FELDSTED -- Stepping outside its constitutional authority is risky business for any government but Trudeau appears oblivious to constitutional convention

Mark Norman’s lawyer warns of interference in courts despite dropped charge

Lee Berthiaume, ~~ The Canadian Press ~~ May 8, 2019

OTTAWA — Canadians must be on guard against government efforts to tip the scales of justice, said Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyer on Wednesday, as she hailed the surprise stay of a breach-of-trust charge against her client.

That decision came despite — "not because of" — the Trudeau government's interference in the case ... that included withholding key documents and information that could have helped ... demonstrate his (Mark Norman) innocence on allegations he tried to undermine a federal cabinet deliberation on a large shipbuilding contract.

"No person in this country should ever walk into a courtroom and feel like they are fighting their elected government or any sort of political factors at all," Henein told a packed news conference right after Norman's final court appearance.

The stay effectively ends one of the most high-profile and politically charged criminal cases in Canadian history and means it will not run through the fall federal election campaign, as had been scheduled.

CLICK HERE to read the full story

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman

The petulance and pettiness of this prosecution never fails to astound.

The prosecution did not ‘drop charges’ against Norman. It stayed charges which is quite different; the charge can be re-laid for the next year. It is not a clean break for Norman.

The decision to cover Norman’s legal fees is ironic ...  as the government denied Norman access to legal defence funds available to other government employees in the same circumstances.

The decision to stay charges against Norman is politically motivated ... the governments refusal to make documents available to defence lawyers is consistent with government efforts to hide disclosure of matters related to the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

The government is leaking information that the decision to stay the Norman charges were due to information disclosed by former Tory cabinet ministers, but that story does not hold water. Crown prosecutors do not go to court if they suspect their client is sitting on information that will blow up a case mid-trial. Additionally, refusal by the government to provide unedited copies of records indicates what is being withheld is damaging to the government case.   

There has been no evidence presented Norman was engaged in unlawful activities that warranted criminal proceedings. His transgression was to question the Prime Minister’s Office activities which appear questionable at best and criminal at worst. Wilson-Raybould, Philpott and Norman have all paid heavy penalties for questioning actions of their party and leader.

What is particularly disturbing is that the request for investigation into the Norman affair, originated with the Privy Council Office, which is an advisory body to the Governor General. It is not intended to be a tool of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and is being abused by the PMO.

Executive powers constitutionally reside with the Queen and Governor General. It would be extraordinary for the Governor General to sanction the criminal investigation of an officer of the crown. Most people would consider that unwarranted executive interference in a democratic government.

Stepping outside its’ constitutional authority is risky business for any government, but Trudeau appears oblivious to constitutional convention. Meanwhile, other parties have been silent on how they propose to cure the disease of governments operating in secrecy while claiming to be democratic. It is not an issue confined to the current government; it is an unacceptable affront to the democratic principle of government accountability to the public and has been carried from Tory to Whig and back for decades.

The concept of unwavering allegiance to a political party and its leader rather than to the nation and its people is a repugnant affront to a democratic institution. Our elected representatives swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country, but in practice owe their allegiance to party and leader.

We will never get rid of political parties. Like minded people will form groups as we are social animals and tend to gather in groups with similar interests and thoughts. There is nothing wrong with that; the danger is when the group insists it members adhere to policies that all of the group are not comfortable with. That is contrary to our fundamental freedoms of belief, conscience and thought. Election to office does not remove that person’s fundamental charter rights and freedoms.

Political parties must not be allowed to override an elected member’s freedom to consider an issue independently, and cast his or her vote accordingly. The independence of elected members is crucial to his or her free representation of the people who elected them. That principle of democracy has to be restored.   

John Feldsted

Political Consultant & Strategist

Winnipeg, Manitoba