Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Jarnhamar]

What, the persona of someone who has a PhD from one of the worlds most respected universities and was also the Governor of both the Banks of Canada and England?

That’s an appeal to authority rather than an argument about the persona itself. Credential signaling or halo effect if you prefer. But yes I can see Canadians using that as a reason for it.

 

[Navy_Pete]

You guys get jalapeno poppers ?

The key is to vote it into your mess rules as part of an GM, and approve the cost for it.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Members of Parliament enjoy immense privilege to speak openly in the context of their Parliamentary duties. Any MP, entrusted with classified information, would be able to disclose same in Parliametary business without fear of prosecution under FISOIA. They would likely lose subsequent access, but the concept of a FISOIA ‘gag’ on utterances made in the course of parliamentary duties simply isn’t true.

*There’s currently a very narrow carve out to that for members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians who receive classified information in the course of their NSICOP duties. There’s a Supreme Court decision pending imminently on how that squares with Parliamentary privilege.

Sure but even outside of Parliament, there is nothing that stops him speaking about a topic he got a briefing on, and fully complying with FISOIA, as long as he sticks to what's in the public domain.

Maybe the Parliamentary briefings are different, but pretty much all the ones I've seen at just the confidential and secret level always spelled out what part was actually classified.

He absolutely could have gotten a briefing on foreign interference etc, and stilled talked about it in general, or taken action if necessary, as long as he didn't disclose anything. It was a fundamentally stupid arguement, and essentially a complete fabrication by someone that should know better after spending their entire career as an MP.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Not getting the clearance allows him to be transparent about what he knows.

....and deprives him of the insights he could garner from a more nuanced understanding of the context and background. In short, he wants to -charitably - be able to assess and explain the situation to his audience using no more information than that available to all. Less charitably, be as uninformed as the people he wants to represent.

 

[RangerRay]

A security clearance isn’t a requirement to lead an opposition party. Poilievre not obtaining it is a political choice, not a security failure. He’s prioritizing his role in public accountability and opposition work over participating in a classified briefing system that comes with restrictions on what he can say publicly. Not getting the clearance allows him to be transparent about what he knows.

....and deprives him of the insights he could garner from a more nuanced understanding of the context and background. In short, he wants to -charitably - be able to assess and explain the situation to his audience using no more information than that available to all. Less charitably, be as uninformed as the people he wants to represent.

Not to mention it allows him to remain ignorant of Beijing's sympathizers in his caucus. They are not as plentiful as in the LPC caucus, but they are there.