July 19, 2019

Liberals won't release nicknames they use in communications: It'll hurt foreign affairs

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show

A new response to a Conservative order paper question shows us just how sneaky the Liberals are.

And how they can't keep their ridiculous stories straight.

Today's order paper question came courtesy of outgoing CPC MP Guy Lauzon:

With regard to abbreviations, code names and code words used by departments or agencies: what is the complete list of abbreviations, code names and code words used by departments and agencies in communication between the departments or agencies and the Minister's office; and for each abbreviation, code name or code word, whom or what does it represent or refer to.

This OPQ follows up on the revelation that Department of National Defence was using code words to avoid Access to Information inquiries about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Most departments answered that they don't keep an official list. Makes sense — Secret code words wouldn't do much good if you kept an official list of them. In other instances, some ministries just provide a list of random acronyms, like telling us that WTO stands for World Trade Organization or PMO stands for Prime Minister's Office.

Gee, thanks.

But the responses of two ministries leave me with questions.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada admitted to using coded language to avoid revealing things that, "may be injurious to the conduct of international affairs." (Translation: We're saying bad things about Trump and we don't want them uncovered in an Access to Information investigation.)

Even weirder, the DND denied the practice of using coded language despite evidence to the contrary presented in the Norman legal proceedings. One CAF member testified to using code names to avoid ATIP inquiries about Norman and at least three code names for Norman were reported in the media.

As Judge Judy always says: If you’re telling the truth, then you don’t have to have a good memory.

That's something for the DND top brass to think about.

OPQ 2220 Code Words by The Rebel on Scribd

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-07-21 08:56:38 -0400
No video on computer or cell phone.
commented 2019-07-20 13:09:37 -0400
“Even weirder, the DND denied the practice of using coded language despite evidence to the contrary presented in the Norman legal proceedings. One CAF member testified to using code names to avoid ATIP inquiries about Norman and at least three code names for Norman were reported in the media.”

Some clarity is due to those who have never served in either DND or the Canadian Armed Forces.

“Coded” implies a deliberate attempt to disguise a person, place, thing, or meaning etcetera.

That is not the case here.

In a civilian company, a given person could be referred to by his or her name (full, first, or last), by his or her position within the company or job title, or by something generic as “the boss”. “Mrs Smith”, “Sally Smith”, “Sally”, “Smith”, “the CEO”, and “the boss” could, therefore, all be used interchangeably to refer to the same person.

Vice-Admiral Norman could, similarly, be referred to as “VCDS” or “Vice Chief of the Defence Staff” when he was in that position, or “CRCN” or “Commander Royal Canadian Navy”, or simply “the Commander” (in context) when he was in that position. “CRCN”, like many other abbreviations, often gets pronounced as a word, in this case “Kraken”.

Wikipedia defines “Kraken” as “a legendary cephalopod-like sea monster of giant size in Scandinavian folklore” which “has been a staple part of sailors’ superstitions and mythos being heavily linked to sailors ability of telling a tall tale”. This would, obviously, amuse sailors.

This is all natural and human, and not nefarious in any way.

The “CAF member” who “testified to using code names to avoid ATIP inquiries” would have known all of the various terminology in use, either officially or otherwise. It is quite possible that this person simply chose to narrow his search unreasonably and unethically, but that would be an individual shortcoming vice an organizational one.
commented 2019-07-20 07:43:52 -0400
no video
commented 2019-07-20 06:51:02 -0400
BARB MORRISON commented 5 hours ago
No video on my machine……gives one cause to wonder if the regime has started their selective censoring program.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5avaZOlICI
commented 2019-07-20 01:28:57 -0400
No video on my machine……gives one cause to wonder if the regime has started their selective censoring program.
commented 2019-07-20 00:12:07 -0400
Sheila…the bureaucrats learned some time ago that they must never commit ink to paper that would hang them through ATIPP….put yourself in their position…would you say what you really think in a document if that would break your rice bowl? ATIPP became impotent after it was enacted.
commented 2019-07-19 19:23:05 -0400
No video for Sheila on my machine.
commented 2019-07-19 18:54:12 -0400
Rat Face = Trudeau?