an editorial with Pamela Forward, published in the Toronto Star on April 29, 2024 to rebut such a notion.
The editorial, "Whistleblowers are Vital to Democracy," is included here: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/whistleblowers-once-again-prove-their-worth-no-whistle-blowing-no-election-interference-inquiry/article_5cfd0192-0657-11ef-b2f4-53c1cf914e7c.html
Since I'm not a senior Ottawa civil servant and can't attend the course, I'd be happy to share my perspective on the moral and ethical duties that our civil services all owe to the taxpayers. They pay your salaries. A civil servant's loyalty should lie within the constitution (our charter), civic duty, and the rule of law. As our editorial points out not blindly following the government of the day or any philosophically misguided politician, minister, or even the prime minister within any government.
National security and intelligence within the civil service should be first and foremost guided by those principles, so teaching a course on the subject should be guided by foundational principles of higher moral standing rather than a blind loyalty to the government of the day, no matter what your political leanings are.
If you are not fully subscribed, would you consider opening this course to an interested private sector individual? I was long, long ago the Assistant Secretary of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration where I had the great privilege of working for Robert Bryce.