It also boggles my mind why someone who knows a security clearance is a requirement of the job digs in like this?!? Such a ridiculous thing to decide to be stubborn about. I held 3 types of clearances throughout my career, part of the hiring process and part of the job
With top-level clearances, if one is married, the spouse is also investigated. Perhaps this factors into Polievre’s decision, as performing a background check on his spouse would be complicated and could lead to a “failed” clearance.
Along with getting married, he also became Con party leader in a campaign that had Indian interference. He hand picked the candidate who replaced Erin O’Toole, a man who is extremely close to J. D. Vance. I think there are several new potential weak spots that may not bear scrutiny since his last clearance.
Thanks for providing the details. I was wondering what the requirements were and what could be contained in those requirements that would make a person decide not to get clearance. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
As you say, there may be nothing sinister about Poilievre's decision, but it sure begs a lot of questions and casts doubt upon his judgment. I would think it pretty basic that the Canadian voters need to have the confidence that a potential Prime Minister could get a security clearance. That he won't just adds another item to the list of negatives associated with him.
Just a note that TS clearance can also be given to external contractors e.g., IT specialists who deal with National Defence, CSE, or CSIS for example can be required to be cleared to a Top Secret level.
Thanks for this great primer. Like you, I held a TS+ clearance when working for the GoC. I have one minor correction, which is that most politicians do not get clearances, and the current situation where opposition leaders (minus PP) have them is a very new development. As you mentioned, clearances and the level of clearances are granted on a “need to have” and “need to know” basis. This would also apply to Cabinet ministers, depending on their portfolio. It certainly applies to other MPs, with the exception of those serving on NSICoP.
I do not subscribe to the “there must be a ‘secret’ reason why he doesn’t get the clearance, but as a thought exercise, what would happen if the security system didn’t feel able to grant a PM the highest level of clearance possible? How would that conundrum get sorted—particularly with regard to material coming from our international partners?
Well, to get unfettered access to partner material, one has to meet their requirements for the requisite clearance. The tap would just get turned off for those products. For the rest, lower clearances could be granted and access provided on a “need to know” basis, which is the prime consideration of the entire system.
Neither of our leaders are taking national security seriously. Poilievre for the reasons stated. I find it mind blowing that he won’t get clearance do he at least knows what’s happening in his own party. Totally irresponsible and I question his judgement for higher office.
But Carney also lost me with the handling of Chiang. A candidate calls on people to bundle up an opponent to collect a bounty from the PRC for advocating for democracy. And Carney’s reaction is to shrug and call it a “teachable moment”? Completely unacceptable. Totally irresponsible and I question his judgement for higher office.
I used to be able to pick a party to vote for by looking for whichever is closer to my own philosophy or choosing the lesser of two evils. I was leaning towards Carney since he seemed more like a grown-up, but no more. I now hold all parties in utter contempt. None have the national security of this country as a top priority, just their own short term political interests. We deserve to be swallowed up by the god-damned Yanks. And it makes me really angry to say that.
I hope you don’t really mean that. I sure don’t want to be annexed by an authoritarian state. And I do encourage you to vote. Not participating in a democracy is the surest way to lose it.
After days of protest and Carney publicly trying to excuse this guy’s behaviour. Not good. Shows a lack of integrity in my opinion.
I don’t want anyone even joking about encouraging kidnapping political opponents and sending them to police states that have been actively engaged in political meddling in this country.
The other thing that disillusions me about carney is his plan for government to get into building homes. I don’t think the government has shown its ability to build things on time on budget
And I really don’t care, but that’s how I feel. If all of our leaders place short-term political gain above national security, the bad actors of the world will notice and act accordingly. China and Trumpistan will turn our country into a Monopoly board and we will let them.
It’s a bit of a silly position to take, since he held a security clearance in the past. It’s caused him a lot of unnecessary noise and is distracting from the message he wants to deliver. Although Tom Mulcair said on Power Play that he wouldn’t have gotten one had he been in the same situation as Polievre is right now. Tom’s nobody’s dummy so there must be something to it.
If I was in Polievre’s position, I would get the clearance. If for no other reason than to stop the chatter. I believe his chief of staff has it, which is a very awkward way of getting intel and one would assume the chief could not share that info with PP. But they could act on it as necessary. Ham-fisted, for sure.
Thanks for a good explanation of the system. Perhaps a few extra points on this system.
Each time anyone in the government has information or needs to write a document they have to decide how to classify it. Over time a tendency builds to avoid risk such that more and more information gets restricted to some classification level. And once that level is applied either the drafter of the document has to re-consider to possibly lower the classification for wider distribution or use or some higher level official needs to start a process to have the level re-assessed. We have built a system where too often information is restricted unless someone sees a need to share rather than a system where everything is shared unless there is a reason to restrict its distribution.
No document contains 100% classified information. A piece of intelligence analysis could be set at Top Secret because of one paragraph or sentence of information at that level while the remainder of the document could be Unclassified. And documents could have different classification levels for each paragraph. And in that case the entire document would be handled at the level of the most highly classified paragraph.
Also, information and analysis presented in classified documents may come with differing degrees of confidence. Someone overheard me threatening to kill someone. Has to be taken seriously because of the nature of the threat. But if it was me talking to a sibling about wanting to kill my brother because he always beats me at one-on-one basketball there would be little reason to elevate this issue. If they overheard me talking to someone known to deal in illicit guns then things would be different.
The point being that being someone with a security clearance opens one up to a ton of information and analysis. And there is a lot of complexity to deal with. It doesn’t mean that there is no utility in having that information unless you can tell everyone exactly what you read word for word.
I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy theory to wonder if Poilievre's refusal to get his Top Secret clearance is the result of his being financially compromised or otherwise unable to qualify for said clearance. I've considered the performative outrage theory, and I don't think it holds water at this point. His consistent refusal to get his clearance dealt with has been so loudly and frequently criticized that I think it's really affected how moderate Conservative see him. And he can't win the country without the votes of those moderate Conservatives. I think he tried to make it look like he refused to get his security clearance for "the benefit of Canadians", but it backfired spectacularly. It would have looked better, gained him more support, had he caved and gotten it after his failure to do so blew up in his face. That he didn't get it even so really makes it seem like there's a reason - or reasons - that he CAN'T get it, that it would be refused if he tried.
It also boggles my mind why someone who knows a security clearance is a requirement of the job digs in like this?!? Such a ridiculous thing to decide to be stubborn about. I held 3 types of clearances throughout my career, part of the hiring process and part of the job
Trumpy, isn’t it.
With top-level clearances, if one is married, the spouse is also investigated. Perhaps this factors into Polievre’s decision, as performing a background check on his spouse would be complicated and could lead to a “failed” clearance.
Along with getting married, he also became Con party leader in a campaign that had Indian interference. He hand picked the candidate who replaced Erin O’Toole, a man who is extremely close to J. D. Vance. I think there are several new potential weak spots that may not bear scrutiny since his last clearance.
Thanks for providing the details. I was wondering what the requirements were and what could be contained in those requirements that would make a person decide not to get clearance. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
As you say, there may be nothing sinister about Poilievre's decision, but it sure begs a lot of questions and casts doubt upon his judgment. I would think it pretty basic that the Canadian voters need to have the confidence that a potential Prime Minister could get a security clearance. That he won't just adds another item to the list of negatives associated with him.
Just a note that TS clearance can also be given to external contractors e.g., IT specialists who deal with National Defence, CSE, or CSIS for example can be required to be cleared to a Top Secret level.
Absolutely. I carried mine over to civilian life without changes.
Thanks to you Black Cloud Six for your comprehensive explanations.
Thanks for this great primer. Like you, I held a TS+ clearance when working for the GoC. I have one minor correction, which is that most politicians do not get clearances, and the current situation where opposition leaders (minus PP) have them is a very new development. As you mentioned, clearances and the level of clearances are granted on a “need to have” and “need to know” basis. This would also apply to Cabinet ministers, depending on their portfolio. It certainly applies to other MPs, with the exception of those serving on NSICoP.
I’m always open to new information! Thanks!
I do not subscribe to the “there must be a ‘secret’ reason why he doesn’t get the clearance, but as a thought exercise, what would happen if the security system didn’t feel able to grant a PM the highest level of clearance possible? How would that conundrum get sorted—particularly with regard to material coming from our international partners?
Well, to get unfettered access to partner material, one has to meet their requirements for the requisite clearance. The tap would just get turned off for those products. For the rest, lower clearances could be granted and access provided on a “need to know” basis, which is the prime consideration of the entire system.
Neither of our leaders are taking national security seriously. Poilievre for the reasons stated. I find it mind blowing that he won’t get clearance do he at least knows what’s happening in his own party. Totally irresponsible and I question his judgement for higher office.
But Carney also lost me with the handling of Chiang. A candidate calls on people to bundle up an opponent to collect a bounty from the PRC for advocating for democracy. And Carney’s reaction is to shrug and call it a “teachable moment”? Completely unacceptable. Totally irresponsible and I question his judgement for higher office.
I used to be able to pick a party to vote for by looking for whichever is closer to my own philosophy or choosing the lesser of two evils. I was leaning towards Carney since he seemed more like a grown-up, but no more. I now hold all parties in utter contempt. None have the national security of this country as a top priority, just their own short term political interests. We deserve to be swallowed up by the god-damned Yanks. And it makes me really angry to say that.
I hope you don’t really mean that. I sure don’t want to be annexed by an authoritarian state. And I do encourage you to vote. Not participating in a democracy is the surest way to lose it.
You MUST have heard about this.
And Mr Chiang has resigned. No doubt at the urging of the party.
After days of protest and Carney publicly trying to excuse this guy’s behaviour. Not good. Shows a lack of integrity in my opinion.
I don’t want anyone even joking about encouraging kidnapping political opponents and sending them to police states that have been actively engaged in political meddling in this country.
All of our leaders get failing grades here.
The other thing that disillusions me about carney is his plan for government to get into building homes. I don’t think the government has shown its ability to build things on time on budget
Another complainer without substance. You people need to go away. This is serious business.
I dont believe you are being honest in your conclusion.
And I really don’t care, but that’s how I feel. If all of our leaders place short-term political gain above national security, the bad actors of the world will notice and act accordingly. China and Trumpistan will turn our country into a Monopoly board and we will let them.
How can you be Prime Minister without it? Won’t he have no choice? Will not be voting for him.
He doesn’t want something to come out
There is only downside to PP not getting a clearance doubts arise naturally… it’s a no brainer dah
Poillieve won't get a clearance
And denounced Chiang.
But his party got rid of four of its own MPs and refuse to tall anyone why.
It won't submit to interviews,
It won't tell Canadians if he's anti Trump or not.
In fact, just like under Harper, his party operates under secrecy.
It’s a bit of a silly position to take, since he held a security clearance in the past. It’s caused him a lot of unnecessary noise and is distracting from the message he wants to deliver. Although Tom Mulcair said on Power Play that he wouldn’t have gotten one had he been in the same situation as Polievre is right now. Tom’s nobody’s dummy so there must be something to it.
I think Mulcair is dead wrong. There’s literally no reason not to be cleared.
If I was in Polievre’s position, I would get the clearance. If for no other reason than to stop the chatter. I believe his chief of staff has it, which is a very awkward way of getting intel and one would assume the chief could not share that info with PP. But they could act on it as necessary. Ham-fisted, for sure.
Thanks for a good explanation of the system. Perhaps a few extra points on this system.
Each time anyone in the government has information or needs to write a document they have to decide how to classify it. Over time a tendency builds to avoid risk such that more and more information gets restricted to some classification level. And once that level is applied either the drafter of the document has to re-consider to possibly lower the classification for wider distribution or use or some higher level official needs to start a process to have the level re-assessed. We have built a system where too often information is restricted unless someone sees a need to share rather than a system where everything is shared unless there is a reason to restrict its distribution.
No document contains 100% classified information. A piece of intelligence analysis could be set at Top Secret because of one paragraph or sentence of information at that level while the remainder of the document could be Unclassified. And documents could have different classification levels for each paragraph. And in that case the entire document would be handled at the level of the most highly classified paragraph.
Also, information and analysis presented in classified documents may come with differing degrees of confidence. Someone overheard me threatening to kill someone. Has to be taken seriously because of the nature of the threat. But if it was me talking to a sibling about wanting to kill my brother because he always beats me at one-on-one basketball there would be little reason to elevate this issue. If they overheard me talking to someone known to deal in illicit guns then things would be different.
The point being that being someone with a security clearance opens one up to a ton of information and analysis. And there is a lot of complexity to deal with. It doesn’t mean that there is no utility in having that information unless you can tell everyone exactly what you read word for word.
I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy theory to wonder if Poilievre's refusal to get his Top Secret clearance is the result of his being financially compromised or otherwise unable to qualify for said clearance. I've considered the performative outrage theory, and I don't think it holds water at this point. His consistent refusal to get his clearance dealt with has been so loudly and frequently criticized that I think it's really affected how moderate Conservative see him. And he can't win the country without the votes of those moderate Conservatives. I think he tried to make it look like he refused to get his security clearance for "the benefit of Canadians", but it backfired spectacularly. It would have looked better, gained him more support, had he caved and gotten it after his failure to do so blew up in his face. That he didn't get it even so really makes it seem like there's a reason - or reasons - that he CAN'T get it, that it would be refused if he tried.
Sounds similar to the Australian system.
It should be almost identical, with only minor differences.
Yes, I'm definitely not an expert on this, but it sounds reasonable.
I wonder if the other four Five Eyes have a classification which excludes the US?
AUUKNZCAN?
If they don't, they should make one.
https://substack.com/@calluramichael491850/note/c-105412221?r=1ii73h&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action