A Top Secret security clearance is a deep-dive into many items/relations including family, extended and in-laws. It typically takes months. We're all speculating here, but Poilievre's reason for not submitting to this clearance is not likely to 'preserve his ability to speak publicly'. We should all be concerned about the leader of a Federal political party refusing to submit to a Top Secret Security Clearance.
A an interesting analogy. One thing left unsaid but certainly obvous (perhaps the reason it does not need to be said) is that whoever is in a position to grant clearance is also able to withold it. The Privy Council grants or witholds permission; the PM is the Chair of the Privacy Council. Should Poilivrre apply for clearance, and the vetting process determine that he ought not to be granted clearance, in order to justify witholding clearance, the PM would almost certainly have to disclose publicly the reason(s) contained in the vetting recommendations for that witholding. Failure to do so will lead to a (CPC generated) political firestorm. But the information conveyed to the PM by the vetting process would almost certainly include information that must remain top secret.
The evidence about the level of cognitive functioning at which the PM operates suggests that this has been identified, that the vetting process has already been conducted to the extent possible without Poilivre's actual participation (interview), and those items (if any) that can be disclosed identified.
A Top Secret security clearance is a deep-dive into many items/relations including family, extended and in-laws. It typically takes months. We're all speculating here, but Poilievre's reason for not submitting to this clearance is not likely to 'preserve his ability to speak publicly'. We should all be concerned about the leader of a Federal political party refusing to submit to a Top Secret Security Clearance.
Thank you for sahring
A an interesting analogy. One thing left unsaid but certainly obvous (perhaps the reason it does not need to be said) is that whoever is in a position to grant clearance is also able to withold it. The Privy Council grants or witholds permission; the PM is the Chair of the Privacy Council. Should Poilivrre apply for clearance, and the vetting process determine that he ought not to be granted clearance, in order to justify witholding clearance, the PM would almost certainly have to disclose publicly the reason(s) contained in the vetting recommendations for that witholding. Failure to do so will lead to a (CPC generated) political firestorm. But the information conveyed to the PM by the vetting process would almost certainly include information that must remain top secret.
The evidence about the level of cognitive functioning at which the PM operates suggests that this has been identified, that the vetting process has already been conducted to the extent possible without Poilivre's actual participation (interview), and those items (if any) that can be disclosed identified.