131

Poilievre’s Refusal to Get Security Clearance Raises Questions about His Readiness to Govern (thewalrus.ca)

submitted 10 months ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 44 points 10 months ago

It does not raise a question, it provides the answer.

[-] CorvusNyx@beehaw.org 17 points 10 months ago

The big question is: what is he hiding he doesn’t want the rest of the county to know?

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

Exactly. His excuses are weak and easily disproven for why he won't get clearance, so it's more looking like he has something to hide, like maybe he won't clear the required background check.

Besides, becoming a PM means you automatically get clearance without a background check (Carney didn't need to, but getting a background check was just being cheeky, and frankly fun), so trying to get the job entirely goes against his own words.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

Probably nothing of consequence. I would be very surprised if the relevant agencies haven't already done 99% of the background check already, and the only thing left to do is for him to agree.

[-] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago

I think "Poilievre" is actually French for "populist sell-out"

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago

Pierrot Poilievre 🤡: Just Not Ready to govern.

[+] Kobek@sh.itjust.works -33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As someone who's worked for the Federal government and had a level 3 security clearance which has since expired, l'll tell you it makes sense why he's not getting it if you think about it for more than a minute.

Security clearances are meant to protect Federal government information. He is literally the opposition to the Federal government in representation of the people who elected him.

To put it in a left perspective as popular on Lemmy... It would be like if you were at a pro Palestinian protest and were asked to sign a document saying you're free to protest but only if you remain quiet about certain things the isralie government is doing or you'll be arrested. If you refuse to sign, a crowd of people all start shouting that you're a Nazi not because of anything you did but because you refused to sign the document.

Let the opposition be the opposition.

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 26 points 10 months ago

What? That’s insane. He’s only ever worked in the federal government. He’s not a reporter or an outside agitator. You’re eating the brand. You just nouned the verb.

[+] Kobek@sh.itjust.works -25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As an MP He's a representative not a member of the federal government. Security clearances are meant to protect federal government information. The federal government is the ruling party, which is the Liberal party.

The Liberal party isn't going to start giving him access to privileged information as soon as he gets a security clearance. That's not how it works. The practical application of requesting his security clearance would legally prevent him from sharing privileged information If he became privy to it. It's not a good tactic of opposition to be silenced by the people you're opposing.

[+] puppinstuff@lemmy.ca 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

[deleted]

[+] Kobek@sh.itjust.works -23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's funny how everyone here thinks I support the Conservatives because I understand practicalities and different viewpoints.Even though I've never voted conservative in my life. I've voted in the last 6 federal elections two of which were for the NDP. This is exactly why people consider the left radical. No room for rational practicality, just dogmatic adherence to a narrative.

Get with the programme. People aren't buying it anymore. It's almost like you want leftist ideology to flounder. It's unfortunate that good leftist policies are going to be thrown out with the radical ones but hey, at least you'll have a villain to fight and add some faux meaning to your lives.

[-] Moose@moose.best 6 points 10 months ago

Nobody has claimed you support the conservatives in this thread up until this comment at least, they've only debated the points you have and happen to disagree with your stance because it doesn't hold up. Don't fall for the trap narrative of thinking everyone here hates you just because they think you're conservative. They are annoyed because while there have been some good posts and points in favor of him getting his security clearance and instances of previous conservative opposition leaders being able to act on the information provided by CSIS, you have provided nothing but the same points Pierre is trying to use to convince us it's better if he doesn't. You said it yourself, dogmatic adherence to a narrative. If this has never been an issue for past conservative leaders, never been an issue for other opposition party leaders, why is it for Pierre?

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago

The fact that he works in the federal government but doesn’t do anything productive but oppose things is not a point in Pollievre’s favor. He could oppose things but also work to pass meaningful legislation that helps the people he represents. The reason he can do that is because he’s an MP and not a talk radio host, despite how he comports himself.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 6 points 10 months ago

Agreed. In addition, I'd add this to the OC's comments:

It would be like if you were at a pro Palestinian protest and were asked to sign a document saying you’re free to protest but only if you remain quiet about certain things the isralie government is doing

Well, no. It's more like, the Israeli gov't promises that you can get secret information from them about what they are doing, but you can't mention it publicly until they've made it public. But worst case you're still free to protest anything and everything that's already public.

I'm not sure if even that premise is correct, though. From https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poilievre-is-the-sole-party-leader-foregoing-access-to-classified/ (archive https://archive.is/QEbVP)

top intelligence officials have said that secrecy rules would not prevent leaders from acting on the information they receive. On Tuesday, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May held a lengthy news conference detailing what she learned from the classified report.

Likewise, the previous opposition leader did have the clearance, and was able to speak publicly about what he learned, as per https://globalnews.ca/news/9732593/erin-otoole-chinese-interference/

Former Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole says the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) found an “active campaign of voter suppression” by China against him and his party in the 2021 election. O’Toole made the comments Tuesday from the floor of the House of Commons

So this excuse rings hollow.

not because of anything you did but because you refused to sign the document.

A refusal to perform a certain action is a choice. And choices have consequences...

If you refuse to sign, a crowd of people all start shouting that

I haven't seen anyone call PP a Nazi specifically because of this, yet. So I think the analogy breaks down here.

Also, signing the document is just a step, it's not all there is. Even though PP had a security clearance in the past that has since expired, presumably he'd have to be rechecked before getting a new one. Unlike just signing a doc, there are some concerns here that PP might actually have something in his background that would cause him to fail this check, resulting in a denial even after he agrees to sign.

As an MP He’s a representative not a member of the federal government.
No, the government is the party that governs

As per https://learn.parl.ca/understanding-comprendre/en/canada-system-of-government/the-branches-of-government/

Parliament is the legislative branch of government. Its main purpose is to make laws and hold the government to account.
Government is a broader term with different meanings. Inside the House of Commons, it usually refers to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other members of the governing party.

So that is accurate.

Let the opposition be the opposition.

How come only PP didn't get a clearance? Every other party leader has one. Think of all the times Bloc Quebecois clashed with the Liberals (e.g. https://globalnews.ca/news/10791235/bloc-quebecois-pension-payments-possible-election/ and https://globalnews.ca/news/10791235/bloc-quebecois-pension-payments-possible-election/ ) but their leader still has the clearance. Doesn't seem like having a clearance hurt that much.

I can't find confirmation but I imagine the last time that the Liberals were the Opposition, their leader, Michael Ignatieff, would have held this clearance as well. So PP is very much the odd one out here.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

security clearance would legally prevent him from sharing privileged information If he became privy to it. It’s not a good tactic of opposition to be silenced by the people you’re opposing.

So it’s better for him to not have the information, compared to having information but not being allowed to disclose it?

Or do you mean that he is having access to privileged information and he is disclosing it even though he doesn’t have permission to it?

[-] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

It means that everything PP is currently sharing is made up misinformation because he has cut himself off from having real information. He is firmly in favour of that because he can say anything, real or imagined, that he thinks will appeal to his potential voters. Truth is something they might not agree with so it's better for him not to be held to that. Inuendo is so much easier to spin than fact.

[-] JustADrone@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago

so… the Loyal Opposition is part of the Federal government. It's not some separate thing.

[+] Kobek@sh.itjust.works -20 points 10 months ago

No, the government is the party that governs. The party enacting policy through their ministers. Voting on propositions isn't government it's representation. It's how a constitutional monarchy functions with a parliamentary system. It's pretty fundamental.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I had an opposing response to this, which included looking up what our government has to say about it, and you're (mostly) right! Here's a link for those who are interested.

Here's an interesting bit from there:

Unfortunately, as everyone knows, this ideal of civility does not always obtain in parliamentary practice. When debate degenerates into sterile reflex antogonism the process itself becomes discredited. Part of the problem comes about when frustration arises because the demands made on Parliament do not permit it to exercise its representation and surveillance functions properly. Backbench MPs cannot expect to have a major influence on legislation. But all MPs have the right to articulate the interests of their constituents, to scrutinize the actions of the government, and, if in opposition, to present alternative policies to the public. All of this requires time on the parliamentary agenda – time which the government usually thinks would be better spent proceeding with its legislative program.

It's worth noting that colloquially, "the government" also means not just the ruling party or parties, but the entire governmental apparatus, in multiple institutions at multiple levels.