In June 2015, the Conservative government passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which is also known as Bill C-51. It gave sweeping new powers to Canada’s spy and security agencies. For example, the legislation broadened the definition of "security" in a way which could criminalize peaceful protests. It also permitted agents of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to disrupt events preemptively rather than being limited to monitoring them.

Other countries, including the U.S., have at least some semblance of oversight on their spy agencies. In Canada MPs and Senators are mostly kept in the dark.  As well, the existing Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) is supposed to provide oversight but it is a tame agency which lacks investigative powers and is under-staffed.

At the United Nations in late October 123 countries voted in favour of a recommendation endorsing the launch of negotiations aimed at prohibiting nuclear weapons. Canada voted no. Douglas Roche, this country's former Ambassador for Disarmament at the UN, is clearly piqued. "The government turned its back on an important nuclear disarmament initiative," he says, "and sided with the nuclear weapons states that want to keep and modernize their nuclear arsenals for the rest of the 21st century."

Doug Gruner says that a welcoming approach toward refugees is a key to their successful integration into Canadian life, and access to health care is vital to the process.

Gruner practices at the Bruyère Family Medicine Centre in Ottawa. He spoke recently to a class at the Ottawa School of Theology and Spirituality (OSTS). "Once we make a decision to accept refugees," he said, "it is our responsibility to provide them with health care."

Honeymoon phase is over

Referring to the Syrian refugees who arrived earlier this year Gruner added, "We are past the honeymoon phase that occurs when refugees first arrive. We are now seeing a lot of physical and mental health issues."

I've been writing blogs for nine years now and I receive the greatest response -- much of it negative --whenever I write about climate change. I suspect that at least some of those who react are paid by the carbon industry to sow doubt. I accept the scientific consensus that that climate change is real, that it's human-induced and that it's already causing catastrophic damage. Taking my cue from organizations, such as the International Panel on Climate Change and NASA, I tend to be uncompromising whenever writing or speaking about the issue.

A soft approach