NDP MP calls for CBC to review source protection in Norman case
Reporter hired by feds after critical story
OTTAWA • NDP MP Charlie Angus is asking CBC’s ombudsman to review its policy for protecting confidential sources, given the situation around the government’s hire of the journalist at the centre of the criminal case against Vice Admiral Mark Norman.
“I urge you to examine this case and consider policy options to firm up confidence in the Corporation and ensure that protections for sources are maintained even after a journalist leaves their post,” said Angus’s letter, dated Oct. 26.
CBC reporter James Cudmore wrote stories in the fall of 2015 that contained leaked cabinet confidences, including a crucial story on Nov. 20, 2015, revealing that a cabinet committee had decided to delay a naval project with Quebec-based Davie Shipbuilding.
The story had massive consequences: The government backed off the delay after it was publicized, but also ordered a leak investigation that eventually resulted in a criminal charge of breach of trust against Norman, then the second-highest officer in the military. Norman denies being the source of the leak and his lawyers have named a government employee they believe was the source.
On Jan. 12, 2016, weeks after the story was published, Cudmore joined Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s office as a policy adviser. He has since moved to the office of Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould.
Angus’s letter argues Cudmore’s hiring could be a “chilling example” for future whistleblowers.
“The CBC quite rightly has fought hard to protect the independence of reporting from government pressure to reveal anonymous sources in the case of politically troubling investigations,” said the letter. “If a journalist is hired by the department that he is investigating, however, these protections evaporate. Without having clear rules on the part of CBC, we could see a disturbing government end run around the long-fought-for inviolability of anonymous sources.”
Jennifer McGuire, editorin-chief of CBC News, said Monday morning that she had not yet seen the letter.
“I will say though that confidentiality is something that CBC News grants under its JSP (journalistic standards and practices),” she said in an email. “It is not up to the individual journalist. The protection of the source is a right and assurance given to the source from CBC News and we will continue to protect the identify of a confidential source even after a journalist leaves the organization.”
CBC ombudsman Esther Enkin also said she hadn’t seen Angus’s letter, so she could not provide a response.
Cudmore did not respond to an email seeking comment.
In an interview, Angus said he isn’t trying to question Cudmore’s integrity as a journalist or his right to take new work, but is instead focusing on the risk to the confidential sources.
“How do we make sure that government (officials), who get really angry when they don’t like stories, don’t get to find out who the whistleblower was?” he said.
“I’m not saying that Cudmore handed over information, but everything around this deal and the hiring of Cudmore raises questions ... I want to know that the clear wall between pissed off government officials and pesky journalists is maintained.”
He said he isn’t sure how exactly extra protections could be designed or implemented, but wanted to have somebody look into it and the CBC ombudsman seemed to be the right vehicle.
Conservative MPs have also been focusing on Cudmore’s hiring during the Commons question period, though ministers have insisted they can’t comment on any aspect of the Norman case.
“On what date was the former CBC reporter offered a job as the director of policy in the office of the minister of national defence?” said Conservative MP Candice Bergen last week in a typical exchange.
“The honourable member once again is pursuing a line of questioning that relates very directly to a matter that is outstanding before the courts,” said Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale.
“It is not only inappropriate for ministers to respond, but it is inappropriate for the question to be placed that could impinge upon an outstanding court proceeding.”
Norman’s case is scheduled to be back in court Friday for procedural issues. The first pre-trial hearing, set to start Dec. 12, will focus on whether the government is disclosing enough documents to the defence for Norman to fully defend himself.
The trial is scheduled to start Aug. 19, 2019, and run for seven to eight weeks, meaning it may coincide with the next federal election campaign.
I URGE YOU TO EXAMINE THIS CASE AND CONSIDER POLICY OPTIONS.