So is he refusing to get a security clearance, or is he incapable of obtaining one? If the latter he should be disqualified from running for office.
Poilievre is a lifelong politician who loves playing political games. This is just another one of those games. He is attacking Trudeau for not doing enough to prevent China from interfering with Canadian politics. Poilievre demanded an investigation into the matter, which was granted. Poilievre then immediately started calling the investigation fraudulent because the person in charge of it is biased. He has a history of doing this. The last time was when he demanded an inquiry into Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act only to immediately claim the inquiry was biased and fraudulent when it found nothing wrong with Trudeau’s actions.
In order to see the results of this investigation however, Poilievre needs security clearance, which he refuses to get. I doubt he has a secret he’s trying to keep (although if he was denied security clearance that would be incredibly embarrassing). I think it’s just another game. He can continue calling the investigation (that he demanded) as fake news and claim to be a victim of the evil Trudeau government.
Conservative articles defending Poilievre say that getting the clearance wouldn’t change anything because it’s not like Poilievre can share his findings after reading the report. These articles claim that if Poilievre gets cleared to read the report, then he now has to shut up about it, which hurts his campaign. I don’t really think “Poilievre should only do things that help him get elected” is the greatest defence but it’s the one I keep seeing.
These articles claim that if Poilievre gets cleared to read the report, then he now has to shut up about it, which hurts his campaign.
Which is bullshit and we all know it because Jagmeet did get clearance, read the report and has talked about it. Just not in detail but he sure af can comment about it. Bitcoin Millhouse just can’t continue to lie about something when he’s been informed it’s actually bullshit.
I guess Conservatives consider that a strong leader?
He doesn’t want one because then he can’t complain about needing one.
Can you even become Prime Minister without a security clearance?
He’ll get it when he’s Prime Minister, because then he’ll be done complaining about the Prime Minister.
Well the contemporary prime minister at least… he’ll never stop removed about Trudeau.
I thought he got one when he was a cabinet minister. How can you be part of a cabinet if you don’t even have security clearance? It would be a major blunder in Harper’s part if he didn’t have one at the start.
There doesn’t seem to be a specific list of qualifications for the PM (technically you don’t even have to be an MP), so presumably yes.
technically you don’t even have to be an MP
How? It’s just the MP that receives the most votes from other MPs
There are no official requirements to be prime minister, just that they must lead with the confidence of the House. The government general could technically appoint whoever the hell they want, but by convention a prime minister should be an MP (or at least will soon to be an MP) who leads the leading party or coalition and it would be a complete political shitshow that’d likely lead to a constitutional crisis were it egregiously broken.
Edit: also to specify, the PM isn’t elected by parliament, it’s an appointed position by the governor general
It isn’t required that they be an MP, only that they lead the party, have the approval of the governor, and have the confidence of Parliament. In this case, though, they can’t vote on any laws, since they haven’t been elected. The usual solution is for an elected MP of the party in a riding that is strong for that party to step down, triggering a by-election with the PM runs in. This has happened before, and will doubtless happen again.
only that they lead the party
That is convention, but is not a requirement. Canada’s political system makes no special consideration for parties. It is entirely based on individuals. Freedom of association allows for individuals to belong to a party, of course, but that membership is only relevant to the worker who belong to it.
After all, political parties are just the labour unions of the political workers. It really wouldn’t make any sense to involve union membership as a requirement in the hiring process. From the employer point of view, who cares what union a worker belongs to? It matters to the worker, but nobody else. If it were any other organization, you wouldn’t think “Oh, this applicant must be better because he is a member of Unifor and not UAW.” You are going to look at the qualities of the individual and what they can do for you as your employee. Government is no different.
But it stands to reason that the workers of a given union will prefer to see their union boss as Prime Minister as they already have a special relationship, so if a given union has control of the House they are going to push for that boss to be PM. Hence the convention that has been established.
The Prime Minster is the leader of the political party with the most MPs. William Lyon McKenzie King in 1925 and John Turner in 1984 both briefly acted as Prime Minster without being Members of Parliament.
Exactly. Historically, there have also been a couple of cases of Senators succeeding to the post when the incumbent PM died (for example, John Abbott ).
I’m not sure there’s even any formal legal barrier to the Governor General picking someone off the street at random; it’s just never done.
There’s no legal barrier given the prime minister is barely legally recognized at all, however they would almost certainly not be leading with the confidence of the house and doing so would likely result in a constitutional crisis.
The MPs can vote for someone who isn’t leader/in their party but thanks
To be fair, Blanchet has also refused it and considers it a “trap”.
The fact of a clearance has nothing to do with what Poilievre is doing. He is an anger clown who produces a non-stop stream of invective and complaints. Facts, relevance, and nuance are unwanted because they would interfere with the machine gun fire of grievances. So a clearance doesn’t hold any value for him. He simply wants something to complain about.
This is what I don’t get about modern day conservatives: Who wants to vote in a rage farmer, and just be angry about everything all the time? At the core of it, these people are supposed to work for us, by creating wealth and opportunity, and overseeing our governments duties and public service infrastructure. Rage farming on Facebook doesn’t do any of this. That’s not going to generate GDP growth, or any prosperity.
Because if he gets it he will be given the inside scoop. But part of the deal with security clearance is that you are now in a circle of trust, and now you can’t talk about whatever it is you now know about with people outside that circle.
That includes complaining about what’s not happening because that might reveal info as well. That’s the last thing he wants, since that’s his entire modus operandi.
He is refusing it
deleted by creator
