Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

And now, some answers?

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, May 7, 2010 11:05am - 7 Comments

The Board of Inquiry report into the events of June 14, 2006 “detainee incident” is due to be released this afternoon.

The rather relevant background to this is sketched out here.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose Janice Rose

    The Justice Department stated the test for keeping things redacted or not, is:

    "…to determine whether the disclosure of the information would be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security"

    Unfortunately, this statement sounds like the CPC has all their bases covered. I was glad to see the statement continue on to say:

    "…The Department of Justice must balance the claim of injury that may be caused by the release of the information against the public interest of disclosing the information."

    We'll see how this process will unfold in reality, I hope, later today.

  • Mark

    Where in our Constitution does is state that Department of Justice bureaucrats get to determine what is or is not within the bounds of Parliamentary sovereignty?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

    Hmmm Firday afternoon announcement and the playoffs are on, I'm guessing it isn't good news.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Open_Democracy Open_Democracy

    Under the Access to Information Act, the Department of Justice can claim national security issues on just about any request for information. For example, the Department released a nearly completely redacted copy of an Excel spreadsheet when a request was made for information regarding how the Finance Department calculated tax leakage when they decided to tax income trusts. The spreadsheet was redacted because it was felt by Justice that releasing the information in its entirety, could pose a threat to national security. How this is possible is beyond me but it shows that Justice, under the guidance of government, can use just about any excuse to redact just about any document that is requested under the Access to Information Act.

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      One can only assume that the danger to national security comes from the likelihood of Canadians rebelling against the state if the truth were known.

    • Mark

      …so invoking Parliamentary Privilege is the same as a public request under the Access to Information Act?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

        Only if you're Harper.

Previous

Next

From Macleans