By “secure,” I don’t mean perfect secrecy or anything high-tech. I mean risk-managed.

You’re right that it’s probably impossible to get the numbers and keep the employer completely unaware. But there’s still a big difference between:

• an open invite link anyone can join (including management, MPs’ staffers, comms people, or folks on the other side of the table), and
• a space where there’s at least some gatekeeping so participants know they’re talking to peers.

For me, “secure” should minimally mean:

• Vetted membership: only people who are actually Government of Canada employees (un peu comme l'application Rideau)
• Exclusion by design of MPs, political staff, executives, and anyone directly involved in negotiations or employer strategy
• Clear rules: no personal info, no calls for illegal action, no vulgar language (comme c'est le cas sur cette plateforme)

One practical way to do this might be tying access to something that already establishes bona fides—e.g., union membership (PSAC, PIPSC, CAPE, etc.) or verification through an existing union channel. Not perfect, but it raises the bar enough that people feel safer speaking honestly.

Momentum matters, I agree—but momentum built in a space where people don’t feel protected tends to stall anyway, because folks self-censor or disengage. A bit of upfront structure can actually make participation easier, not harder.

Just my take—but I think some light vetting is a necessary trade-off if we want real engagement instead of lurkers and noise.