Canada's Defence Minister Jason Kenney speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa February 17, 2015.CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters
In Canada, the opposition is holding up the British Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) as a model for increased parliamentary oversight of the country's security agencies, especially given the proposal to beef up anti-terrorism legislation. Critics rail that Canada's current oversight agency – the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) – has been filled with patronage appointees, including former chair Arthur Porter who is currently fighting against extradition to Canada in a Panamanian cell.
Mr. Porter, a former hospital administrator in Montreal, has been at the heart of a massive RCMP probe into allegations of kickbacks involving engineering firm SNC-Lavalin. He was active in Conservative circles when he was approached by the PMO to sit on SIRC in 2008. In his recent autobiography, he said he underwent a minimal security check before joining the body where he was given access to classified intelligence. He left in a storm of controversy in 2011.
The ongoing controversy in Britain involving former ISC chair Malcolm Rifkind plays to Ottawa's argument that it's better to have a non-political oversight system. The government has defended SIRC as a made-in-Canada success, arguing that oversight bodies such as the ISC open the door to political interference in national-security matters.