On Brookfield the better question for Carney would be what tax or other policies he would enact such that companies like Brookfield don’t offshore their assets. He’s a smart guy - let him tell us how he will make Canada more competitive.
Agree, I think the point the conservatives should hammer home here isn't that what Carney participated in was tax dodging, but that he's of a social class where these actions are available to him and his clients (and not you the little guy who is paying double taxes on your investments!!). How is Carney going to make it so nobody in Canada is double taxed? I get a strong sense in a lot of these recent conflict of interest stories for Carney that he is failing to make a distinction that constantly dogs the Liberals: just because what you're doing follows the letter of the law doesn't make it moral. When in comes to ethics, not only must you not be in a conflict of interest, you must avoid the appearance of being in a conflict of interest. They are both bad. Carney seems to say "I'm not in a conflict, I'm offended you're questioning my integrity." Sir, public trust demands that you not only not be in conflict, but you also must divest yourself of the appearance of a potential conflict.
I thank The Line Editors for the concise BS assessment of the G&M hit piece barely days into the election campaign. It was a dirty story, planted by an anonymous source who got the job done by letting a leading newspaper and competent reporters get their hands dirty. An election team somewhere would be high fiving that little coup, whether they were involved or not.
I thought The Line Editors may have been a little soft on the G&M for being witting participants in the planted piece. The Line Editors have worked in newsrooms and I haven’t, but I have to ask:
If delicate stories like this are passed around the editorial team, with proper vetting of the public interest and contrasted with the optics of carrying water for a political party in an election campaign…….??????
Some of the most groundbreaking news stories in history have been derived from anonymous sources. What do you think of the fac that the leak about Chinese foreign interference came from an anonymous source?
I did not engage in any straw man, since I did not describe your position at all. You should interpret a question as straightforward as mine as just an invitation to clarification.
The source of the story may be anonymous to us the readers but not anonymous to the author of the article. It’s not like the G&M just went with a story without any authentication.
You can still find the piece bullshit if you want but that’s a far cry from assuming that the piece is totally unsupported.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it was a favour for continued access. It is a news story, slanted as though it may be, if it gets you a better story later, then some may consider it worth it.
Lots of BS out there - thank you for triaging the list. But the issue re Brookfield is more nuanced and potentially much more serious.
1. Carney was Chairman of the Board and recommended moving HQ to NYC. a point he initially denied. On this and other issues, is he an unreliable witness to his own history?
2. he led the development and I think the marketing of 2 mega partnerships (~$US$25 billion). these are highly illiquid meaning that unlike publicly traded shares these cannot be sold easily - or at all. Typical compensation arrangements might include a percentage of the "carried interest" and a % of the amounts he raised from partners, such as sovereign wealth funds. He is fully aware of his co-partners in these funds and may have an ongoing interest in the performance of these partnerships. Following the letter of the law re the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner means we won't know until well after the election - or perhaps never.
3. It turns out Carney is on a "temporary Leave of Absence" from Brookfield. Having enjoyed such status in the past (from non-Brookfield employers), I can tell you that this often includes a guarantee of re-employment. Would this not be a matter of legitimate public interest?
4. Brookfield is a massive company with close to $1 trillion in assets under management and growing at a 15% annual rate. Its interests are much vaster that those of Canada Steamship Lines (Paul Martin's company). Martin recused himself from decisions affecting CSL. If Carney recuses himself from decisions affecting Brookfield - especially at a time when he will be leading a massive investment initiative in Canadian infrastructure and manufacturing capacity, (as he promises in his campaign) would his ability to lead as Prime Minister be affected - or maybe not depending on the arrangements made, of which we know nothing.
As someone who wrote many theses, you cite the basics. You include them. You don't copy a sentence and pass off that you combined those words and ideas all on your own. You Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. No matter how many times, how many quotations - you take the words, you cite. So no, the NP story is much needed.
I suppose journalism relies on memory, but, for me, I had to go back and read my high-lighted sections of dog-eared photocopies to make sure I had the concepts right.
And it took days to get the list of references right. Was every citation in the references, and was every reference cited?
Assuming Carney plagiarized, his thesis would not have made it through the vetting software that is now routinely used. Oxford wouldn't throw him out of the program, but he would have to edit the draft and likely be docked merit. Also, it should not be surprising that his supervisors are claiming no foul. They are responsible for the veracity and originality of Mr. (Dr.?) Carney's work.
I agree with your position to cite, cite, cite. However a doctoral thesis can run to several hundred pages and can be based on innumerable other texts: the idea that some material can be included without citation can be merely oversight. Given that the material ‘plagiarized’ is fairly anodyne I don’t think it’s a big deal.
Chalk full? You're reminding me of a former boss who said "we'll just have to play it by air." I believe you meant chock-full. That aside, great bullshit report.
Noticed that one too. I'm not sure if "chock" is used very often any more as I've seen other journalists use "chalk" as well. I like this bullshit report ..this is my first time seeing one.
On the Epstein connection: yes, there is no proof of malfeasance.
But someone in his position should be grilled on his relationship with Maxwell, and as a would-be PM he should be eager to address this once and for all. If he's got nothing to hide, that should be a really easy one to answer.
Epstein was too shady a guy for his stench to not stain anyone who's just merely in the same room.
If he was seen having lunch with a known mobster, people would be all over this and he would be expected to answer for his acquaintance.
Love the idea of outing bullshit, and the Line, in my humble opinion, does it well.
Two things. Reportedly Carney went to China on behalf of the Trudeau Liberals and then a loan to Brookfield emerged. That is poor optics at best, not kosher at medium, and wrong, using behaviour at worst. At best Carney acted unwisely in not making it clear that his meeting while on the Liberals' trip did not affect that loan. But he didn't think that far, or there is a real situation there.
Secondly, Smith's approach has gotten farther than anyone else's so far. The tariff on her province's income source is lower than expected. If the auto industry enters a period of adjustment, then resources become the major export income in Canada. Alberta is already sending enough $ to fund equalization elsewhere. Best give any comments some thought. If Carney tanks because he's too anxious for the nice words, starts acting like the civil servant he was, whatever, then we'll need her even more.
I have a question, so I'll toss it in here. I asked Google if all Canadian auto plants are currently in operation. Stellantis, it seems, has two plants closed, one for retooling, and another because of market shifts. When bailouts come from the two billion dollar fund, will Stellantis pull a Tesla and try to collect the unpaid wages of Unifor members unemployed at the time of the tariff commencement?
What a depressing election. The Conservatives were smugly expecting to trounce Trudeau, and now that they’ve been thrown a curve ball wit carney as Liberal leader, they can’t figure out how to pivot. That’s not a great recommendation, guys: how would you fare as a government when unexpected events strike?
Then we have the Liberals, who have surges back into contention for another term of government simply by switching leaders despite no evidence they’ve learned a damned thing from the past decade of mismanagement. The Conservatives should be roasting these guys over their failures. Instead, we’re likely to find it’s the same Liberals with a different comms plan and branding.
If there’s a bright spot, it’s the potential immolation of the NDP under Jagmeet Singh, who had a real shot at becoming a serious contender to form a government under the pragmatic leadership of Tom Mulcair. Instead they had an epic freak out, embraced the goofy Leap Manifesto, and have languished under one of the most incompetent politicians we’ve seen in decades. They were on a track to oblivion in the ‘90s, and it looks like after a brief detour, they’re back where they left off before Jack Layton. Good riddance.
Smith knows that there's a bunch more crap coming out about the corruption in AHS and with the recovery communities that they're building. And lord knows what else. So in order for her to get re-elected again in 2027, she's going to attempt to set off a national unity crisis to shore up her support in light of all the corruption. She's just laying the groundwork now. And unfortunately, it's going to work on a significant portion of Albertans, just like it has every other time an Alberta premier found it convenient.
I don't think Smith is using the situation as a smokescreen. She was the only Canadian politician to recognize the threat as soon as Trump began his talk of tariffs. She isn't exploiting it for election fodder or to grant herself extraordinary powers. I think she believes that in a few years the US will neither need nor want our exports, We are such a impractical country that we will spend those precious years announcing budgets to hire consultants to gauge public opinion on the appropriate plan to hire consultants to gauge public opinion on...
I think it scares the crap out of her. It scares the crap out of me. Like most boomers without a defined benefit pension, I will be poor.
If she thinks that the US won't need nor want our exports in a few years, why did she immediately start licking Trump's boots when he floated building the Keystone XL pipeline, which would only serve to make us more dependent on them?
Did you consider it boot-licking when Trudeau negotiated the one-month reprieve? Will you consider it boot-licking when Carney follows through on his plans to negotiate?
Smith is negotiating to further reduce the tariffs on Alberta's exports. Ottawa has been distracted for 5 months, trying to strike a balance between talking trade war to Canadians and talking negotiations to Americans.
Can we just stop with the Poilievre security clearance 'scandal'. This lawyer, explains it all, and the most interesting part of the interview is where she tells us that it is the government in power who makes the rules for what can be seen and what can be disclosed.
That information seems to point to a lose/lose for the opposition party.
"This latest leak, in contrast, simply confirms facts that were already well established, and can’t be construed as anything other than a motivated hit from a highly placed, ostensibly non-partisan government official in the middle of an election campaign."
What on Earth makes you think the anonymous source is a bureaucrat from Canada's security apparatus? All the G&M said was "someone who has security clearance", which unless I am very much mistaken includes everyone in the PMO.
The whole story makes far more sense if you understand it to be a highly placed Liberal who leaked the story. Just saying...
Just a few comments. Keeping in mind that no poll ever reflects 100% consensus of a given community, one possible reason why Baby Boomers might appear to put more stock in "merit and effort" is that they survived the effects of the Great Depression and a devastating world war. Many learned by the seat of their pants that their personal efforts were crucial to rising above their parents' financial losses. That's not taking anything away from later generations. And recent statistics kind of go against the idea that today's most senior generation's perspectives are driven by the fact that they are "sitting comfortably with assets and trust in institutions." To quote just one report, (2016) 2 in 5 seniors faced unaffordable rental expenses. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/seniors-rent-canada-1.7257034. That problem is expected to grow in the current financial climate. I'm pretty sure that if interviewed, many BB's would say that comfort and assets don't make the attitude: It's the other way around.
As to the story that recently came out (re Mr. Pierre Poilievre) in the Globe and Mail, it was first reported by CBC in 2023. It's been an active discussion since that time that an appropriate security clearance not only grants access to higher-level intel from CSIS, but it is crucial to being taken seriously when interfacing in the global arena. Most democracies have a similar bar of expectation for their highest offices. Call it a global calling card that tells other global leaders that our highest dignitary has been vetted to hear and protect the secrecy of any country's sensitive information. At a time when Canada will be facing off against a US president that relies on misinformation, threats and bullying to get what he wants, a security clearance is valuable currency for Canada's prime minister who wants to stay informed in the global arena.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if (hopefully when) he becomes PM, Poilievre will have no issue obtaining his security clearance.
I also will boldly predict that if such a scenario were to play out, whoever the Liberal leader is (Carney will run away if he doesn't win this election) will refuse to get the security clearance just like Poilievre did - because it will hinder their ability to fully perform their role.
...and absolutely NO ONE will care, because this is only a talking point if it is a Conservative doing it.
Sort of like holding multiple passports, or blackface, or getting caught in an ethics issue, or....
Boomers, by definition, were born after WWII. Their only economic lessons from the Great Depression came from listening to stories from their grandparents.
I so wish hindsight and history were so easy. As a -- ahem -- boomer myself, I can attest history isn't that siloed. Boomers are the kids that were the product of depression-era survivors. Our grandparents were the ones who had survived WWI first (not WWII). We inherited the lessons of two generations of mistakes, and likely why we appear to put stock things like "merit and effort" as they called it.
Please tell me that any secret squirrel stuff told to a Canadian PM - cleared or not - would not go to Beijing’s ears within a week? The only government secrets in Canada are those that might allow the Canadian public to make informed decisions. Like for instance, the real reason two Chinese scientists working in Canada’s virus warfare establishment were sent back to China during Covid days.
I think there might be a misunderstanding going around about what a prime minister's security clearance is for - yes, it does set the dully elected official above us reg'lar folk so that those who shouldn't know about the inner workings of Canadian elections for example, aren't privy to them. But no, it's not the same thing as what's required of two scientists in an agency that didn't follow through with *its* protocols for security, and the requirements that are far down the line from that of a prime minister.
You are quite right about the necessity for clearances and various levels. I have trouble seeing why instances of individual cases of foreign interference in elections have to be secret in the first instance. The only reason I can see is to avoid political embarrassment to parties or their members. The problem with secrecy is that people fill in their own assumptions.
I agree on that, but I suspect it's the question of the sensitive data that is behind the fact that there was attempted interference -- and the length of time an investigation takes place (ergo why we don't get to hear the story about a murder suspect until the police are done with an investigation; same kind slow process, I would think. The gov't could certainly do better with transparency processes, though.
On Brookfield the better question for Carney would be what tax or other policies he would enact such that companies like Brookfield don’t offshore their assets. He’s a smart guy - let him tell us how he will make Canada more competitive.
Yes that was my set of questions as well. Odd that it comes up in comments sections more than in media scrums.
Agree, I think the point the conservatives should hammer home here isn't that what Carney participated in was tax dodging, but that he's of a social class where these actions are available to him and his clients (and not you the little guy who is paying double taxes on your investments!!). How is Carney going to make it so nobody in Canada is double taxed? I get a strong sense in a lot of these recent conflict of interest stories for Carney that he is failing to make a distinction that constantly dogs the Liberals: just because what you're doing follows the letter of the law doesn't make it moral. When in comes to ethics, not only must you not be in a conflict of interest, you must avoid the appearance of being in a conflict of interest. They are both bad. Carney seems to say "I'm not in a conflict, I'm offended you're questioning my integrity." Sir, public trust demands that you not only not be in conflict, but you also must divest yourself of the appearance of a potential conflict.
400,000 members. 160,000 voters. 85% win. BS meter at max.
None of that matters now . It was either him or Freeland no matter how the race went
Regarding the G&M hit piece:
I thank The Line Editors for the concise BS assessment of the G&M hit piece barely days into the election campaign. It was a dirty story, planted by an anonymous source who got the job done by letting a leading newspaper and competent reporters get their hands dirty. An election team somewhere would be high fiving that little coup, whether they were involved or not.
I thought The Line Editors may have been a little soft on the G&M for being witting participants in the planted piece. The Line Editors have worked in newsrooms and I haven’t, but I have to ask:
If delicate stories like this are passed around the editorial team, with proper vetting of the public interest and contrasted with the optics of carrying water for a political party in an election campaign…….??????
Any story, from anywhere, where the source is anonymous should be treated as complete bullshit, unless there is tangible proof of the contrary.
It's too easy to peddle lies under the cloak of anonymity.
Some of the most groundbreaking news stories in history have been derived from anonymous sources. What do you think of the fac that the leak about Chinese foreign interference came from an anonymous source?
I didn't say that stories from anonymous sources can't be useful or veridical.
Re-read what I wrote and respond to that if you must.
Just don't respond to a point I haven't made, it's a logical fallacy, called the straw man, which you are extremely prone to employ.
I did not engage in any straw man, since I did not describe your position at all. You should interpret a question as straightforward as mine as just an invitation to clarification.
The source of the story may be anonymous to us the readers but not anonymous to the author of the article. It’s not like the G&M just went with a story without any authentication.
You can still find the piece bullshit if you want but that’s a far cry from assuming that the piece is totally unsupported.
The story originally cited CSIS as the source.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it was a favour for continued access. It is a news story, slanted as though it may be, if it gets you a better story later, then some may consider it worth it.
The Globe has done a lot of good work, so I hope the story resulted from an implicit "publish this or we'll reduce your funding" threat.
Lots of BS out there - thank you for triaging the list. But the issue re Brookfield is more nuanced and potentially much more serious.
1. Carney was Chairman of the Board and recommended moving HQ to NYC. a point he initially denied. On this and other issues, is he an unreliable witness to his own history?
2. he led the development and I think the marketing of 2 mega partnerships (~$US$25 billion). these are highly illiquid meaning that unlike publicly traded shares these cannot be sold easily - or at all. Typical compensation arrangements might include a percentage of the "carried interest" and a % of the amounts he raised from partners, such as sovereign wealth funds. He is fully aware of his co-partners in these funds and may have an ongoing interest in the performance of these partnerships. Following the letter of the law re the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner means we won't know until well after the election - or perhaps never.
3. It turns out Carney is on a "temporary Leave of Absence" from Brookfield. Having enjoyed such status in the past (from non-Brookfield employers), I can tell you that this often includes a guarantee of re-employment. Would this not be a matter of legitimate public interest?
4. Brookfield is a massive company with close to $1 trillion in assets under management and growing at a 15% annual rate. Its interests are much vaster that those of Canada Steamship Lines (Paul Martin's company). Martin recused himself from decisions affecting CSL. If Carney recuses himself from decisions affecting Brookfield - especially at a time when he will be leading a massive investment initiative in Canadian infrastructure and manufacturing capacity, (as he promises in his campaign) would his ability to lead as Prime Minister be affected - or maybe not depending on the arrangements made, of which we know nothing.
As someone who wrote many theses, you cite the basics. You include them. You don't copy a sentence and pass off that you combined those words and ideas all on your own. You Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. No matter how many times, how many quotations - you take the words, you cite. So no, the NP story is much needed.
I suppose journalism relies on memory, but, for me, I had to go back and read my high-lighted sections of dog-eared photocopies to make sure I had the concepts right.
And it took days to get the list of references right. Was every citation in the references, and was every reference cited?
Apparently not
Assuming Carney plagiarized, his thesis would not have made it through the vetting software that is now routinely used. Oxford wouldn't throw him out of the program, but he would have to edit the draft and likely be docked merit. Also, it should not be surprising that his supervisors are claiming no foul. They are responsible for the veracity and originality of Mr. (Dr.?) Carney's work.
Agreed and he's quoting Michael Porter. The guy who papers are taught at Every business school.
I even read that paper Carney is citing.
I agree with your position to cite, cite, cite. However a doctoral thesis can run to several hundred pages and can be based on innumerable other texts: the idea that some material can be included without citation can be merely oversight. Given that the material ‘plagiarized’ is fairly anodyne I don’t think it’s a big deal.
It's technically accurate. What it says about Carney is up to everyone to decide? For me, it's drip, drip, drip with him
Chalk full? You're reminding me of a former boss who said "we'll just have to play it by air." I believe you meant chock-full. That aside, great bullshit report.
Noticed that one too. I'm not sure if "chock" is used very often any more as I've seen other journalists use "chalk" as well. I like this bullshit report ..this is my first time seeing one.
On the Epstein connection: yes, there is no proof of malfeasance.
But someone in his position should be grilled on his relationship with Maxwell, and as a would-be PM he should be eager to address this once and for all. If he's got nothing to hide, that should be a really easy one to answer.
Epstein was too shady a guy for his stench to not stain anyone who's just merely in the same room.
If he was seen having lunch with a known mobster, people would be all over this and he would be expected to answer for his acquaintance.
How is this different?
Love the idea of outing bullshit, and the Line, in my humble opinion, does it well.
Two things. Reportedly Carney went to China on behalf of the Trudeau Liberals and then a loan to Brookfield emerged. That is poor optics at best, not kosher at medium, and wrong, using behaviour at worst. At best Carney acted unwisely in not making it clear that his meeting while on the Liberals' trip did not affect that loan. But he didn't think that far, or there is a real situation there.
Secondly, Smith's approach has gotten farther than anyone else's so far. The tariff on her province's income source is lower than expected. If the auto industry enters a period of adjustment, then resources become the major export income in Canada. Alberta is already sending enough $ to fund equalization elsewhere. Best give any comments some thought. If Carney tanks because he's too anxious for the nice words, starts acting like the civil servant he was, whatever, then we'll need her even more.
I have a question, so I'll toss it in here. I asked Google if all Canadian auto plants are currently in operation. Stellantis, it seems, has two plants closed, one for retooling, and another because of market shifts. When bailouts come from the two billion dollar fund, will Stellantis pull a Tesla and try to collect the unpaid wages of Unifor members unemployed at the time of the tariff commencement?
What a depressing election. The Conservatives were smugly expecting to trounce Trudeau, and now that they’ve been thrown a curve ball wit carney as Liberal leader, they can’t figure out how to pivot. That’s not a great recommendation, guys: how would you fare as a government when unexpected events strike?
Then we have the Liberals, who have surges back into contention for another term of government simply by switching leaders despite no evidence they’ve learned a damned thing from the past decade of mismanagement. The Conservatives should be roasting these guys over their failures. Instead, we’re likely to find it’s the same Liberals with a different comms plan and branding.
If there’s a bright spot, it’s the potential immolation of the NDP under Jagmeet Singh, who had a real shot at becoming a serious contender to form a government under the pragmatic leadership of Tom Mulcair. Instead they had an epic freak out, embraced the goofy Leap Manifesto, and have languished under one of the most incompetent politicians we’ve seen in decades. They were on a track to oblivion in the ‘90s, and it looks like after a brief detour, they’re back where they left off before Jack Layton. Good riddance.
We can't possibly let Pierre Poilievre know how the Chinese interfered in the Conservative Leadership Race because he doesn't have clearance.
But we clearly can spill all that to Globe & Mail journalists.
LOL.
Smith knows that there's a bunch more crap coming out about the corruption in AHS and with the recovery communities that they're building. And lord knows what else. So in order for her to get re-elected again in 2027, she's going to attempt to set off a national unity crisis to shore up her support in light of all the corruption. She's just laying the groundwork now. And unfortunately, it's going to work on a significant portion of Albertans, just like it has every other time an Alberta premier found it convenient.
I don't think Smith is using the situation as a smokescreen. She was the only Canadian politician to recognize the threat as soon as Trump began his talk of tariffs. She isn't exploiting it for election fodder or to grant herself extraordinary powers. I think she believes that in a few years the US will neither need nor want our exports, We are such a impractical country that we will spend those precious years announcing budgets to hire consultants to gauge public opinion on the appropriate plan to hire consultants to gauge public opinion on...
I think it scares the crap out of her. It scares the crap out of me. Like most boomers without a defined benefit pension, I will be poor.
If she thinks that the US won't need nor want our exports in a few years, why did she immediately start licking Trump's boots when he floated building the Keystone XL pipeline, which would only serve to make us more dependent on them?
Did you consider it boot-licking when Trudeau negotiated the one-month reprieve? Will you consider it boot-licking when Carney follows through on his plans to negotiate?
Smith is negotiating to further reduce the tariffs on Alberta's exports. Ottawa has been distracted for 5 months, trying to strike a balance between talking trade war to Canadians and talking negotiations to Americans.
Brought to you by a lawyer at the Canadian Constitution Foundation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y88wL8pZL-k
Can we just stop with the Poilievre security clearance 'scandal'. This lawyer, explains it all, and the most interesting part of the interview is where she tells us that it is the government in power who makes the rules for what can be seen and what can be disclosed.
That information seems to point to a lose/lose for the opposition party.
"This latest leak, in contrast, simply confirms facts that were already well established, and can’t be construed as anything other than a motivated hit from a highly placed, ostensibly non-partisan government official in the middle of an election campaign."
What on Earth makes you think the anonymous source is a bureaucrat from Canada's security apparatus? All the G&M said was "someone who has security clearance", which unless I am very much mistaken includes everyone in the PMO.
The whole story makes far more sense if you understand it to be a highly placed Liberal who leaked the story. Just saying...
"I will not be silent"
We know, Danielle. We know.
Just a few comments. Keeping in mind that no poll ever reflects 100% consensus of a given community, one possible reason why Baby Boomers might appear to put more stock in "merit and effort" is that they survived the effects of the Great Depression and a devastating world war. Many learned by the seat of their pants that their personal efforts were crucial to rising above their parents' financial losses. That's not taking anything away from later generations. And recent statistics kind of go against the idea that today's most senior generation's perspectives are driven by the fact that they are "sitting comfortably with assets and trust in institutions." To quote just one report, (2016) 2 in 5 seniors faced unaffordable rental expenses. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/seniors-rent-canada-1.7257034. That problem is expected to grow in the current financial climate. I'm pretty sure that if interviewed, many BB's would say that comfort and assets don't make the attitude: It's the other way around.
As to the story that recently came out (re Mr. Pierre Poilievre) in the Globe and Mail, it was first reported by CBC in 2023. It's been an active discussion since that time that an appropriate security clearance not only grants access to higher-level intel from CSIS, but it is crucial to being taken seriously when interfacing in the global arena. Most democracies have a similar bar of expectation for their highest offices. Call it a global calling card that tells other global leaders that our highest dignitary has been vetted to hear and protect the secrecy of any country's sensitive information. At a time when Canada will be facing off against a US president that relies on misinformation, threats and bullying to get what he wants, a security clearance is valuable currency for Canada's prime minister who wants to stay informed in the global arena.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if (hopefully when) he becomes PM, Poilievre will have no issue obtaining his security clearance.
I also will boldly predict that if such a scenario were to play out, whoever the Liberal leader is (Carney will run away if he doesn't win this election) will refuse to get the security clearance just like Poilievre did - because it will hinder their ability to fully perform their role.
...and absolutely NO ONE will care, because this is only a talking point if it is a Conservative doing it.
Sort of like holding multiple passports, or blackface, or getting caught in an ethics issue, or....
Boomers, by definition, were born after WWII. Their only economic lessons from the Great Depression came from listening to stories from their grandparents.
I so wish hindsight and history were so easy. As a -- ahem -- boomer myself, I can attest history isn't that siloed. Boomers are the kids that were the product of depression-era survivors. Our grandparents were the ones who had survived WWI first (not WWII). We inherited the lessons of two generations of mistakes, and likely why we appear to put stock things like "merit and effort" as they called it.
Please tell me that any secret squirrel stuff told to a Canadian PM - cleared or not - would not go to Beijing’s ears within a week? The only government secrets in Canada are those that might allow the Canadian public to make informed decisions. Like for instance, the real reason two Chinese scientists working in Canada’s virus warfare establishment were sent back to China during Covid days.
I think there might be a misunderstanding going around about what a prime minister's security clearance is for - yes, it does set the dully elected official above us reg'lar folk so that those who shouldn't know about the inner workings of Canadian elections for example, aren't privy to them. But no, it's not the same thing as what's required of two scientists in an agency that didn't follow through with *its* protocols for security, and the requirements that are far down the line from that of a prime minister.
You are quite right about the necessity for clearances and various levels. I have trouble seeing why instances of individual cases of foreign interference in elections have to be secret in the first instance. The only reason I can see is to avoid political embarrassment to parties or their members. The problem with secrecy is that people fill in their own assumptions.
I agree on that, but I suspect it's the question of the sensitive data that is behind the fact that there was attempted interference -- and the length of time an investigation takes place (ergo why we don't get to hear the story about a murder suspect until the police are done with an investigation; same kind slow process, I would think. The gov't could certainly do better with transparency processes, though.
Boomers were born after the Depression and WWII.
Pretty sure Poilievre will get his clearance once he is PM and the threat of the VAdm Norman treatment is gone.