William Ashley Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/22/prentice-oil-sands-wikileaks.html Do you beleive it, who supplied it, how was it obtained? I havn't heard anything about this from the Canadian Government seeking to find the source of the leak. So do you think he somehow knew this info would be released, or is it a whip, or what? I think it says a lot when the Conservative Cabinet was prepared to pick the environment over the oilsands.. or hold on ... was this the dividing line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) Here's a quote from the article: "[Prentice] noted that if industry did not take voluntary measures and if the provincial government did not set more stringent regulations, he would step in and press federal environmental legislation," according to the cable, apparently written by Jacobson. CBCThere is nothing new here. Jim Prentice often presented environmental issues as questions of conservation. David Jacobson (US Ambassador in Ottawa) was simply reporting the same thing that Prentice openly said in public (if anyone cared to listen). ---- IMHO, the wikileaks simply underscores the irrelevance of the US Department of State (and our own DFAIT) bureaucracy in a world of open borders, cheap travel and the Internet. We are far, far from the 19th century world of diplomats abroad. Ambassadors nowadays are largely tour guides for incoming delegations, and office managers. Some people believe that US government officials - merely because they are American and official - always write cables of insight and significance. I beg to differ. Edited December 23, 2010 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted December 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) Maybe the CBC seems to have provided a search engine for the Canadian leaks in WIKI http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/29/f-database-wikileaks-canada-cables.html You got to question the authenticity or state or relations between US and Canada if the opening of this cable is true ¶1. © Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election campaigns. SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION -- NOT! So unfortunate Canada only shared prisoners with the US and not the torture reports No parliament can't have them.... was colber in the US when this was going on....... head of Canadian Intelligence in Washington. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101129/wikileaks-cablegate-canada-reaction-101129/ BTW,,, with all this wiki leaks stuff... how does it relate to the anti terrorism act and official secrets act... Purported communication 13. (1) Every person permanently bound to secrecy commits an offence who, intentionally and without authority, communicates or confirms information that, if it were true, would be special operational information. Truthfulness of information (2) For the purpose of subsection (1), it is not relevant whether the information to which the offence relates is true. Punishment (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day. R.S., 1985, c. O-5, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 29. Unauthorized communication of special operational information 14. (1) Every person permanently bound to secrecy commits an offence who, intentionally and without authority, communicates or confirms special operational information. Like is me posting up a comment that may or may not be true.. (something the CBC is providing links to... an indictable offence.... the government should issue a statement on the matter. -------- Like this information sharing is "life sentence material" even if my target audience ain't terrorists.. is it still possible to fall into Communicating safeguarded information (2) Every person commits an offence who, intentionally and without lawful authority, communicates to a foreign entity or to a terrorist group information that the Government of Canada or of a province is taking measures to safeguard if (a) the person believes, or is reckless as to whether, the information is information that the Government of Canada or of a province is taking measures to safeguard; and ( harm to Canadian interests results. Punishment (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet there are no injunctions against these sites... I am doubtful on the truthfulness of these things. It'd be nice if the government confirmed or denied the authenticity of the information. Edited December 23, 2010 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 Maybe the CBC seems to have provided a search engine for the Canadian leaks in WIKIWm. Ashley, I suggest that you change your thread title."True or False - Canada Leak" is misleading, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted December 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 Wm. Ashley, I suggest that you change your thread title. "True or False - Canada Leak" is misleading, no? How so, There have been law suits related to leaks from people claiming them untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.