As Brett knows well, solicitor-client privilege is a significant category of secrecy and became a matter of contention during the Rouleau Commission, given the Government's refusal to release the details of the legal advice that established the legitimacy of invoking the Emergencies Act. It doesn't seem pertinent to me in the context of the specifics of the Chinese election interference controversy but it is certainly an impediment to full transparency. My thanks to Brett to calling attention to this.
Thank you for this overview. As an aside, to me Cabinet confidence is largely illegitimate, apart from any privacy or, of course, national security issues. It is essentially a use of power that can shield reasons for decisions that may not be in the public interest but e.g. only beneficial to a party. If the deliberations were open, then such abuse could not take place. To me, the public interest would be served if Canadians could see how decisions are made. I.e., in my view, government decision making councils at all levels should meet in public in principle, going in camera by exception. That's how it is at the municipal level (as well as, here in Ottawa, with the National Capital Commission).
Superb overview. Does Solicitor-Client Privilege count as another category of secrecy? It is very frequently used, alongside Cabinet Confidences to redact and restrict significant portions of Govt-held information.
Peggy, thank you for your gracious comment
As Brett knows well, solicitor-client privilege is a significant category of secrecy and became a matter of contention during the Rouleau Commission, given the Government's refusal to release the details of the legal advice that established the legitimacy of invoking the Emergencies Act. It doesn't seem pertinent to me in the context of the specifics of the Chinese election interference controversy but it is certainly an impediment to full transparency. My thanks to Brett to calling attention to this.
Thank you so much for writing about this. You really shed a rational and informed light on what sounds crazed and vilifying in most media reporting.
Thank you for this overview. As an aside, to me Cabinet confidence is largely illegitimate, apart from any privacy or, of course, national security issues. It is essentially a use of power that can shield reasons for decisions that may not be in the public interest but e.g. only beneficial to a party. If the deliberations were open, then such abuse could not take place. To me, the public interest would be served if Canadians could see how decisions are made. I.e., in my view, government decision making councils at all levels should meet in public in principle, going in camera by exception. That's how it is at the municipal level (as well as, here in Ottawa, with the National Capital Commission).
Superb overview. Does Solicitor-Client Privilege count as another category of secrecy? It is very frequently used, alongside Cabinet Confidences to redact and restrict significant portions of Govt-held information.