Gamesmanship, instead of statesmanship

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/12/2024 (281 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The phrase “playing politics” conjures up several meanings and implications, none of which is particularly flattering.

Merriam-Webster defines it as “saying or doing things for political reasons instead of doing what is right or what is best for other people.” The expression also carries the suggestion of behaviour that is cynical at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.

And it creates the impression of a calculated effort to treat politics — the crucial democratic function that sets public policy and creates the laws which govern a population — as a competition to be won or lost rather than a process whose sole goal should be advancement of the public good.

On the issue of top-level security clearance and his refusal to submit to the process required for him to receive it, it’s not difficult to conclude that Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre is playing politics, plain and simple.

The man who would be prime minister — perhaps, given the precarious nature of the current Liberal minority government, as early as the first half of next year — remains steadfast in his refusal to undergo the screening process that would afford him access to top-secret security briefings and documents.

Why? Well, that’s a bit difficult to decipher. Last year, following reports that some members of Parliament had been the target of foreign interference in the previous Canadian election, Poilievre refused to pursue top-level clearance and therefore access to briefings on who may have been involved, and how.

“We’re not going to allow the government to silence leaders of the opposition by swearing them to secrecy on this matter of grave public importance,” he stated, leaving the impression that either he wanted to be able to make public that which the nation’s security agencies consider to be necessarily protected, or that he is so intent on not keeping the information secret that, if gaining clearance and agreeing to the terms thereof is required, he’d simply rather not know.

Both positions are, of course, patently absurd. Poilievre has been a member of Parliament for essentially his entire adult life, and is fully aware of the workings of intelligence agencies and the need for certain kinds of information to be kept secret. As a member of previous Conservative government cabinets, he would necessarily have held the security clearances (presumably since expired) which he now refuses to undertake.

The leaders of all the other opposition parties have either received or are in the process of receiving the requisite security clearances, and are therefore privy to top-level information regarding threats to national security.

Poilievre has argued that he needn’t attain top-secret security clearance because his chief of staff has it and could presumably share the information provided in briefings. That’s not the case, says former CSIS director Ward Elcock, because the chief of staff might not be given certain information on a “need to know” basis, and that which he did receive could not be shared with his clearance-deficient boss because doing so would contravene the Security of Information Act.

Again, these are all things a career politician and leader of a federal party would necessarily know. What’s left, then, is the unavoidable conclusion that Poilievre’s continuing refusal to seek top-level security clearance is just more political gamesmanship, in keeping with his earlier public support of “freedom convoy” disruptions and his continual trafficking in the sort of name-calling and purposeful misinformation that have proved successful for right-of-centre functionaries south of the border.

The interests of Canadians at large are not served by Poilievre playing politics. Poilievre’s interests alone are served — but that’s what this game he’s playing seems to be all about.