UNDE goes UNDEcover
The Union of National Defence Employees is continuing its campaign against the privatization of some 91 support jobs at CSE.
The union's latest move includes a website (Security for Sale) and a video commentary by an anonymous CSE employee denouncing the privatization move as a security threat:
UNDE has also prepared an "External Briefing Note" outlining its concerns about the project.
The briefing note makes the interesting claim that "at two previous points in history regular information transfers have been restricted from coming into Canadian possession, these restrictions were a result of perceived or real security breaches".
Is that a reference to these incidents? The examples that Aldrich refers to sound more like policy disputes -- particularly in the case of Operation FRICTION -- rather than security breaches, but maybe that's one way to perceive them. There was also the question of full Canadian access to Iraq War-related intelligence, but, again, that's not really characterizable as an issue about security breaches.
Is UNDE referring to something else entirely? The document states that all of the information in it is unclassified, but I certainly don't recall hearing anything about such breaches. Does anyone care to elaborate on this unclassified information?
Further information:
Colin Freeze, "Union accuses senior Tories of selling out national security," Globe and Mail, 14 January 2011
Carmen Chai, "National defence union fights government plan to outsource security jobs," Postmedia News, 14 January 2011
The union's latest move includes a website (Security for Sale) and a video commentary by an anonymous CSE employee denouncing the privatization move as a security threat:
UNDE has also prepared an "External Briefing Note" outlining its concerns about the project.
The briefing note makes the interesting claim that "at two previous points in history regular information transfers have been restricted from coming into Canadian possession, these restrictions were a result of perceived or real security breaches".
Is that a reference to these incidents? The examples that Aldrich refers to sound more like policy disputes -- particularly in the case of Operation FRICTION -- rather than security breaches, but maybe that's one way to perceive them. There was also the question of full Canadian access to Iraq War-related intelligence, but, again, that's not really characterizable as an issue about security breaches.
Is UNDE referring to something else entirely? The document states that all of the information in it is unclassified, but I certainly don't recall hearing anything about such breaches. Does anyone care to elaborate on this unclassified information?
Further information:
Colin Freeze, "Union accuses senior Tories of selling out national security," Globe and Mail, 14 January 2011
Carmen Chai, "National defence union fights government plan to outsource security jobs," Postmedia News, 14 January 2011
posted by Bill Robinson at 1:00 pm
1 Comments:
I have to say I'm surprised the government couldn't fudge some larger numbers for the "savings" we'll supposedly generate from this program. Usually that's the high point of P3 projects -- misleading up-front numbers.
Incidentally some more information on the contractors came out via Plenary's sale of bonds:
Link.
Post a Comment
<< Home