Cronyism denied in Norman case

In Parliament, falsehood often flies and truth comes limping after it, to quote Jonathan Swift.

It is now the received wisdom that Scott Brison, the Treasury Board president, tried to block approval for the contract for a naval supply ship being built at the Davie yard in Quebec because he was lobbied to do so by New Brunswick’s powerful Irving family, owners of a rival Halifax shipyard.

The allegation was made by the legal team defending Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, formerly second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces, who is charged with criminal breach of trust for allegedly seeking to keep the Davie contract on course. In a motion filed late last week, defence lawyer Marie Henein sought documents to support the contention that Brison was behind an effort at an ad hoc committee meeting in November 2015 to delay or terminate the Davie contract because he is “close to the Irvings.”

In the Commons on Tuesday, Conservative MP Alain Rayes said Brison lobbied on behalf of the Irvings. “We are all aware of it,” he said.

All other questions on the Norman affair disappeared into the black hole that is Ralph Goodale, a region of space/time where the gravitational pull is so strong, answers rarely escape. Criminal prosecutions should not be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons, he repeated time and again.

But when Rayes levelled his accusation, Brison stood and defended himself. He said the only engagement he’d had with Irving Shipbuilding had been a letter on which he was copied with two other ministers (in fact, it was three — Finance Minister Bill Morneau, then-procurement minister Judy Foote and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan).

Brison maintained that, as Treasury Board president, it was his job to scrutinize a $667-million sole-source contract signed by the previous Conservative government. The point is important to the Norman criminal case, if not central to his guilt or innocence. After the ad hoc committee had called for a delay on approving the contract, Norman was briefed on the decision.

In subsequent emails between Norman and Spencer Fraser, CEO of Project Resolve, the firm selected to refit the supply ship at the Davie yard, the frustrated vice-admiral complained “folks” — for which read the Irvings — could be trying to manipulate the new government into killing the deal for the much-needed new supply ship.

A senior Treasury Board official involved in the file who contacted the Post, and spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, suggested that was not the case. “There was absolutely no unethical behaviour — there was not a cozy relationship (between Brison and the Irvings),” the person said.

The official said the job of Treasury Board is to make sure government doesn’t make mistakes. “It is not unusual for a minister to come and say: ‘I want to do something,’ and for Finance or Treasury Board to ask: ‘Do we really need it?’”

The disclosure motion filed by Henein said both Sajjan and Foote defended the decision to proceed with the contract signed by the Conservatives, on the recommendation of their departmental officials.

By contrast, Treasury Board officials urged Brison to raise the fact that the rules had been changed to allow a sole-source contract. “When we briefed Brison, he didn’t know what this contract was,” said the official. “Was he trying to play politics with procurement? No way.”

That account casts doubt on the suggestion that Brison caved to pressure from the Irvings to delay signing off on the contract. Henein is seeking a record of the communication between Brison and Irving but, according to the Treasury Board president, there is none, aside from the letter from Irving CEO James Irving to the four ministers. (For the record, Irving denies any political interference.)

The senior official is unlikely to appear in court but Treasury Board’s advice to its new minister should validate the claim that Brison was acting on the advice of his department.

That would exonerate the minister of any cronyism accusations. The disclosure motion states that it is the defence’s position that Brison was behind the effort to delay and potentially terminate the Davie agreement. That was undoubtedly the case, but not perhaps because of the motives impugned by Norman’s lawyers.

None of that does anything to strengthen the case against the vice-admiral, which remains as weak as a cuppa made with a recycled tea bag.

Brison told RCMP Cpl. Matthieu Boulanger, the investigating officer, that the leak of the decision to CBC reporter James Cudmore had made the government’s job more difficult. He said he could not remember a similar breach of cabinet confidence, which seems remarkable for a 20-year political career in which he himself was accused of leaking cabinet secrets.

Norman’s conduct in talking to Fraser in such unguarded fashion may have been unprofessional. The allegation by the RCMP is that Norman tried to influence decisionmakers to adopt his preferred outcome on the supply ship. Boulanger stated that Norman’s emails to Fraser represent a “serious and marked departure from the standards expected from an individual in the official’s position of public trust.” There may be some truth in that.

But, like the Mike Duffy case, it is going to be hard to prove intention of wrongdoing or personal benefit beyond reasonable doubt. In that instance, the judge cleared Duffy of all 31 criminal charges, deeming the senator’s behaviour to be “unorthodox,” rather than criminal.

Apparently, Norman has told friends he wants to return for work, when he is exonerated — for one day. Then he will retire with full honours. He is said to have told staff to take pictures when they were packing up his office because he wants it all put back exactly as it was. Only a fool would bet against that outcome.