OTTAWA—Ottawa has slapped a life-long gag order on bureaucrats and lawyers working in a number of government agencies dealing with sensitive national security information.

The changes enacted Wednesday, and published in the Canada Gazette, reveal employees in 12 government divisions — five of which have been disbanded — are now subject to provisions under the Security of Information Act that permanently binds them to secrecy.

Those employees, mostly Department of Justice lawyers and senior bureaucrats at the Privy Council Office, could face as much as 14 years in prison for disclosing “special operational information” without authorization.

Editorial: Gagging officials for life in the name of secrecy is overkill

But while the government maintains the secrecy is necessary to maintain Canada’s most “operationally sensitive” information, critics say it’s designed to discourage whistleblowing and hamper the public debate now swirling around modern state espionage.

“The practical implication of this is that it puts a terrific chill on the possibility of drawing on practitioner expertise, particularly the retired practitioners, to contribute to any kind of debate on intelligence and security matters in Canada if people followed the letter of the law,” said Wesley Wark, a University of Ottawa professor and one of Canada’s leading experts in national security and intelligence issues.

Wark said Canadians “need those voices more than ever” — not only after former U.S. security contractor Edward Snowden pulled aside the curtain on a pervasive state spying apparatus in the United States, but since the events of 9/11 and the swath of anti-terrorism measures rolled out in its wake.

“Security and intelligence operations have become that much more important and contentious in the Canadian context,” Wark said.

“The significant range and nature of intelligence and security operations is just vastly different (after 2001), and it impacts on Canadians and Canadian society much more directly than it used to.”

Under the Security of Information Act, those sworn to permanent secrecy are prohibited from disclosing a wide range of information they were made privy to in the course of their duties.

“Special operational information” is loosely defined in the act as the identity of persons or groups approached as confidential sources, Canada’s plans for military operations, the country’s methods for collecting intelligence, the target of any investigation, or the identity of spies.

In reality, the definition is much larger — it also includes “information or intelligence similar in nature” to those categories received by or relating to any foreign entity.

The wide definition gives the government enormous latitude, Wark said, to impose permanent secrecy on employees past and present.

The government’s notice suggests Canada’s reputation among the so-called “Five Eyes” nations — including the U.S., England, Australia, and New Zealand — was partially behind the decision to increase the number of operatives permanently bound to keep the government’s secrets.

“The security and intelligence community has certain operational requirements that need to be respected,” the notice reads.

“(This) order enables the Government of Canada to provide additional assurances to its international partners and allies that special operational information shared with Canada will be protected.”

Giving those additional assurances is likely more urgent after two high-profile espionage cases in recent years.

Sub.-Lt. Jeffrey Paul Delisle, a former naval officer based out of CFB Halifax, was sentenced in February 2013 to 20 years in prison for selling an unknown quantity of state secrets to Russia.

In December, 53-year old Qing Quentin Huang was charged for allegedly passing information on Canada’s plans for new warships to China.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Both men were charged under the Security of Information Act.

The regulations announced Wednesday were first proposed in 2005 and 2013, and were met with criticism from both experts and the press. Critics argued that no government information requires “permanent” secrecy, that the very notion of “permanent” government secrecy runs contrary to democracy, and that the move would discourage whistleblowing in the event of wrongdoing.

The Star requested an interview with the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety, and Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister’s Office, for this story. In an emailed response, a Department of Justice spokeswoman wrote that the government recognizes the importance of “openness and transparency,” and so only swears employees to permanently secrecy when “strictly necessary.”

Read more about: