Harper gang had nothing on this bunch

Supposedly, the Liberals have put the Snclavalin scandal behind them: the polls have rebounded, the media have moved on, while the company has worse problems to deal with than a mere hair-raising multi-million-dollar corruption charge.

Even the return of Gerry Butts, the prime minister’s former principal secretary, albeit in a part-time, temporary, what-are-friends-for capacity as adviser to the party’s election campaign, seems to have caused little stir, although he was one of two senior government officials to resign over their part in the affair.

Perhaps the Liberals have concluded the passage of time is enough to earn them a pass from the public. I mean this all took place, what, four months ago? Who even remembers that far back?

But as recent events have shown, the same ingredients that combined to produce the Snc-lavalin scandal — hubris, a maniacal desire to run everything from the centre, and an unwillingness, in all this overweeningness and control-freakery, to be bound by basic legal and procedural norms — remain very much in place in the prime minister’s office.

For starters, there is the affair of the two ex-ambassadors. First, David Mulroney, Canada’s ambassador to China from 2009 to 2012, then his successor, Guy Saint-jacques, reported a senior official in the Global Affairs department had called them to demand they clear any public comments on the government’s policy towards China with the government.

Both men are now private citizens. Both have been critical of the government’s handling of the China file.

Unlike the most recent former ambassador, former Liberal cabinet minister John Mccallum, neither has framed his comments on Sino-canadian relations in terms of what would assist in the re-election of the Liberals. Apparently, that was the problem.

The official, assistant deputy minister Paul Thoppil, claimed to be speaking on behalf of the PMO and explicitly cited “the election environment” as a reason to shut up. Oh, also the current state of “high tension” between the two countries, presumably over China’s seizure of two Canadians as hostages, which supposedly made it essential for everyone in Canada, whether in the government’s employ or not, to “speak with one voice,” i.e., refrain from criticizing the government.

As a China policy, this has the advantage of closely resembling the Chinese way of doing things. It’s hard to say which is the more extraordinary: the notion that private citizens should be compelled to clear their criticisms of the government with the government, or the notion that they could be.

Either way it suggests something very odd about the current state of thinking in the offices of both the prime minister and the foreign minister. We do not need the unfortunate Thoppil’s say-so to know that he was just the messenger — a suspicion hardly allayed by the remarkably similar and strangely worded non-denials issuing from each. “Our office would not have directed the public service to say those things to a former ambassador,” said a spokesman for the prime minister. No one in either office, said a spokesman for the foreign minister, “would ever attempt to prevent any former Canadian diplomat from speaking freely.” Never mind would they: did they? How hard is it to say “it never happened”?

Meanwhile, we have the bizarre ongoing spectacle of the government acting as errand boys for the Irvings, the billionaire family from New Brunswick with close ties to the Liberal Party, in their attempt to prevent a Postmedia reporter from inquiring into a contract to supply the federal government with Arctic patrol vessels that the family firm, Irving Shipbuilding, was working on.

We have known since March that, shortly after Postmedia reporter David Pugliese contacted officials at two federal departments, the Department of National Defence and Procurement Canada, asking them about potential problems with the ships’ welds, he was contacted by Irving representatives, who threatened legal action if he published information they regarded as defamatory.

It was later confirmed that, indeed, department officials had tipped off the company about Pugliese’s questions — within minutes, it appears. This was in plain violation of federal privacy rules, not to say common-sense notions of the freedom of the press and the separation of ship and state. As with the ambassadors, however, ministers distanced the government from any responsibility.

Yet we now learn that, an hour after the company issued its threat to Pugliese, Irving president Kevin Mccoy was briefing top federal officials on it, including deputy minister of National Defence Jody Thomas and deputy minister at Procurement Canada Bill Matthews. In an email addressed to “Jody, Bill (and) Pat” — Pat Finn, chief of procurement at DND — Mccoy advised them of the company’s legal strategy.

There is no evidence that any of the officials pushed back. Indeed, Matthews responded sympathetically. More to the point, is it credible that such top-level bureaucrats would be acting without either the knowledge or the authority of their ministers — or, in this government as in the last, the PMO? No, it is not.

This is, after all, the government that came to power vowing no more omnibus bills, less resort to “time allocation” to cut off parliamentary debate, free votes for members of caucus, and various other reforms meant to signal a break with the practices of the Harper governments — then did the precise opposite once in power.

But muzzling former ambassadors? Colluding with private companies to shut down press inquiries? To say nothing of attempting to interfere with the independence of the Attorney General and of the prosecutors in her department? The Harper gang had nothing on this bunch.