Suspicion Breeds Mistrust

- jim Young

A lack of transparency results in a distrust and a deep sense of insecurity.” - Dalai Lama

An election will soon be held here in Canada and to be 100% honest, I’m not sure at this time who I will or should be voting for. 

The problem is, I don’t believe any of the people or parties that are my available options, best represent me and  ALL of the things that I believe will be the most important issues over the next few years.

(Come to think of it, when rereading that last sentence, I just realized I could  have just as easily ended it at the second comma.)

I feel like we are scraping the bottom of the barrel and may be left with the lesser of the evils as our choice for Prime Minister. That’s not a particularly good feeling. We deserve to have the luxury of deciding among the cream of the crop, not the lesser of the evils.

I don’t believe in the adage that EVERYONE should vote. Mike Wolfe, an economics teacher I had in college once suggested, “Democracy is a great thing as long as everyone doesn’t participate,” and I tend to agree with him. I believe an uneducated vote can be just as dangerous or perhaps more so than not voting at all.

To that end, I feel it is my responsibility to learn what I can BEFORE I vote. 

One nagging question I have right now that I don’t seem to be able to resolve, is the issue over Pierre Poilievre’s reluctance to obtain Security Clearance.

To be fair, I have written to Mr. Poilievre’s office twice in the hopes of getting my question answered right from the horse’s mouth. To date, I have not  received the courtesy of a reply or even an acknowledgement that my inquiry has been received.

As I understand it, ALL party leaders have obtained security clearance except for Mr. Poilievre who refuses to obtain security clearance on the grounds that “being privy to information that way would restrict what he could say about what he had been told.”

Ok. THAT makes sense. Otherwise it wouldn’t really be information that required security clearance at all, would it? What I’m not clear on is why Mr. Poilievre is concerned about a restriction to commenting on something that he is unaware of in the first place?

Am I missing something here?

Apparently a “security clearance process for top-secret level involves a background check by the RCMP, including the verification of all credentials, interviews with personal and professional character references, a criminal record check, a foreign travel assessment and a CSIS security assessment.”

Shouldn’t all this be mandatory for anyone who wants to run for Prime Minister anyway? And if not, why not?

In an age where transparency is in high demand and whether security clearance is mandatory or not, doesn’t Mr. Poilievre’s refusal to obtain security clearance open the door for suspicion of what Mr. Poilievre might be trying to hide?

If Mr. Poilievre has nothing to hide, then why not lay his cards down and remove all doubt?

It’s a bit like Donald Trump “pleading the 5th” almost 450 times in a civil probe into his business practices. The whole point of the 5th amendment in the U.S. is to avoid incriminating yourself while providing testimony and yet, while it may protect you against future “legal” prosecution there can be no denying that “pleading the 5th” in itself often incriminates one at least in the public eye. You are basically saying “I can’t answer that question truthfully without telling you I’ve done something illegal.”

Isn’t this kind of like Mr. Poilievere trying to “plead the 5th” on the security clearance?

The thing is, if Mr. Poilievre wins the election, once he becomes Prime Minister, he will automatically receive security clearance because… well the Prime Minister of Canada would kind of need that. However that security clearance would come without Mr. Poilievre having been required to divulge any reasons why he should NOT be entitled to security clearance that might come up if those checks and interviews had been completed. Or at the very least, not in time for the voters to take that into consideration at the polls.

If a party leader is not eligible for security clearance on his own standing should he even be permitted to run for Prime Minister? And I don’t mean to be picking on Mr. Poilievre here as I believe that should apply to every party leader… except that they have all voluntarily taken those steps already.

(Although I still think that the “voluntary” part seems like a flaw in our political system that should be questioned and corrected.)

When Trump was first elected, he insisted he had nothing to hide in his business affairs while refusing to disclose his Income Tax returns. Like the security clearance here in Canada, that too was not mandatory.

When a politician, whoever he or she is, is reluctant to disclose full transparency in matters that may involve something like a conflict of interest or security, doesn’t that send up warning flags?

We have seen what can happen when the voters are left with the lesser of the evils to choose from and end up with a leader who is unwilling to be forthcoming with any conflicts of interest or criminal behaviour. Perhaps we should learn from that experience.

So I’m asking for your help here. If Mr. Poilievre or his party won’t tell me, can you please tell me what I’m missing? Please help me understand what Mr. Poilievre’s real reasons for refusing security clearance might be. What would be an acceptable and legitimate excuse for Mr. Poilievre to refuse security clearance? What could possibly justify the risk of creating doubt among the voters as to what he might be hiding?

Understand I am NOT asking for any other reasons or opinions you may have as to why Mr. Poilievre might or might NOT make a good Prime Minister or who might be a better option. Those are all subjects for another debate.

For the time being I just want to be able to wrap my head around this one issue. 

If I have overlooked something here and there really is a valid reason for Mr. Poilievere to refuse security clearance, I’m all ears.

- 30 -