Repenser le secret ministériel (Rethinking Cabinet Secrecy)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le present article decrit les principales lacunes du cadre legislatif regissant le secret ministeriel au Canada et propose des solutions pour y remedier. Une premiere lacune decoule du caractere indetermine du terme « renseignements confidentiels du Cabinet » aux articles 39 de la Loi sur la preuve au Canada et 69 de la Loi sur l’acces a l’information. Cela a pour consequence de conferer a l’executif une vaste discretion pour delimiter la portee de l’immunite du Cabinet. Une deuxieme lacune resulte de l’absence de mecanismes de surveillance et de controle susceptibles d’empecher et de corriger des revendications d’immunite potentiellement abusives de la part de l’executif. Sur la base du principe de la primaute du droit et d’une analyse des pratiques exemplaires dans les ressorts comparables, l’auteur formule des recommandations visant a mieux circonscrire l’immunite du Cabinet et a assujettir ses revendications a un veritable controle par un organisme independant et impartial. A cette fin, l’auteur preconise une immunite plus restreinte, fondee sur un critere de prejudice, dont la revendication pourrait uniquement se justifier a l’issue d’un examen approfondi de l’interet public. De plus, il insiste sur l’importance d’exclure de la portee de l’immunite les renseignements factuels et contextuels relatifs aux decisions gouvernementales ayant ete rendues publiques. Finalement, il recommande de conferer aux juges et au commissaire a l’information du Canada le pouvoir d’examiner les renseignements confidentiels du Cabinet lorsque survient un differend sur la validite d’une revendication d’immunite, et d’accorder aux juges le pouvoir additionnel de contraindre la production de ces renseignements lorsque l’interet public le requiert. English Abstract: This article describes the main shortcomings of the statutory framework regulating Cabinet secrecy in Canada and proposes solutions to address them. The first shortcoming is the indeterminacy of the term “Cabinet confidence” pursuant to sections 39 of the Canada Evidence Act and 69 of the Access to Information Act. Consequently, the executive has broad discretion to delineate the scope of Cabinet immunity. The second shortcoming stems from the absence of meaningful oversight and review mechanisms to prevent and correct possible abuses of this immunity by the executive. Based on the rule of law principle and an analysis of best practices in similar jurisdictions, the author makes recommendations to more clearly circumscribe the scope of Cabinet immunity and to ensure that claims of immunity are subject to meaningful review by an independent and impartial body. To that end, he proposes a narrower immunity, based on a criterion of injury, that could be justified only following an in-depth examination of the public interest. In addition, the author underscores the importance of excluding from the scope of the immunity any factual and contextual information underpinning government decisions that have been made public. Finally, he recommends that judges and the Information Commissioner of Canada be granted the power to examine Cabinet confidences when there is a dispute concerning the validity of a claim of immunity, and that judges be granted the additional power to compel production of those confidences when it is in the public interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it