this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
57 points (95.2% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
158 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He doesn't want one because then he can't complain about needing one.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can you even become Prime Minister without a security clearance?

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He'll get it when he's Prime Minister, because then he'll be done complaining about the Prime Minister.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well the contemporary prime minister at least... he'll never stop bitching about Trudeau.

[–] Cobrachickenwing@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

technically you don’t even have to be an MP

How? It’s just the MP that receives the most votes from other MPs

[–] payzdom@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To be fair, Blanchet has also refused it and considers it a "trap".

[–] DrBob@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GrindingGears@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)