As part of enforcing Canada Elections Act, we should make sure that all prime minister candidates complete security clearance.
I wonder what pp has to hide?
Security clearances for candidates would be a slippery slope toward government agencies determining who can run for office. The solution to foreign influence isn’t restricting who can participate in democracy, but ensuring our electoral system properly represents citizens. If people don’t want Poilievre, they shouldn’t vote for him - that’s how democracy works.Edit: any security clearance processes must not undermine democratic institutions
Security clearance is required. We can still allow politicians to put their names on the ballot even if they fail security clearance, but they need to go through it because I, as a voter, want to know who has the “kompromat” for any particular politicians, whose pockets are the politicians are holing up in.
I’ve changed my position, in response to thinking about this topic more.
I agree that security clearances can play an important role in our electoral system, but must be carefully designed. If we’re going to implement a system where failing a clearance disqualifies candidates, then several critical safeguards must be in place.
The clearance process must be:
- Administered by a truly independent, non-partisan body with clear oversight
- Completely transparent in its methodology and criteria
- Applied equally to all candidates regardless of party affiliation
- Subject to meaningful appeal mechanisms through our courts
- Protected against partisan manipulation
- Focused only on legitimate security concerns (foreign influence, corruption)
Democracy requires that citizens have meaningful choices, but also that our electoral system is protected from malign interference. Just as we have residency requirements and other basic qualifications for office, security clearances could be viewed as another reasonable qualification in our modern context where foreign interference is a real threat.
The key distinction is between arbitrary disqualification (which undermines democracy) and reasonable, transparent standards that protect democratic integrity. If security clearances meet these strict criteria, they could legitimately serve as a qualification for office.
This position doesn’t contradict support for proportional representation - in fact, they’re complementary. PR ensures citizens’ votes translate fairly into representation, while security clearances help ensure those representatives aren’t compromised by foreign interests.
I think this is well thought and I agree with “This position doesn’t contradict support for proportional representation - in fact, they’re complementary. PR ensures citizens’ votes translate fairly into representation, while security clearances help ensure those representatives aren’t compromised by foreign interests.”
I agree that security clearances and proportional representation address different but complementary aspects of democratic integrity.
What makes these complementary is that both strengthen democratic legitimacy in different ways: PR ensures fair translation of votes to seats, while security clearances maintain the integrity of those representatives once elected.
In today’s complex geopolitical environment, we need both representative fairness and institutional safeguards to create a resilient democracy that truly represents citizens while remaining protected from external manipulation.
Say what you will about the citizenship story, I just love how the petition clearly got to him.
The petition matters less than enforcing actual laws. Symbolic gestures might feel good, but what protects our democracy are functional guardrails like the Canada Elections Act. I’d rather see Elections Canada fully funded and empowered than celebrate someone getting “triggered” by a petition that achieves nothing substantive.
While he has a right to his citizenship, job trying to enter Canada, he does not have the right to not be strip searched, get rubber glove treatment and questioned for >24 hours on account of being a threat to the state.
While I share concerns about foreign interference in our democracy, advocating for arbitrary detention and invasive searches sets a dangerous precedent. Democratic principles require consistent application of law and respect for due process, not selective enforcement based on who we dislike. The Canada Elections Act already provides tools to limit undue influence without resorting to extraconstitutional measures.
Never forget everything that China has done, now that they’re trying to lay low.
Foreign interference in our democracy comes from multiple sources, not just China. Instead of fixating on one country, we should focus on strengthening our democratic institutions and enforcing our existing electoral laws consistently. The question isn’t who’s interfering, but how we build resilient systems that protect every Canadian’s right to fair representation.
China is particularly difficult though, as their culture embraces dishonesty as a virtue. They spend literally decades pretending to modernize, only to launch a sneak attack upon the entire globe the instant they thought they could win.
Yeah China LOVES Canadian first past the post elimination
/s
It’s ridiculous that this even has to be said at this point.
What’s truly ridiculous is how many Canadians don’t realize our electoral system fundamentally fails to represent us. While we debate Musk’s influence, millions of perfectly valid votes make zero difference in election outcomes under our current system. Enforcing the Elections Act is vital, but we also need proportional representation to ensure every vote actually counts.
Agreed
