Had the Conservative leader gone through with it, he could have faced legal consequences for his comments on Chinese interference in this election
Author of the article:
By Ryan Alford, Special to National Post
Published Apr 11, 2025
Last updated 5hours ago
3 minute read
Join the conversation
Article content
In an incident last month that may soon be considered ominous foreshadowing, Prime Minister Mark Carney was pressed by the media about his financial holdings and the ethical conundrums that they present. To change the subject, Carney boasted about his recently acquired security clearance, and claimed it was irresponsible for the leader of the Opposition not to obtain one himself.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
- Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
- Unlimited online access to National Post.
- National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
- Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
- Support local journalism.
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
- Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
- Unlimited online access to National Post.
- National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
- Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
- Support local journalism.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
- Access articles from across Canada with one account.
- Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
- Enjoy additional articles per month.
- Get email updates from your favourite authors.
THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
- Access articles from across Canada with one account
- Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments
- Enjoy additional articles per month
- Get email updates from your favourite authors
Sign In or Create an Account
or
View more offers
Article content
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Article content
This criticism flirted with the conspiracy theory that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre would fail a background check, which ignores the fact that Poilievre received security clearance after becoming a cabinet minister in 2013, demonstrating that there had been no concerns by security and intelligence officials about his loyalty to Canada or compromising foreign connections.
Article content
Platformed
This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Interested in more newsletters? Browse here.
Article content
Unlike other party leaders, Poilievre declined the offer to be cleared in order to view an unredacted National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) report on foreign electoral interference, which contained the names of parliamentarians alleged to be witting or semi-witting accomplices.
Article content
He noted that doing so would only lead to “some breadcrumbs of intel and then (being told) you can’t talk about any of this stuff anymore.” Later, his office reiterated that unlike those party leaders who “are willing to limit their ability to hold the government to account on important issues of national security, Mr. Poilievre will not be gagged.”
Article content
After it came to light that Liberal MP Paul Chiang had suggested that one of the Chinese Community Party’s (CCP) most repressive laws should be enforced on Canadian soil — urging his constituents to turn another candidate over to the Chinese Consulate in exchange for a bounty — Poilievre’s refusal to be briefed and therefore retain his ability to speak freely would seem to be the correct choice.
Article content
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Owing to his lack of access to classified information, Poilievre was free to observe that the Liberal party had been reticent to stand up to a “foreign hostile regime.” The NSICOP foreign interference report had been redacted to obscure privileged information that, in its unclassified summary, “assessed that the PRC (People’s Republic of China) believes that its relationship with some members of Parliament rests on a quid pro quo that any member’s engagement with the PRC will result in the PRC mobilizing its network in the member’s favour.”
Article content
If Poilievre had been cleared to read the unredacted report (which would have entailed him promising not to reveal special operational information), and what he read had included the actions of PRC proxies, Poilievre’s criticisms about the unwillingness of the Liberal government to take these networks seriously could lead to allegations that he had committed an offence under Sec. 13 of the Security of Information Act, which carries with it a threat of up to 14 years in prison. In other words, he might have learned the details of lax responses to the CCP’s influence operations earlier, but he would been prevented from speaking to Canadians on the topic when it mattered most.
