More evidence of his abysmal record arrived late last Friday when Chuck Strahl, the chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, suddenly announced his resignationfrom the part-time post watching over Canada’s civilian spy service, CSIS.
Strahl, a former Reform/Canadian Alliance MP and Tory cabinet minister, left the job in the wake of conflict of interest allegations that arose after it was revealed that while he was SIRC chair he had lobbied the federal government on the controversial Northern Gateway Pipeline. (CSIS has reportedly monitored native and environmental groups opposed to the development. Indeed, SIRC is stacked with members closely aligned to the oil patch.)
The prime minister appointed his friend and political ally to head SIRC in June 2012 after Strahl’s predecessor, Montreal oncologist Arthur Porter — another Harper appointee — resigned when his cobweb of business links to a notorious Israeli arms dealer made headlines.
An arrest warrant was issued for Porter in February 2013 after police charged him with fraud, conspiracy to commit government fraud, abuse of trust, secret commissions and laundering the proceeds of a crime in connection to the McGill University Health Centre construction scandal. He is still fighting extradition to Canada from Panama.
So the prime minister’s dubious score to date: two SIRC chairs and two resignations in less than two years.
Setting aside still unanswered questions about how vigorously the pair was vetted by the PMO, why does Harper’s poor judgment in naming SIRC chairs now rival his politically combustible and damaging choices for the Senate?
Over the years, I have urged the prime minister to look beyond his rather parochial interests when picking SIRC members. In the past, I have proffered the names of several Canadians I believe would make excellent candidates for the job of chair. Clearly, Harper has rejected my well-meant advice.
I believe Harper remains so blinded by partisanship and hubris that he likely fails even to recognize how disastrous his SIRC appointments have been to the review agency’s already slim and timid reputation.
As a result, I have given up trying to persuade the prime minister to recognize that it is not in the country’s interest to stack SIRC with his political allies. I have also abandoned the idea of attempting to convince this government that SIRC requires robust, unblemished and stable leadership if it is to retain any measure of credibility.
True to form, Harper has hastily appointed former Reform/Canadian Alliance MP Deborah Grey to take over from Strahl on an interim basis. I suspect the interim moniker will soon disappear and like Porter and Strahl, Grey’s ascendancy from SIRC member to SIRC chair will quickly boomerang.
For example, if the PMO had bothered to check, it would have discovered that while in opposition, Grey once effectively supported the abolishment of the very body she now “temporarily” heads.
Back in December 1994, Reform Party chief Preston Manning had this to say during question period about Ottawa’s disagreeable habit of appointing party hacks to SIRC:
“It is also clear that the mechanisms for monitoring the activities of CSIS are ineffectual. They are open to political manipulation by virtue of the patronage appointments to (SIRC) . . . will the minister agree that the highly political and completely ineffectual (SIRC) should be done away with?”
Ouch.
Sitting approvingly right beside her leader that day in the House of Commons was, of course, Deborah Grey.
How’s that for hypocrisy?
Harper should simply do what he wants to do and get rid of SIRC. What we have today is the thin pretense of a watchdog over one of this nation’s most powerful and intrusive state agencies.
SIRC’s budget and staff are minuscule. For decades, it has provided only the veneer of accountability over CSIS by delivering an occasional, limp rebuke to the spy service.
As for its job administering public complaints about CSIS’s conduct, SIRC has rarely found the spy service at fault and it has no powers to discipline CSIS officers or enforce any of its recommendations about how the spy service conducts its operations at home or abroad.
So what’s the point of continuing this charade?
For what it’s worth, here’s my prescription for effective oversight of CSIS. Bring back Eva Plunkett and the Office of the Inspector General. Plunkett wasn’t perfect, but at least she had bite, determination and worked full-time at keeping tabs on CSIS.
But guess who shuttered the inspector general’s office after Plunkett retired in late 2012? Stephen Harper.
Source: thestar.com/
Author: Andrew Mitrovica
No comments:
Post a Comment