Neil Macdonald: Government sensitivity over you hearing about ‘sensitive’ information

While MacDonald is unfair to CIC DM Anita Biguzs (she had no option but to investigate the leak), his broader points are valid:

But to Biguzs and her fellow mandarins at Citizenship and Immigration, the public should never have been told any of these things in the first place, and the fact that it was constituted a grave crime.

Interestingly, Biguzs’s memo does not call the information leaked “classified.” She calls it “sensitive.” There’s a big difference.

Classified information is an official secret, determined by security professionals to be potentially injurious to national security. (Or at least that’s supposed to be how it works.)

Disclosing an official secret is a crime.

“Sensitive information,” on the other hand, is anything the government doesn’t want the public to know, and, as noted, the government that Biguzs has served for a decade doesn’t want the public to know much.

Prosecuting embarrassment

Using Biguzs’s logic, federal scientists who decide the public should know about a scientific finding about the quality of the air we breathe or water we drink are unethical underminers of democracy, too, unless they seek permission to speak, which is rather difficult to obtain nowadays in Ottawa.

Of course, when a government does want reporters to know something, the information is suddenly not sensitive at all anymore, and democracy is well-served by its disclosure, sometimes even — and I speak here with some experience — when it’s an official secret.

In the case of the immigration and passport stories, apparently, the government was embarrassed, so the RCMP are now stalking the department’s hallways, further intimidating an already scared group of bureaucrats.

Politicians, including Harper’s Conservatives, love to talk about the supreme importance of accountability. It is a word that has been milked, flogged and ridden practically to death.

So Biguzs and her political masters might want to ponder this: If the information about the refugee review and the faulty passports had been divulged in a timely fashion, as a matter of public accountability, democracy would not only have been served, there’d be no need to call the police.

Source: Neil Macdonald: Government sensitivity over you hearing about ‘sensitive’ information – Politics – CBC News

Immigration express entry: 5 things you need to know

The most interesting part to observe, in the short-term, will be the commitment to transparency (not a strong point for the Government), the last comment, about “an aggressive” ad campaign, is little surprise given the Government’s normal approach, particularly acute in an election year:

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander has said individuals with a job offer or a provincial nomination will be “picked first” and that the first “invitations to apply” for permanent residency will be sent out by the last week of January.

Manicom told MPs during the Commons committee that there will be a “draw” every two weeks.

The senior official said applicants will be able to see how they are ranked against each other in the pool. “We are very highly transparent,” he said.

Once a skilled immigrant has received an offer to apply for permanent residency, he or she would have 60 days to accept or decline the offer. If the applicant doesn’t receive an offer of permanent residency after 12 months, he or she will have to start the process again.

… Anita Biguzs, the deputy minister for citizenship and immigration, said the government has budgeted $32.5 million in total funding for express entry.

Of that, $6.9 million has been allotted so the department can align its IT system in preparation for the launch of the new system.

Manicom told MPs to expect a “very aggressive” ad campaign in 2015.He was not asked how much the ad buy would cost taxpayers.

Immigration express entry: 5 things you need to know – Politics – CBC News.