In Camera Meeting Leaks ≈ ZERO: Ned Franks, Fabulist, HoC Denigrator, Executive Apologist

Given Franks is a political "scientist" and he's always banging on about committee leaks, could someone ask him, re. Leaks from IN CAMERA committee sessions:
- How many? (I know of NONE: Dosanjh = no actual info, just tenor of mtg)
- If any, when? (broken down by decades - how many in recent decades?)
- Percentage of in camera sessions producing (public) leaks? (ie. leaky sessions divided by total number of in camera sessions)
- as above, but broken down by decades.
- Number of leaks from in camera meetings dealing with national security?
- Percentage producing leaks?
- When?

I know of no substantive leaks from in camera sessions, at all. There may have been, but when, in recent decades? Even if one counted all the leaks from in camera sessions from Confederation onwards, the percentage would be infinitessimal. And in recent decades? Since WW2? And on actual matters of war? Were there any during WW2 or Korean War? Or peacekeeping missions? Or NATO missions? Etc.? Not only are members honourable, the political cost of such leaks is a staggering disincentive, and there have been so few, if any, AS TO EQUAL ZERO!

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A SUBSTANTIVE PUBLIC LEAK FROM IN CAMERA SESSIONS DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY? EVER? IF SO, WHEN? SINCE 1939?

The number of leaks from in camera sessions is zero, or so infinitessimal as to equal zero over Confederation, and probably outright zero in recent decades.

But certainly, on national security matters, the number & percentage is zero, in recent decades, if not before.

I think Franks is full of shit and he keeps repeating this shit over and over, and no-one ever asks, "uh, professor, can you give me examples? How often? How many? When? On national security matters?"

By repeating this crap, Franks the Fabulist denigrates Parliament and makes himself the Executive's apologist.

In his desire to present himself as some sort of all-knowing seer of parliamentary democracy, to promote himself by associating himself with the successes of his more tough-minded onetime students (who knew better than to remain in academia and turn into senile old Queenies), and promoting these dangerous fictions of MPs' untrustworthiness, he harms democracy, Parliament and Canada. Lee & Milliken, who have actually been in politics, know better.

Perhaps worst of all, this supposed scientist of politics, lacking all science, is actually making it MORE difficult to come to an arrangement between Parliament and the Executive re. the unredacted documents. His utterances weaken Parliament's position and provide comfort to an Executive whose demonstrable default is contempt for Parliament, de facto, if not yet de jure. For Milliken's suggestion to have any chance of working, given the Executive's behaviour, Parliament's negotiating position must be as strong as possible.

Franks is wrong on the facts, wrong on the theory, and wrong on the politics.

His behaviour reinforces every negative prejudice one might have about Queens' social "scientists" and what I can only call a sort of pitiful colonial desire to ape their British betters by going even further in their imitation and unconsciously adopting "muddling throughism" as an actual philosophy, seemingly unaware that when the means become the ends, one is no longer muddling through but simply stuck in ever more awful, inextricable muddles (cf. British Empire, UK's extrication therefrom). Their Faculty Council must be engaged in one long, endless meeting, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, year after year, as all the old Queenies disappear into the abyss of their own process.

Stupid, senile old Queenie.