An employee of the Conservatives鈥� lead Senate critic on marijuana legalization had been lobbying independent senators for several weeks before he was fired last week for urging them to postpone a final vote on the matter.

Independent Sen. Ratna Omidvar says Malcolm Armstrong approached her three different times after committee meetings to discuss his concerns about Bill C-45. And she wasn鈥檛 the only independent senator he spoke to.

鈥淗e鈥檚 been a constant (presence), I think, at the social affairs committee,鈥� Omidvar said in an interview. 鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 just me. He made it a point to speak to as many senators as he could.鈥�

The first time Armstrong approached her was in mid-April following a meeting of the Senate鈥檚 social affairs committee, which is studying the cannabis legalization bill. Omidvar said Armstrong didn鈥檛 identify himself as a staffer of Conservative Sen. Claude Carignan, who is leading the Tory charge against the bill in the upper house, and she told him she didn鈥檛 have time that day to talk to him.

At the next committee meeting, she said he handed her a document outlining his concerns about the bill, which again didn鈥檛 identify him as a Tory senator鈥檚 staffer. She noticed that he was wearing a Senate lanyard with his ID badge, so she asked him who he worked for.

鈥淗e said, 鈥極h, I鈥檓 in a contract but I鈥檓 an independent researcher.鈥� And I said, 鈥楽o, who do you work for?鈥欌�� Omidvar said.

鈥淎nd he hemmed and hawed and wasn鈥檛 quite forthcoming. And by this time, my parliamentary affairs adviser had already sort of alerted me and so I insisted, 鈥榃ho do you work for?鈥� and he then said to me he worked for Sen. Carignan.鈥�

Omidvar said Armstrong approached her again after another committee meeting to say 鈥渉e was sorry if he had created an impression in my mind that he was anything but a Senate staffer but he was working as an independent, that his point of view was his own.鈥�

Carignan fired Armstrong last week after learning he鈥檇 circulated a paper among independent senators urging them to postpone a final vote on the cannabis bill until they hear back from a special committee that he suggested should be set up to study aspects of legalization that have not yet been adequately considered.

Conservative Senate leader Larry Smith鈥檚 office disavowed the paper 鈥� which was designed to look like an official Senate document and which did not identify Armstrong as a Carignan staffer 鈥� and said Tory senators continue to abide by an agreement struck among all Senate factions to hold a final vote on C-45 by June 7.

That timetable is intended to allow the Trudeau government to deliver on its commitment to have recreational cannabis available for retail sales by late summer 鈥� a deadline that would have been impossible to meet had senators adopted Armstrong鈥檚 proposal.

The paper and the fact that the author did not identify his connection with Carignan sparked suspicion that the Tories were surreptitiously trying to persuade independent senators to delay passage of the bill, without taking the heat themselves for reneging on the June 7 agreement.

However, Armstrong, who has a doctorate in philosophy from India, insisted in an interview that he鈥檚 apolitical and was not acting at the behest of Carignan or the Conservative Senate leadership. Rather, he said he鈥檚 been researching the issue of cannabis legalization for several years and felt he had something to contribute.

Related:

He said he first offered his research services to independent Sen. Tony Dean, the sponsor of C-45 in the Senate, who 鈥減olitely declined.鈥� He then met with Carignan, who hired him on a short-term contract, starting in March.

鈥淚 discovered that I was more knowledgeable of cannabis than any senator and any staff 鈥� I think he recognized that, that鈥檚 why he wanted me to come in,鈥� Armstrong said.

He acknowledged that the paper advocating postponement of the final vote was outside his mandate. But he said he wanted to float a proposal he felt would be a 鈥渨in-win for everybody鈥� 鈥� allowing more time to study the issue without defeating the bill outright.

As for the design of his paper and the use of the Senate logo, Armstrong said he was pressed for time and didn鈥檛 think it was a big deal.

鈥淚n hindsight, I would not have done that,鈥� he said.

He said the paper was just a draft, never intended to be made public, and circulated last week to a handful of mostly Indigenous senators, prompted by Armstrong鈥檚 belief that Indigenous Peoples have been something of an 鈥渁fter-thought鈥� in the legalization debate. Due to a delay translating the paper into French, he said he had not shown it to Carignan before the paper was leaked to the media.

鈥淚 would not have been let go if someone hadn鈥檛 leaked it,鈥� Armstrong said. 鈥漈hat I know because I wasn鈥檛 doing anything secretly, I wasn鈥檛 doing anything in bad faith.鈥�

However, Omidvar called Armstrong鈥檚 conduct 鈥漚 serious breach of accountability, supervision and oversight.鈥� She believes the Senate鈥檚 internal economy committee should investigate the matter.

When she finally learned his identity, Omidvar said she told Armstrong: 鈥淲hen you speak to a senator and you work for a senator, you must identify yourself. That is common practice here.鈥�

鈥淚 was actually quite angry,鈥� she added. 鈥淏y this time, everybody knew what was happening.鈥�

Omidvar said she doesn鈥檛 know if Conservative senators were aware of Armstrong鈥檚 lobbying efforts, but said independent senators certainly were.

Related:

Related:

Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press

Like us on and follow us on .