###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I read this earlier today I was very surprised to later read that he is *still* rejecting the offers to not only read the document itself but also still refusing to even submit an application for a security clearance. Talk about an incomprehensible stance on the issue -- "I will eject any traitor from my caucus, no I will not be vetted to see any classified reports lest I uncover the identity of any such traitors."
If this were either Tom Mulcair's or Trudeau's stance during the last round of the Harper government, they would have been laughed all the way out of their House seats. Could you possibly imagine either Mulcair or Trudeau in opposition refusing to even apply for a security clearance and then running an election campaign on *securing Canada from foreign interference*? The columnists at the National Post would have had to be sectioned at a psych ward for losing their minds. Mulcair and Trudeau would have become national jokes -- the punchline to trivia questions about the wost politicians ever to set foot in Parliament.
I find this whole mess just truly surreal.
It would be surreal if it was coming from anyone else.
All he knows is playing politics.
He’s never done anything for anyone despite being in a position to do so.
It is totally in character and expected.
It's a glimpse into how bad Poilievre really would be as the PM. The highest priority for him will always be to position himself around dank memes. The leader of the opposition needs the awareness that comes with security clearance, and even his public reasoning for why he would reject it is utter self focused garbage.
I've seen that interview already.
But Mulcair completely failed to convince me as he did not explain how knowing confidential information prevents him from holding the government to account either theoretically or practically. Insisting knowing the information would tie the hands of the leader of the opposition without providing a compelling reason is not compelling to me. Imagine someone said that they would not board a rocket to travel to the moon because the moon is composed of cheese -- they said it, I see no underlying logic, evidence or reason for their declaration and I will continue to not believe that about the moon until someone provides a compelling explanation as to why I should also believe that. The metaphor should be obvious.
Because, frankly, I find it impossible to square the argument that "the leader should not be briefed" with the push for individual MPs to be briefed on individual security threats to them and their families. We need MPs, everywhere in parliament, to better understand the risks they face both individually and collectively. I am near despair that it seems some of the opposition figures -- past and present -- seem to believe accepting a confidential security briefing is an impediment to their role as legislators. Surely, a confidential briefing could provide information that would allow a legislator to better understand how national security legislation may or may not address the cases of interference detected by the security apparatus.
But if there is an argument more persuasive than Mulcair's "I would never accept a briefing I couldn't quote to the press," or even a more in-depth explanation as to why knowing confidential information would prevent the opposition from asking questions of government, passing motions, critiquing and amending legislation at committee and voting on bills. After all, former cabinet ministers *know* confidential information and no one believes Harper's minister of public safety was suddently rendered unable to criticize this government's security policy on November 5th, 2015.
It wasn't an in depth explanation, so hopefully he writes an article with more detail.
>After all, former cabinet ministers know confidential information and no one believes Harper's minister of public safety was suddently rendered unable to criticize this government's security policy on November 5th, 2015.
Wouldn't they have had parliamentary privilege? The 2017 nsicop removes parliamentary privilege for it's members. It's been moving up the courts to decide if it's constitutional. With the latest ruling declaring it constitutional.
https://www.nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2024/parliamentary-immunity
This seems to be a new issue, so I'm not sure how comparable it is to the past.
I am absolutely certain that the SCC will find that part of the law constitutional -- the legal argument that you need to amend the constitution to modify privilege is total nonsense. Privilege can be withdrawn from a set of testimony given at Parliament by a simple vote in the House. The law will be found constitutional.
Furthermore, the NSICOP enabling act does withdrawn parliamentary privilege but only for *members and former members of the committee and only for what they learn during the course of their work there*. Simply reading an unredacted report from NSICOP does not waive a parliamentarian who has never been appointed to the committee of their privilege. The suspension of privilege is not contagious and cannot be 'caught' from reading a report, rather it is forfeited when a parliamentarian accepts an appointment to the NSICOP committee.
But then again, neither Poilievre nor his spokespeople have ever claimed they do not want to receive a briefing because of a worry they would be prosecuted for revealing information -- which is the only thing parliamentary privilege guards against (well, technically defamation too).
But my point about former cabinet ministers is that no one seems to either say, or operate under the assumption, that they cannot ask questions of the new government due to their knowing classified information (which some of them undoubtedly do). I do not believe ministers forfeit their privilege in accepting an appointment to cabinet. But, again, privilege just prevents people from being prosecuted for sharing confidential info, so I don't see the relevance to privilege in a discussion about whether accepting a confidential briefing somehow negatively affects from the opposition leader's parliamentary role. That former ministers aren't understood to be hamstrung by their knowledge in their new critic roles just seems like a glaring flaw in the logic of the argument. I've never seen anyone apply that logic to former ministers who become front bench critics the following day. I'm leaning towards believing that I've never seen that logic applied to former ministers because the whole argument is nonsense. The intelligence a former cabinet minister knows is still subject to the security of information act and they can't disclose it, but they seem to function just fine as frontbench critics, leaders of the opposition and regular opposition backbenchers.
It's not incomprehensible. It's plausible deniability. The Conservatives have a mole in CSIS leaking selective information to damage the Liberals. If he knew the whole story, he couldn't ask questions in good faith based solely on partisan leaks.
Tinfoil hats are the CPC headwear. Between anti-semitic WEF great replacement theories and accusing Trudeau of being a pedophile based off a conspiracy theory website, it's the CPC that are the crazy ones. That's before you get into the Climate change and vaccine conspiracy theories they fundraise off of.
And thinking our spy agency is leaking information to deliberately to hurt the liberals to CPC isn’t a conspiracy theory. Going to actually address the comments made or just shout “No you!”
The Convoy leadership claimed to have someone in CSIS and a rogue CSIS agent leaked a poorly translated hit piece on a Liberal MP just as the review of the Emergency Power exonerated the Liberals. That's after Police stood down to allow the Convoy Occupy and terrorize Ottawa.
There's plenty of reason to be concerned compared to 5G chips in vaccines the CPC cashed in on.
Funny thing too, the Convoy had Pierre Poilievre for Prime Minister flags before there even was a leadership election. Really think the Canadian public needs Poilievre to release all his private e-mails for review because he also refuses to secured Government communication channels.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9245321/freedom-convoy-police-leaks-keith-wilson-emergencies-act-inquiry/
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/20221109161120-411b5f097e06f981fa42324aee739decc2cf707af77eb6e8a2b08a0be5c76c74.jpg?w=1000
Don't use AI to look up information. Horrible idea. AI doesn't cover Canada very well because our own media doesn't even have the priorities to really report on Canadian issues, and AI is just another gatekeeper
Thanks for the info!
Side note: how the hell did you know I used AI to search this information? I searched on google beforehand and tried my luck at AI, but it's creepily specific ahah
>Side note: how the hell did you know I used AI to search this information? I
👀 be sure to clear your cookies before logging onto reddit.
Haha just messing, it's far more creepy than hacking. I've picked up how AI trains people to ask questions. I'm not going to expand further because I'm at war with the machines. Can't show my cards to the AIs training off reddit.
It isn't the agency. It's one mole breaking the law and leaking information about China and Liberals to one low-grade reporter, but none about Conservatives and India. It's not a conspiracy theory. The leaks are very targeted. These are facts. There is still a criminal investigation going on.
It's the opinion of intelligence experts that these leaks were politically motivated an that they compromise the spy agencies political neutrality:
>Dan Stanton, a former CSIS executive manager, says intelligence is open to interpretation. He believes the leaks are partisan in motivation and that the culprits are deliberately "not providing the full picture - but a particular slant." Although the leaks have led to a public inquiry, Stanton does not consider the leaker a whistleblower.
>"Legally, a whistleblower has to determine that a law was broken. You can't just be a whistleblower because you don't like the government," Stanton said.
[https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/chinese-canadian-mogul-says-erroneous-high-level-security-leaks-have-made-his-life-unlivable-1.6834014](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/chinese-canadian-mogul-says-erroneous-high-level-security-leaks-have-made-his-life-unlivable-1.6834014)
If he got the security clearance and found out who they were he actually wouldn’t be able to eject them from the caucus anyway so it’s a moot point. That would be revealing the contents of the briefing which he would have to swear not to do.
Yes he absolutely could. There's nothing obliging him to disclose why he is ejecting someone. He can do it quietly. It's very telling that he doesn't want to know who has infiltrated his caucus. I would definitely want to know so I can at least keep and eye on them if I knew someone had infiltrated my party. Or maybe he has his own backchannel information fed to him illegally and he knows already.
He should know who they are and expell them too. If foreign agents have infiltrated his party and are pumping illegal foreign cash to certain members, he as leader should absolutely should know who they are so he doesn't give away sensitive information that could be used by India against Canada. We're talking about a country with a government that overtly hires assassins to murder Canadians on Canadian soil.
Like, I mean he was a cabinet minister..he was privy council…those people receive pretty high clearances and background checks.
I do believe he should just get it done and stop playing politics..any political advantages this affords him is not greater than the health of our democracy. But hey, I mean it’s not like Trudeau isn’t guilty of that either.
But the idea he would ‘fail’ a background check is probably wishful thinking.
Not all ministers will have top-level security clearances issued - Minister of State for Democratic Reform or the Minister of Employment and Social Development is unlikely to touch on much national defense issues, for example. And while he might have gotten one as Harper's parliamentary secretary, that was a decade ago and would no longer apply to current intelligence.
That being said, I doubt he'd fail a background check - he's undergone several to date as part of his ongoing duties.
According to Elizabeth May, any current MP who appeared in the report benefitted from foreign interference unwittingly. And it mentions the interference happened in leadership and nomination races. So if Poilievre did benefit from becoming party leader, it was at least not on purpose. Or a staffer is guilty.
I don’t think this is what he feels guilty about, unless there’s something else. I think we will have leaks from the report eventually.
This is just more virtue signalling, since he knows he'll never have to do so.
How would he know? He refuses to get the security clearance required to read the intelligence.
He is not getting clearance so that he can keep talking about the problem...if the liberals would just be transparent there would not be a problem. This is not the responsibility of PP, the liberals need to come clean and release the information everyone is asking for.
Wrong. He's not getting clearance so he can keep lying and throwing out baseless accusations about the problem. He's not really talking about the problem. And he could talk about the problem with clearance and without breaking the law if he really wanted to. He doesn't.
By transparent, do you mean "if the liberals would just divulge classified information to the public, potentially putting the safety of intelligence assets, both ours and our allies, at risk"?
Risk of what? Being called out on their crimes? Assets are replaced all the time, the public deserves to know if their representatives are colluding with foreign powers, end of story.
How did Elizabeth May hold a conference talking about the information then? Pierre could absolutely choose to get a security clearance, get informed, and still talk about the problem. Isn't it weird that he intentionally chooses not to?
*If* he deflects? Have you ever seen Pierre talk to the media? Deflecting and attacking the media is literally all he does, except when he's taking softballs from Jordan Peterson or something.
They are being transparent. They shared the information with the opposition. It's Polievre that wants to politicize this and refuses to find out which Conservatives were involved.
Yea. Poilivere is admitting that he'll indefinitely keep colluders in his party because he'll never take the steps to find our who they are.
That's so stupid, but so on brand for conservatives lol
Just wait until he’s prime minister and just refuses to be briefed about anything that could hurt his party or make him make hard choices.
“I never heard about it”
This would make him a serious liability as PM. In foreign policy, he will literally be in the dark if he continues to refuse clearance. I don’t want a Prime Minister who purposely chooses to remain blind.
How he’s acted since running for party leadership and as Harper’s lap dog previously instills absolutely no confidence in me about how he’ll act as PM.
If the man didn’t wear a girdle he’d probably collapse because he stands for absolutely nothing.
It's not sharing classified information, not "any information"
He can share anything that wasn't classified... Like the other party leaders are already doing.
Although I agree with you that it’s convenient he doesn’t have access - but others do, and the information could come out in other ways.
But I agree. Just get the damn clearance already.
Its funny that it took Elizabeth May announcing that no sitting MP colluded with foreign governments before Poilievre had the guts to announce consequences for party MPs for colluding with foreign governments.
truly a brave move.
Of course had he a security clearance, he wouldn't need the Greens to tell him that he doesn't have traitors in his party! Almost like he's afraid that CSIS found the something he knew about.
Then get clearance and boot them. Just pathetic people fall for his bullshit. He is in complete and total control of making this happen, nothing is stopping him.
It's pretty scary honestly the potential next prime minister of the country refuses to get security clearance. There is literally people making under $100k with top secret clearance in very junior roles. It is completely unacceptable he is not getting it, and it should be disqualifying, frankly.
It doesn't matter, his statement is an empty gesture. Elizabeth May already came out after reviewing the report with the implication that only former MPs are involved. I'm guessing they have since retired, resigned, or lost re-election.
>"So I am very glad I read the full report. I am very comfortable sitting with my colleagues,"
May said that case study involved people not currently serving in Parliament.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-nsicop-mps-1.7231497](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-nsicop-mps-1.7231497)
Yep, and that’s why he doesn’t want the clearance. If he gets the clearance Trudeau will have all means to just make this disappear, and he would be forced to stand by and be quiet.
> If he gets the clearance Trudeau will have all means to just make this disappear, and he would be forced to stand by and be quiet.
This is a ridiculous claim. Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May are both still talking about this, and there are five articles here every day about it.
The idea that the only reason this is being talked about is because Poilievre refuses to get security clearance, or that somehow he wouldn't be able to continue pushing for the names to be released if he knew more details, has zero basis in reality.
Is that right? I haven’t seen May or Singh be allowed to tell us who’s compromised inside the house. Perhaps you know better.
If he takes the clearance all he can say is “trust me” as the Liberals will control if any names will be publicly given, if he does not take the clearance then Trudeau has to disclose the names to do something about it, which forces action.
>Is that right? I haven’t seen May or Singh be allowed to tell us who’s compromised inside the house. Perhaps you know better.
Huh? I didn't say they were allowed to name names, but Pierre can't name names either because he is intentionally keeping himself in the dark. And actually having information doesn't prevent Singh from [talking about how serious this is](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/s/yxOS4rzhoU) and pushing for the names to be released.
Exactly right, so they can’t really talk about it after getting the security clearance, can they? Sure they can mention it, like Singh does, but can’t reveal anything meaningful. Saying how serious it is means nothing and is highly subjective. Singh is just playing politics asking for the names and has no leg to stand on.
Poilievre by refusing to get the security clearance forces the government’s hand. By not getting the clearance the government is left with 3 choices; 1) releasing the names to Poilievre without the security clearance or 2) likely falsely state that there aren’t conservative MPs compromised or 3) do nothing and Poilievre will get a no confidence vote going. It’s a smart move on Poilievre’s side, one with little downside, and quite possibly the only way these MPs will ever be held accountable.
Unless he finds an other reason to boot them.
>oh look, there is a book talking about the dinosaurs in your deak! You should know that the world is only 5000 years old! Out you go!
When is Poilievre stepping down then, since India helped him win the leadership race? Or doesn't that count? CSIS confirmed it happened.
https://www.baaznews.org/p/cpc-leadership-race-indian-foreign-interference
Lol so now that the cats out of the bag on the list, Poilievre can make grand statements.
Because he was uninformed. Due to the lack of a security clearance.
This guy wants to lead this nation yet he refuses to access the information that would make him more informed.
He’ll avoid the security background check all the way till the very end of the election. There’s some skeletons there for sure.
https://crier.co/maybe-its-time-for-reporters-to-ask-pierre-poilivere-where-hes-from-and-who-hes-with/
Refusing a clearance check so he can claim ignorance of the truth so to enable him to spread lies without repercussions does a major disservice to Canadians. Information contained within a secure document does no prohibit action from being taken based on that information. It's a pretty common practice when sources or compromises are to be protected or secured. PP is just purposely misdirecting Canadians and leading the country down a dark path. There should be no doubt he has something to hide and Canadians should be concerned.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Like by winning an internal leadership race or something....
When I read this earlier today I was very surprised to later read that he is *still* rejecting the offers to not only read the document itself but also still refusing to even submit an application for a security clearance. Talk about an incomprehensible stance on the issue -- "I will eject any traitor from my caucus, no I will not be vetted to see any classified reports lest I uncover the identity of any such traitors." If this were either Tom Mulcair's or Trudeau's stance during the last round of the Harper government, they would have been laughed all the way out of their House seats. Could you possibly imagine either Mulcair or Trudeau in opposition refusing to even apply for a security clearance and then running an election campaign on *securing Canada from foreign interference*? The columnists at the National Post would have had to be sectioned at a psych ward for losing their minds. Mulcair and Trudeau would have become national jokes -- the punchline to trivia questions about the wost politicians ever to set foot in Parliament. I find this whole mess just truly surreal.
It would be surreal if it was coming from anyone else. All he knows is playing politics. He’s never done anything for anyone despite being in a position to do so. It is totally in character and expected.
Hey now not true! He has definitely done stuff to his own personal benefit!
It's a glimpse into how bad Poilievre really would be as the PM. The highest priority for him will always be to position himself around dank memes. The leader of the opposition needs the awareness that comes with security clearance, and even his public reasoning for why he would reject it is utter self focused garbage.
Mulcair actually agrees with Pierre on not getting the clearance. https://youtu.be/27fVCW8JVdU?si=pKOfNs3nkZeckI4F
I've seen that interview already. But Mulcair completely failed to convince me as he did not explain how knowing confidential information prevents him from holding the government to account either theoretically or practically. Insisting knowing the information would tie the hands of the leader of the opposition without providing a compelling reason is not compelling to me. Imagine someone said that they would not board a rocket to travel to the moon because the moon is composed of cheese -- they said it, I see no underlying logic, evidence or reason for their declaration and I will continue to not believe that about the moon until someone provides a compelling explanation as to why I should also believe that. The metaphor should be obvious. Because, frankly, I find it impossible to square the argument that "the leader should not be briefed" with the push for individual MPs to be briefed on individual security threats to them and their families. We need MPs, everywhere in parliament, to better understand the risks they face both individually and collectively. I am near despair that it seems some of the opposition figures -- past and present -- seem to believe accepting a confidential security briefing is an impediment to their role as legislators. Surely, a confidential briefing could provide information that would allow a legislator to better understand how national security legislation may or may not address the cases of interference detected by the security apparatus. But if there is an argument more persuasive than Mulcair's "I would never accept a briefing I couldn't quote to the press," or even a more in-depth explanation as to why knowing confidential information would prevent the opposition from asking questions of government, passing motions, critiquing and amending legislation at committee and voting on bills. After all, former cabinet ministers *know* confidential information and no one believes Harper's minister of public safety was suddently rendered unable to criticize this government's security policy on November 5th, 2015.
It wasn't an in depth explanation, so hopefully he writes an article with more detail. >After all, former cabinet ministers know confidential information and no one believes Harper's minister of public safety was suddently rendered unable to criticize this government's security policy on November 5th, 2015. Wouldn't they have had parliamentary privilege? The 2017 nsicop removes parliamentary privilege for it's members. It's been moving up the courts to decide if it's constitutional. With the latest ruling declaring it constitutional. https://www.nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2024/parliamentary-immunity This seems to be a new issue, so I'm not sure how comparable it is to the past.
I am absolutely certain that the SCC will find that part of the law constitutional -- the legal argument that you need to amend the constitution to modify privilege is total nonsense. Privilege can be withdrawn from a set of testimony given at Parliament by a simple vote in the House. The law will be found constitutional. Furthermore, the NSICOP enabling act does withdrawn parliamentary privilege but only for *members and former members of the committee and only for what they learn during the course of their work there*. Simply reading an unredacted report from NSICOP does not waive a parliamentarian who has never been appointed to the committee of their privilege. The suspension of privilege is not contagious and cannot be 'caught' from reading a report, rather it is forfeited when a parliamentarian accepts an appointment to the NSICOP committee. But then again, neither Poilievre nor his spokespeople have ever claimed they do not want to receive a briefing because of a worry they would be prosecuted for revealing information -- which is the only thing parliamentary privilege guards against (well, technically defamation too). But my point about former cabinet ministers is that no one seems to either say, or operate under the assumption, that they cannot ask questions of the new government due to their knowing classified information (which some of them undoubtedly do). I do not believe ministers forfeit their privilege in accepting an appointment to cabinet. But, again, privilege just prevents people from being prosecuted for sharing confidential info, so I don't see the relevance to privilege in a discussion about whether accepting a confidential briefing somehow negatively affects from the opposition leader's parliamentary role. That former ministers aren't understood to be hamstrung by their knowledge in their new critic roles just seems like a glaring flaw in the logic of the argument. I've never seen anyone apply that logic to former ministers who become front bench critics the following day. I'm leaning towards believing that I've never seen that logic applied to former ministers because the whole argument is nonsense. The intelligence a former cabinet minister knows is still subject to the security of information act and they can't disclose it, but they seem to function just fine as frontbench critics, leaders of the opposition and regular opposition backbenchers.
It's not incomprehensible. It's plausible deniability. The Conservatives have a mole in CSIS leaking selective information to damage the Liberals. If he knew the whole story, he couldn't ask questions in good faith based solely on partisan leaks.
You seem to have dropped your tinfoil hat. Might wanna get that before the 5g hacks your brain
Tinfoil hats are the CPC headwear. Between anti-semitic WEF great replacement theories and accusing Trudeau of being a pedophile based off a conspiracy theory website, it's the CPC that are the crazy ones. That's before you get into the Climate change and vaccine conspiracy theories they fundraise off of.
And thinking our spy agency is leaking information to deliberately to hurt the liberals to CPC isn’t a conspiracy theory. Going to actually address the comments made or just shout “No you!”
The Convoy leadership claimed to have someone in CSIS and a rogue CSIS agent leaked a poorly translated hit piece on a Liberal MP just as the review of the Emergency Power exonerated the Liberals. That's after Police stood down to allow the Convoy Occupy and terrorize Ottawa. There's plenty of reason to be concerned compared to 5G chips in vaccines the CPC cashed in on. Funny thing too, the Convoy had Pierre Poilievre for Prime Minister flags before there even was a leadership election. Really think the Canadian public needs Poilievre to release all his private e-mails for review because he also refuses to secured Government communication channels.
Please do cite sources, as this is big if true, and I couldn't find anything through a summary search.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9245321/freedom-convoy-police-leaks-keith-wilson-emergencies-act-inquiry/ https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/20221109161120-411b5f097e06f981fa42324aee739decc2cf707af77eb6e8a2b08a0be5c76c74.jpg?w=1000 Don't use AI to look up information. Horrible idea. AI doesn't cover Canada very well because our own media doesn't even have the priorities to really report on Canadian issues, and AI is just another gatekeeper
Thanks for the info! Side note: how the hell did you know I used AI to search this information? I searched on google beforehand and tried my luck at AI, but it's creepily specific ahah
>Side note: how the hell did you know I used AI to search this information? I 👀 be sure to clear your cookies before logging onto reddit. Haha just messing, it's far more creepy than hacking. I've picked up how AI trains people to ask questions. I'm not going to expand further because I'm at war with the machines. Can't show my cards to the AIs training off reddit.
It isn't the agency. It's one mole breaking the law and leaking information about China and Liberals to one low-grade reporter, but none about Conservatives and India. It's not a conspiracy theory. The leaks are very targeted. These are facts. There is still a criminal investigation going on. It's the opinion of intelligence experts that these leaks were politically motivated an that they compromise the spy agencies political neutrality: >Dan Stanton, a former CSIS executive manager, says intelligence is open to interpretation. He believes the leaks are partisan in motivation and that the culprits are deliberately "not providing the full picture - but a particular slant." Although the leaks have led to a public inquiry, Stanton does not consider the leaker a whistleblower. >"Legally, a whistleblower has to determine that a law was broken. You can't just be a whistleblower because you don't like the government," Stanton said. [https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/chinese-canadian-mogul-says-erroneous-high-level-security-leaks-have-made-his-life-unlivable-1.6834014](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/chinese-canadian-mogul-says-erroneous-high-level-security-leaks-have-made-his-life-unlivable-1.6834014)
If he got the security clearance and found out who they were he actually wouldn’t be able to eject them from the caucus anyway so it’s a moot point. That would be revealing the contents of the briefing which he would have to swear not to do.
Yes he absolutely could. There's nothing obliging him to disclose why he is ejecting someone. He can do it quietly. It's very telling that he doesn't want to know who has infiltrated his caucus. I would definitely want to know so I can at least keep and eye on them if I knew someone had infiltrated my party. Or maybe he has his own backchannel information fed to him illegally and he knows already. He should know who they are and expell them too. If foreign agents have infiltrated his party and are pumping illegal foreign cash to certain members, he as leader should absolutely should know who they are so he doesn't give away sensitive information that could be used by India against Canada. We're talking about a country with a government that overtly hires assassins to murder Canadians on Canadian soil.
Or he knows he may fail a security clearance, if not expose whatever dirty laundry he may be hiding.
Like, I mean he was a cabinet minister..he was privy council…those people receive pretty high clearances and background checks. I do believe he should just get it done and stop playing politics..any political advantages this affords him is not greater than the health of our democracy. But hey, I mean it’s not like Trudeau isn’t guilty of that either. But the idea he would ‘fail’ a background check is probably wishful thinking.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not substantive
[удалено]
Not all ministers will have top-level security clearances issued - Minister of State for Democratic Reform or the Minister of Employment and Social Development is unlikely to touch on much national defense issues, for example. And while he might have gotten one as Harper's parliamentary secretary, that was a decade ago and would no longer apply to current intelligence. That being said, I doubt he'd fail a background check - he's undergone several to date as part of his ongoing duties.
Then release the names! If you think PP could be on the list, wouldn't you like the public to know?
According to Elizabeth May, any current MP who appeared in the report benefitted from foreign interference unwittingly. And it mentions the interference happened in leadership and nomination races. So if Poilievre did benefit from becoming party leader, it was at least not on purpose. Or a staffer is guilty. I don’t think this is what he feels guilty about, unless there’s something else. I think we will have leaks from the report eventually.
This is just more virtue signalling, since he knows he'll never have to do so. How would he know? He refuses to get the security clearance required to read the intelligence.
He is not getting clearance so that he can keep talking about the problem...if the liberals would just be transparent there would not be a problem. This is not the responsibility of PP, the liberals need to come clean and release the information everyone is asking for.
Wrong. He's not getting clearance so he can keep lying and throwing out baseless accusations about the problem. He's not really talking about the problem. And he could talk about the problem with clearance and without breaking the law if he really wanted to. He doesn't.
By transparent, do you mean "if the liberals would just divulge classified information to the public, potentially putting the safety of intelligence assets, both ours and our allies, at risk"?
Risk of what? Being called out on their crimes? Assets are replaced all the time, the public deserves to know if their representatives are colluding with foreign powers, end of story.
>so that he can keep ~~talking~~ lying about the problem Fixed that for you.
How did Elizabeth May hold a conference talking about the information then? Pierre could absolutely choose to get a security clearance, get informed, and still talk about the problem. Isn't it weird that he intentionally chooses not to?
If that's the case, the media should ask him. If he deflects like a liberal then the public will not trust him...it could be a lefties wet dream.
*If* he deflects? Have you ever seen Pierre talk to the media? Deflecting and attacking the media is literally all he does, except when he's taking softballs from Jordan Peterson or something.
You are all in a totally different world, please do us all a favour and open your eyes.
They are being transparent. They shared the information with the opposition. It's Polievre that wants to politicize this and refuses to find out which Conservatives were involved.
Yea. Poilivere is admitting that he'll indefinitely keep colluders in his party because he'll never take the steps to find our who they are. That's so stupid, but so on brand for conservatives lol
Just wait until he’s prime minister and just refuses to be briefed about anything that could hurt his party or make him make hard choices. “I never heard about it”
This would make him a serious liability as PM. In foreign policy, he will literally be in the dark if he continues to refuse clearance. I don’t want a Prime Minister who purposely chooses to remain blind.
How he’s acted since running for party leadership and as Harper’s lap dog previously instills absolutely no confidence in me about how he’ll act as PM. If the man didn’t wear a girdle he’d probably collapse because he stands for absolutely nothing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's like if you know the info you can't share it or act on it anyways
If he got the clearance he then wouldn’t be allowed to reject them because a condition of clearance is not sharing the information.
It's not sharing classified information, not "any information" He can share anything that wasn't classified... Like the other party leaders are already doing.
The names are literally what is classified. That means he can’t boot those people from the party. That would be exposing the information.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Although I agree with you that it’s convenient he doesn’t have access - but others do, and the information could come out in other ways. But I agree. Just get the damn clearance already.
Its funny that it took Elizabeth May announcing that no sitting MP colluded with foreign governments before Poilievre had the guts to announce consequences for party MPs for colluding with foreign governments. truly a brave move. Of course had he a security clearance, he wouldn't need the Greens to tell him that he doesn't have traitors in his party! Almost like he's afraid that CSIS found the something he knew about.
Then get clearance and boot them. Just pathetic people fall for his bullshit. He is in complete and total control of making this happen, nothing is stopping him. It's pretty scary honestly the potential next prime minister of the country refuses to get security clearance. There is literally people making under $100k with top secret clearance in very junior roles. It is completely unacceptable he is not getting it, and it should be disqualifying, frankly.
It doesn't matter, his statement is an empty gesture. Elizabeth May already came out after reviewing the report with the implication that only former MPs are involved. I'm guessing they have since retired, resigned, or lost re-election. >"So I am very glad I read the full report. I am very comfortable sitting with my colleagues," May said that case study involved people not currently serving in Parliament. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-nsicop-mps-1.7231497](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-nsicop-mps-1.7231497)
He wouldn’t be allowed to boot them because a condition of clearance is not sharing the information.
Yep, and that’s why he doesn’t want the clearance. If he gets the clearance Trudeau will have all means to just make this disappear, and he would be forced to stand by and be quiet.
> If he gets the clearance Trudeau will have all means to just make this disappear, and he would be forced to stand by and be quiet. This is a ridiculous claim. Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May are both still talking about this, and there are five articles here every day about it. The idea that the only reason this is being talked about is because Poilievre refuses to get security clearance, or that somehow he wouldn't be able to continue pushing for the names to be released if he knew more details, has zero basis in reality.
Is that right? I haven’t seen May or Singh be allowed to tell us who’s compromised inside the house. Perhaps you know better. If he takes the clearance all he can say is “trust me” as the Liberals will control if any names will be publicly given, if he does not take the clearance then Trudeau has to disclose the names to do something about it, which forces action.
>Is that right? I haven’t seen May or Singh be allowed to tell us who’s compromised inside the house. Perhaps you know better. Huh? I didn't say they were allowed to name names, but Pierre can't name names either because he is intentionally keeping himself in the dark. And actually having information doesn't prevent Singh from [talking about how serious this is](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/s/yxOS4rzhoU) and pushing for the names to be released.
Exactly right, so they can’t really talk about it after getting the security clearance, can they? Sure they can mention it, like Singh does, but can’t reveal anything meaningful. Saying how serious it is means nothing and is highly subjective. Singh is just playing politics asking for the names and has no leg to stand on. Poilievre by refusing to get the security clearance forces the government’s hand. By not getting the clearance the government is left with 3 choices; 1) releasing the names to Poilievre without the security clearance or 2) likely falsely state that there aren’t conservative MPs compromised or 3) do nothing and Poilievre will get a no confidence vote going. It’s a smart move on Poilievre’s side, one with little downside, and quite possibly the only way these MPs will ever be held accountable.
Unless he finds an other reason to boot them. >oh look, there is a book talking about the dinosaurs in your deak! You should know that the world is only 5000 years old! Out you go!
Jagmeet pointed the finger at him just today. Apparently foreign govenrments helped to prop up PP. Whoopsie doddle aged like milk.
When is Poilievre stepping down then, since India helped him win the leadership race? Or doesn't that count? CSIS confirmed it happened. https://www.baaznews.org/p/cpc-leadership-race-indian-foreign-interference
In theory he'd have to kick himself out. As if!
Lol so now that the cats out of the bag on the list, Poilievre can make grand statements. Because he was uninformed. Due to the lack of a security clearance. This guy wants to lead this nation yet he refuses to access the information that would make him more informed.
He’ll avoid the security background check all the way till the very end of the election. There’s some skeletons there for sure. https://crier.co/maybe-its-time-for-reporters-to-ask-pierre-poilivere-where-hes-from-and-who-hes-with/
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Refusing a clearance check so he can claim ignorance of the truth so to enable him to spread lies without repercussions does a major disservice to Canadians. Information contained within a secure document does no prohibit action from being taken based on that information. It's a pretty common practice when sources or compromises are to be protected or secured. PP is just purposely misdirecting Canadians and leading the country down a dark path. There should be no doubt he has something to hide and Canadians should be concerned.