Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period in the House of Commons, on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa, on Oct. 21.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Last week, Pierre Poilievre accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of lying as a witness at the foreign-interference inquiry. You’d think he’d want to confront the Prime Minister about it the next time he faced him in the House of Commons.
He didn’t.
Mr. Trudeau had told the inquiry, and the world, that he had the names of Conservatives “who are engaged or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence, around foreign interference.” You’d think the Conservative Leader would come out with guns blazing in Tuesday’s Question Period.
There was fresh material, too. In his testimony, Mr. Trudeau had called intelligence cited in news reports on foreign interference “criminal leaks,” but on Tuesday, The Globe and Mail reported senior Canadian officials had briefed The Washington Post on intelligence about interference by Indian agents.
Yet the Conservative Leader didn’t go on the attack about foreign interference. He asked Mr. Trudeau about efforts by Liberal backbenchers to convince the Prime Minister to quit. That’s fun stuff for an opposition leader. But when it comes to foreign interference, Mr. Poilievre is the one now having to defend himself against political attacks.
Mr. Poilievre’s refusal to apply for a security clearance so that he can be briefed about national-security issues that affect his own party is now the favourite fodder for other parties.
Jagmeet Singh ‘doesn’t understand’ why Pierre Poilievre won’t get top security clearance
The Conservatives didn’t raise foreign interference in Question Period, so Liberal House Leader Karina Gould did. She responded to questions about the government’s refusal to release documents related to conflicts of interest in the now-defunct Sustainable Development Technology Canada, by taking a shot at Mr. Poilievre’s refusal to apply for a clearance.
“When we are facing a time when we have to put country first and stand up for Canadians, the Leader of the Opposition is hiding something from Canadians,” she said. “What is it and why is it stopping him from getting his security clearance?”
It was such an easy dunk that she kept using it. An hour earlier, the NDP had held a press conference to complain that Conservatives MPs had obstructed their efforts to pass a motion at the Commons public safety committee calling on all party leaders to obtain security clearances. On Monday night, MPs from all the other parties taking part in what is called an emergency debate took turns lambasting Mr. Poilievre for the security clearance. Everyone is in on it now.
The issue isn’t exactly new. Mr. Poilievre has rejected calls for him to get the clearance since it was suggested 17 months ago by former governor-general David Johnston, then acting as “special rapporteur” on foreign interference.
Mr. Poilievre has argued getting a security clearance would silence his ability to criticize the government on the issue. But NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who both received clearances, have provided general reactions to classified reports.
Mr. Singh has been keen to note that the public version of a report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, released in June, indicated that India interfered in the 2022 Conservative leadership race that Mr. Poilievre won – but Mr. Poilievre refuses to be briefed on the topic.
The criticism of Mr. Poilievre’s failure to seek a clearance has been brought back to life by two things: Mr. Trudeau’s assertion that there are Conservative names in the intelligence, and the RCMP’s recent allegations that agents of India had been involved in crimes in Canada.
Mr. Trudeau has argued that party leaders who are briefed on potential security concerns within their own party can take action, perhaps by rejecting a candidate or not promoting an MP.
Mr. Poilievre has protested that his chief of staff, Ian Todd, received a clearance and was briefed on intelligence matters, and was not told of any specific concerns about Conservatives.
But Ward Elcock, a former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said in an interview that Mr. Todd would probably not be briefed on information about Conservative MPs since he does not control them and can’t tell Mr. Poilievre what he knows. “I would have thought that is not something [Mr. Todd] needs to know,” he said.
The trouble for Mr. Poilievre is that he doesn’t really offer much of an answer for why he won’t get a clearance. He has just left it hanging. That has now become a weakness on an issue that the Conservatives once delighted to press.
