True North

BY: LEO KNIGHT

Earlier this week the Director of Public Prosecutions stayed the sole charge of Breach of Trust laid against Vice Admiral Mark Norman. That doesn’t mean he was exonerated as some have suggested. It means the Crown can reinstate the charge within one year.

That won’t, in my opinion, happen in this case. With all the water under the bridge relating to possible political interference, it is likely too dangerous for the government to attempt. So, as a matter of practicality, the issue is over.

As a political matter it is certainly not over.

The question of political interference looms large in this.  This is evidenced by the fact that Norman’s senior counsel had to fight tooth and nail to try and get documents relating to the procurement file for the naval supply ship that is at the heart of this. When counsel, Marie Henein did get documents, they were typically so redacted they were useless.

That, in and of itself screams political interference by the PMO and likely the PCO as well. Especially when you consider one lengthy memo written by the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Michael Wernick, was redacted in its entirety.

Then there’s the government’s apparent refusal to fully reinstate Norman to his former position as the second – in – command of Canada’s military. Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said in a statement the military has missed Norman and he looks forward to meeting with him to discuss his return to active duty.

Norman said he wants to return to his former position as Vice Chief of Defence Staff, the second highest position in Canada’s military.

But, in a statement to reporters, Minister of Defence, Harjit Sajjan seemed to throw cold water on that notion. Sajjan said, “We currently have a vice-chief of defence staff and he will remain in place. I understand that Gen. Vance, as his immediate superior, will be meeting with him and discussing the next steps. Once those discussions have taken place I’ll have further advice given to me.”

The other piece of this is the quality of the investigation conducted by the RCMP who investigated this matter for over a year. The charge was laid in March of 2018. Yet the stay was entered by Crown in May of 2019. Apparently, it was entered after Norman’s counsel provided evidence gathered from former Cabinet members Jason Kenney, Erin O’Toole and Peter McKay, all of whom had some part in the procurement process which was well underway when the Liberals assumed power in late 2015.

I don’t understand how any credible investigation conducted by the RCMP could have not interviewed Ministers of the Crown who instituted and guided the public procurement process up to and including the awarding of the contract to Davie Shipbuilding.

Nothing happens in a vacuum and surely the RCMP should have been more thorough than it appears they were. Especially in light of the fact that it was information from these three that tipped the scales on the prosecution.

The Mounties for their part defended their investigation releasing a statement that said: “Throughout the course of this criminal investigation, investigators from the RCMP National Division Sensitive and International Investigations section have conducted a thorough, independent and highly professional investigation.”

Well, that just doesn’t seem possible in light of what we now know.  

Lastly, there’s Gen. Vance himself. Are his hands clean? On the very evening he relieved Norman of his command, Vance dined with Gerald Butts, then Principal Secretary in the PMO and Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief of Staff.

Vance testified that the subject of Norman’s relief of command did not come up at that dinner.

Really? The single major event of that day that would affect the military and the PMO, who tried to cancel the Davie procurement award and give the contract to huge Liberal supporters the Irving family, and the subject didn’t come up? I’m not buying it.

The decision to relieve someone of that rank and stature of command would inevitably result in a media storm involving the military and the PMO and to have Canadians believe the subject didn’t come up beggars belief.

It would seem there’s much left to come out in all of this and I doubt the stay of proceedings is going to end the story.

I’m not sure what the Liberal-friendly version of the expression “Shots fired” is, but whatever it is, it happened last week in Question Period.

Independent Member of Parliament Tony Clement rose with a pointed question for the government, inspired by information Clement received from a source he couldn’t name.

“I am told on good authority that the prime minister has a secret plan to ban legal firearms,” Clement charged. “Apparently this plan is to be executed by cabinet directive, with no debate in Parliament. The prime minister plans to announce this gun ban at the Women Deliver conference to be held in early June in Vancouver, which New Zealand Prime Minister (Jacinda) Ardern will also attend. Could the prime minister confirm or deny this zero-accountability secret plan?”

The question was so specific that it could easily be answered with a yes or a no. But Bill Blair, the minister supposedly tasked with overhauling Canada’s gun laws and curbing organized crime, gave no such clarity.

“I want to assure the House that the government remains absolutely committed to undertaking all measures that are effective in keeping Canadians safe,” Blair said. “As I believe every member of the House would agree, there is no greater responsibility for any order of government than the safety of its citizens and the protection of its kids, and we are prepared to consider whatever measures would be effective in this regard.”

Nowhere in that mush was a direct answer either way, through Blair’s spokesperson later denied Clement’s assertion in a media statement, saying the government has not yet finalized its course of action on gun reform.

True or not, Clement’s belief is plausible, which is why it spread so rapidly through Canada’s community of gun owners, of which I’m a part.

Even if reforms are not announced on the time and date he thinks, his question reveals a troubling and often overlooked possibility—that any sweeping changes to Canada’s gun laws could happen without a parliamentary debate or vote.

With the Canadian government’s view that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, it would be easy to restrict gun ownership under the cloak of cabinet directives rather than openly and democratically.

This is Clement’s biggest worry, he told me in an interview.

“Cabinet, by its definition, is a secretive and secret process,” he said. “Passing an order-in-council is not done in front of a committee or in front of parliament. It’s done by cabinet ministers in secret. Then Canadians are presented with fait accompli.”

The millions of lawful Canadian gun owners—from farmers to aboriginals to hunters to sport shooters—deserve a debate.

The only times the Liberals want to have such a discussion is in the wake of tragedy, when the emotional climate makes it politically difficult to defend gun ownership.

Policies like a national handgun ban or mandatory central storage are only on the table because of the Danforth Ave. shooting, despite the killer using an illegally-acquired handgun. (But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.)

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale even said the Christchurch mosque attacks—in New Zealand—could justify further gun control in Canada, making it entirely plausible Trudeau would announce measures at an event featuring Ardern, the Kiwi prime minister.

With merely five months until the election, and few sitting legislative days, the only way Trudeau could deliver any changes would be through cabinet fiat. Subverting parliament on contentious issues is always egregious, though it’s especially so when a leader will soon have the opportunity to seek a mandate from the voters.

Process aside, further restrictions on gun ownership in Canada will do nothing, given it’s the illegal guns that are being used so routinely in Toronto’s rising gang homicides.

Toronto Mayor John Tory fancies himself a saviour of lives with his gun amnesty program, though New Zealand’s recent dalliances reveal how fruitless these efforts are.

Only 37 of New Zealand’s 1.2 million guns were turned in under the government’s voluntary surrender program. That’s not a typo—37. These things don’t work because the few people who hand their guns over are not the ones whose gun ownership causes any problems.

Defiant as the government’s denial of Clement’s allegation is, the question still stands of why Blair himself, in the moment, didn’t unequivocally shoot down the question.

It’s possible he wasn’t involved enough in the plans to know one way or another, which wouldn’t surprise me. Also possible is that Clement revealed a previous, abandoned version of the plan. This would mean both Clement and the Prime Minister’s Office are telling the truth.

Or Blair was misrepresenting the government’s plans.

Either way, Clement may have applied the necessary heat for the government to walk this back.