It’s an unusual axe to choose to grind during testimony. Take it from two former CSIS directors:
Richard Fadden and Ward Elcock — two former CSIS directors — told CBC News’ Power & Politics on Wednesday that Trudeau probably shouldn’t have taken such a partisan turn in his testimony.
“He lapsed into really extreme partisanship when he made this accusation and he made it in terms that could not help but enrage the Conservative leader. So that was his objective. I think it worked,” Fadden told host David Cochrane.
“Did it advance the cause of national security? Did it advance the interest of the inquiry and the commissioners’ work? I’m not so sure.”
I agree. Poilievre’s choice to not be cleared, like many of his other choices and positions, is asinine and idiotic.
The Liberal talking point of, “if only Poilievre would get the clearance, we could get to work on fixing this” is also asinine.
It’s worth remembering that the CSIS-briefed, PM-known issue of election interference predates Poilievre by 5 years, and a span of 2 federal elections, one of which the Liberals enjoyed a majority government. The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do. Trudeau and the Liberals have been happy to sit on their hands on this issue, for years, and it has left parliament vulnerable to foreign influence. That’s uniquely Trudeau and the Liberals’ fault, and they ought to be taken to task for that. It’s a huge deal.
The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do.
Hours of logjammed question periods of Poilievre saying “release the names” and Liberals saying “get the clearance”. Liberals are framing the issue around Poilievre’s obstinance, in the house, and now in testimony to the Foreign Interference Commission. It’s not honest.
Two elections have passed since the PM was briefed on election interference, and he knew about the issue for years before Poilievre was leader of the CPC. The fact that they’re talking about Poilievre at all seems to me to be an abdication of responsibility.
It’s an unusual axe to choose to grind during testimony. Take it from two former CSIS directors:
Source: CBC - "Why won’t Trudeau release classified names — and why won’t Poilievre get a security clearance?
If it leads to Polievre getting his fucking security clearance, I would argue it does.
There would be no “partisan turn” to take if he would meet this basic expectation.
I agree. Poilievre’s choice to not be cleared, like many of his other choices and positions, is asinine and idiotic.
The Liberal talking point of, “if only Poilievre would get the clearance, we could get to work on fixing this” is also asinine.
It’s worth remembering that the CSIS-briefed, PM-known issue of election interference predates Poilievre by 5 years, and a span of 2 federal elections, one of which the Liberals enjoyed a majority government. The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do. Trudeau and the Liberals have been happy to sit on their hands on this issue, for years, and it has left parliament vulnerable to foreign influence. That’s uniquely Trudeau and the Liberals’ fault, and they ought to be taken to task for that. It’s a huge deal.
I don’t think they’ve said this?
Hours of logjammed question periods of Poilievre saying “release the names” and Liberals saying “get the clearance”. Liberals are framing the issue around Poilievre’s obstinance, in the house, and now in testimony to the Foreign Interference Commission. It’s not honest.
There’s already another article posted about this, but I would think the concerns around releasing classified information are self-evident.
Two elections have passed since the PM was briefed on election interference, and he knew about the issue for years before Poilievre was leader of the CPC. The fact that they’re talking about Poilievre at all seems to me to be an abdication of responsibility.