Former spy watchdog embroiled in scandal

It was a quiet week in the Yorkton courts, but fortunately there are plenty of shenanigans in Ottawa to write about.

Most recently, the Harper government was once again rocked by scandal in the case of Arthur Porter, former chair of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC).

On February 27, a Quebec court issued arrest warrants for Porter, along with Yanaï Elbaz, a former McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) director and three other business associates including Pierre Duhaime, a former executive with the engineering firm SNC-Lavalin.

Porter, who was head of an MUHC hospital project abruptly left that post and resigned as SIRC chair after questions were raised about his business dealings with Ari Ben-Menashe, a controversial Montreal-based consultant who claims to have ties with the Mossad and who has done work for Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

Porter and the others are now facing numerous corruption charges, but Porter is the one who has really sparked the interest of the media and ire of the federal opposition because of his former ties to the watchdog of Canada's spy agency.

Following Porter's resignation from SIRC, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) quickly and quietly changed the rules on how potential members of the oversight committee are vetted.

In Question Period last week, the NDP was all over the government about Porter's appointment and the secretive change to the vetting process. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews pointed out that the NDP and Liberal leaders were consulted prior to Porter's appointment.

Before the Porter affair that was basically the entire process. Now, proposed members must undergo a complete background check for top-secret clearance conducted by none other than the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the same organization SIRC is tasked with overseeing.

I have to admit, I was more than a little uncomfortable with the idea that CSIS is basically in charge of picking its own watchdog although I'm not sure how else it might be done.

Faced with that exact question, Andrew MacDougall, a spokesperson for the PMO told the Globe and Mail there is nothing to worry about. "The organization doing the vetting is not told what position the candidate is being considered for, only that a screening is to be done."

I suppose, with scandals erupting out of the nation's capital with disturbing regularity, we will have to take that as a small source of comfort.