Controversy and debate over the Canadian government’s proposed Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, Bill C-51 continues.

A public opinion poll released Thursday (February 19) by the Angus Reid Institute found a majority of Canadians support the legislation.

But an article signed by four former Canadian prime ministers, supported by a number of former Supreme Court of Canada Justices and others in the Globe and Mail newspaper, raised concerns about the proposed new law: “…we all also share the view that the lack of a robust and integrated accountability regime for Canada’s national security agencies makes it difficult to meaningfully assess the efficacy and legality of Canada’s national security activities. This poses serious problems for public safety and for human rights.”

House of Commons debate on second reading of the bill dominated the Commons throughout the day, as well as the Question Period.

The new law would give sweeping powers to the authorities to deal with terrorism, including the right to disrupt security threats, including the commission of illegal acts.

RCI’s Wojtek Gwiazda has a report.

More information:
Globe and Mail/Four former PMs – A close eye on security makes Canadians safer – here
Angus Reid Institute poll – Bill C-51: Strong support for proposed anti-terror legislation, but additional oversight wanted too – here
Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 (text) – here
Globe and Mail – Five key questions remain as Ottawa presses ahead with anti-terrorism bill – here
Social Science Research Network – Bill C-51 Backgrounder #2: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s Proposed Power to ‘Reduce’ Security Threats Through Conduct that May Violate the Law and Charter – here
VICE – NDP Vows to Fight Anti-Terror Bill as Conservatives Limit Debate – here

twitter.com/wojtekgwiazda

Liberal Member of Parliament John McKay is renewing his demand that the government do more to oversee Canadian mining companies operating in other countries, reports Canadian Press (CP). Several Canadian companies have been accused of human rights abuses and violating local laws, even though the industry has made reforms in recent years.

NY Times article raises issue

The New York Times published a front-page story on April 2, 2016 about Canadian mining company Hudbay Minerals which is being sued in Canada for alleged shootings and rapes in Guatemala. Hudbay didn’t own the mining operations when most of the incidents are said to have occurred and says the claims have no merit.

In 2014, several former employees at a Nevsun Mining operation in Eritrea filed suit in the western province of British Columbia alleging forced labour and crimes against humanity, reports CP. The company calls the claims unfounded.

‘A black eye for Canada’

Calling these and other cases a black eye for Canada, McKay says the government needs to do more to oversee mining companies. He has long asked that there be an ombudsman named to investigate claims against Canadian companies with the power to impose sanctions.

The former government did name a mediator when it developed a corporate social responsibility strategy in 2009, but participation was voluntary.

Government ‘open to new ideas but…’

CP asked the Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr if Canada needs an ombudsman with “investigative power and real teeth” and he replied that the government is always open to new ideas but the main point was that he expected companies to obey the rule of law wherever they do business.

(from Canadian Press)

Scandals at the Rio Olympic Games are providing more ammunition to those calling for independent oversight to stem Olympic corruption.

Yesterday, Irish Olympic official Pat Hickey was arrested in connection with a scheme to sell tickets at greater than face value. It’s alleged the scheme made a profit of $3million.

Controversial boxing decision

Some referees were sent home after several highly controversial decisions in boxing events. “It’s been kind of heartbreaking to see because there have been some incredibly quizzical decisions made by referees here in some of the bouts where it seems like one fighter should absolutely should win the bout and then, out of the blue, the referee gives the win to the other boxer,” said Jules Boykoff, political science professor at Pacific University and author of Power Games: A Political History of the Olympics.

Corruption not new

Scandal is nothing new to the Olympics, said Boykoff speaking from Rio. He points to the Salt Lake City bid to host the 2002 Winter Games where nearly $3million was spent on IOC officials to sway the decision. “This was crazy stuff,” says Boykoff noting that one official from Congo was given more than $250,000 worth of gifts plus his mother got knee surgery, his wife got cosmetic surgery and he was treated for hepatitis courtesy of the bid committee.

That got world attention and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) made some new rules in a bid to curb corruption but “today we’re seeing again corruption popping up—not exactly the same formation as we saw in that extreme form around Salt Lake City but serious corruption nevertheless,” says Boykoff.

‘Trickle-up economics’ at play

He points to the great disconnect between the Olympic athletes who are held in the highest esteem and those profiting from the games. “A small group of elites within both the Olympic movement, from various corporations around the world and certainly from local organizing committees and well-connected economic and political elites…They’re kind of performing this form of what you might call trickle-up economics where the wealth that is generated from the Olympics tends to go to a few hands.

“That’s really the key disconnect of our era—the amazing athletes who most everybody appreciates and this small group of elites who are making off like bandits thanks to the Olympics.”

Independent watchdog called for

Boykoff says there is no accountability with regards the promises host cities make to their every-day people. He notes the IOC has an ethics committee but it reports to the IOC and that, he says, is not good enough.

“There’s a lot of evidence that the Olympics need to have independent watchdogs to keep an eye on this thing. The Olympics are important enough and they deserve serious watchdogs from the outside to help the Olympics get on the up and up.”

A huge scandal over alleged expense claim abuse by certain Senators began in late 2012 and only ended in 2016 after years of bitter allegations and counter claims, lawsuits, and the police eventually dropping the charges.

Nonetheless it brought the issue of Senators expenses into the public consciousness, and shook public confidence in the Upper Chamber of Parliament with longstanding damage to the reputation of the members and the institution itself.

Now the Senate is looking to create an oversight body in an effort to restore some of that lost confidence..

Senators Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin, and Mike Duffy have all been legally cleared of the 2013 expense scandal. Another Senator, Mac Harb, retired when the scandal broke and repaid certain expenses (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press

The proposal would see a permanent audit  and oversight committee.. One Senator however, Peter Harder, says having Senators examine other Senators expense claims would raise concerns over conflict of interest

Senator David Wells who was chairman of a sub-committee that recommended the creation of a permanent audit group says such a committee would oversee all Senate expenses, not just expense claims and would include both external and internal auditors as advisors to the eventual committee.

In 2015 Canada’s Auditor-General Michael Ferguson recommended and independent oversight body after reviewing the expenses of over 100 past and current Senators. He found questionable expenses of 30 of them amounting to over $1-million, an amount later reduced through arbitration.

After investigating Senator’s expenses Canada’s Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson recommended in 2015 the creation of an independent oversight body. (Adrian Wyld- CP)

Senator Wells said since the scandals became public, Senators expenses are posted online in an effort to restore trust in the Chamber.

A Nanos poll in March of this year shows that a clear majority of Canadians follow politics closely (33%) or somewhat closely (48%)

Another question found that a slim majority had a positive (11%) or somewhat positive (41%) view of Members of Parliament. However the “positive” opinion has slipped considerably from the 2016 poll when it was at 19%., while negative opinions are at 24% and somewhat negative is at 14%- up 8% from 2016)

When asked about the Senate, three-quarters of Canadians said they are familiar or somewhat familiar with its role.

When asked what words come o mind about the Upper Chamber however many negative words came to Canadians minds. These included “ineffective- pointless” (21%), a “waste of money” (12%) and “outdated (7%)

Senator Peter Harder wants an independent oversight panel and not one made up of Senators themselves. (Justin Tang- CP)

Opinions of the Senators themselves were not much higher, with 58% saying they had a negative or somewhat negative opinion.

Much of that is because Canadians feel the Senate is too partisan and it should be independent and vote independently on issues.

Since the scandal came to light, about half of Canadians feel the Senate hasn’t really changed and is operating much as it did five years ago.

In decades past, it was revealed that some Senators were receiving their salary (base $142,400 as of 2015) but seldom showed up. Attendance records are now made public.

Additional information-sources

• CBC: Jul 13/16: Chronology of expense scandal
• Canadian Press (via PostMedia): Nov 15/18: Tory senator: independent oversight not needed
• Canadian Press (via HuffPost): J Bryden:  Nov 14/18: Liberal senator wants independent oversight
• Nanos Poll on opinions of Senate: Mar 2018 (pdf)
• Senate of Canada: Senator expenses: