# VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight



## brihard

Mercedes Stephenson from CTV is reporting that VCDS Adm. Norman has been 'relieved of military duties' by the CDS, and that the head of the navy will fill in VCDS. Little further yet. Anyone got any word on this? 

_- mod edit to add year to thread title -_


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I came to post this.


----------



## gryphonv

Apparently, as reported, it was done with a letter.  That to me sounds very peculiar.


----------



## dapaterson

Not at all. Letters are used to provide clarity and a traceable record. 

The letter is on Twitter.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The CBC article. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-military-relieved-1.3937401


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I would expect a letter for sure.

This is not a US cop show with the Chief just walking in and saying "give me your badge and gun and go home".

What I find a little more bizarre is that the twitter confirmation that Mercedes Stephenson received does use the peculiar "relieved of  _*military*_ duties". What other type of duties does the VCDS have? I just find it weird that there was a need to specify. instead of just saying "relieved of duty"


----------



## Remius

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would expect a letter for sure.
> 
> This is not a US cop show with the Chief just walking in and saying "give me your badge and gun and go home".
> 
> What I find a little more bizarre is that the twitter confirmation that Mercedes Stephenson received does use the peculiar "relieved of  _*military*_ duties". What other type of duties does the VCDS have? I just find it weird that there was a need to specify. instead of just saying "relieved of duty"



yeah, the letter would have gone out on Friday...peculiar indeed.


----------



## gryphonv

I would think the proper process would include a face to face with his superiors. 

The way this is done opens the door for all sorts of speculation.


----------



## brihard

Yup- sudden punting versus request for resignation, etc etc... Speculation will be rampant on this, hopefully they can get something out this afternoon to clarify what's going on here. Unfortunately the nature of is easily leads one to worry the worst.

I checked the references on the letter that was published- no clues there, just the normal regulations on command authority, delegation of financial approvals, etc.


----------



## CountDC

Global news reports same and has copy of the CDS letter:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3183588/vice-chief-of-defence-staff-relieved-of-duties-without-explanation/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Obviously there would be a face to face meeting. That's when he would be handed the letter, right after he has been informed.

The letter is what makes it official and remains recorded in the files of the CDS' office. There is a process for these things and a written notification is one of the requirements.

Personally, I hope they come out with some sort of explanation soon. Innocent until proven guilty is fine as legal concept and protects the individual, but the sudden removal from office of such a high ranking defence official has to be explained, even if only to specify the general category of allegations being investigated without specifics, so that the public may know if national security is at stake.


----------



## Remius

Probably best to keep speculation out of any discussion really until more facts are known.  The media is sniffing everywhere to get a scoop on this.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am not speculating in any ways. In fact, avoiding rumours and speculations is the very reason why such action as was taken here with regards to someone so high in the hierarchy must be explained to the public and cannot remain hidden in some sort of cloud hanging over the man's career.

The public deserves no less, and so does Mark.


----------



## Remius

Oldgate, 

This wasn't directed specifically at you.  More of a general comment in that regard.  The media lurks here at times and I suspect they smell blood in the water what with some of the media attention the CAF and DND has gotten in the last year or so. 

Cheers.


----------



## beachdown

*Admins...apologies, pls merge with other thread* Cheers



> In an unexpected move, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman has been relieved of his duties as vice-chief of the defence staff – the second most powerful position in the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> The military is offering no explanation for this extreme measure which took place Monday morning.
> 
> Vice-Adm. Norman has served in the Forces for 36 years and was previously in charge of the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> Canada’s top soldier General John Vance, the chief of the defence staff, made the change in an order dated Friday that went out Monday.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-ranked-soldier-in-canadian-armed-forces-relieved-of-duty/article33632281/


----------



## beachdown

You are getting Trump and the CDS mixed up  :rofl:



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not at all. Letters are used to provide clarity and a traceable record.
> 
> *The letter is on Twitter.*


----------



## beachdown

Just a figure of speech. You are reading too much into it, and like someone else pointed out, what other duty does the VCDS have other than Military? Don't forget it's a news publication and the media is just being specific in case the average public didn't know is my guess, and could it just be a case of medical leave jusdging by the quote below?



> So far the Department of National Defence has not provided any explanation for the move, *which is apparently temporary *and outlined in a brief letter dated Jan. 13.







			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would expect a letter for sure.
> 
> This is not a US cop show with the Chief just walking in and saying "give me your badge and gun and go home".
> 
> What I find a little more bizarre is that the twitter confirmation that Mercedes Stephenson received does use the peculiar "relieved of  _*military*_ duties". What other type of duties does the VCDS have?* I just find it weird that there was a need to specify. instead of just saying "relieved of duty"
> *


----------



## Remius

beachdown said:
			
		

> Just a figure of speech. You are reading too much into it, and like someone else pointed out, what other duty does the VCDS have other than Military? Don't forget it's a news publication and the media is just being specific in case the average public didn't know is my guess, and could it just be a case of medical leave jusdging by the quote below?



That quote suggests nothing of the sort.


----------



## Journeyman

Remius said:
			
		

> That quote suggests nothing of the sort.


Exactly.

Yet you posting "...they smell blood in the water what with some of the media attention the CAF and DND has gotten in the last year or so," makes oblique reference to the spate of recent media attention on sexual impropriety in the military.  

Just as there is NO indication that VAdm Norman is ill, there is EQUALLY NO suggestion of impropriety. 

*But that's the problem when people who haven't the vaguest clue of what's going on feel a need to post.*    :facepalm:


----------



## Bearpaw

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-ranked-soldier-in-canadian-armed-forces-relieved-of-duty/article33632281/


----------



## Remius

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Yet you posting "...they smell blood in the water what with some of the media attention the CAF and DND has gotten in the last year or so," makes oblique reference to the spate of recent media attention on sexual impropriety in the military.
> 
> Just as there is NO indication that VAdm Norman is ill, there is EQUALLY NO suggestion of impropriety.
> 
> *But that's the problem when people who haven't the vaguest clue of what's going on feel a need to post.*    :facepalm:



No my post is exactly what it means.  The media is looking for anything to support whatever narrative they see fit to project.  It is an oblique reference to that fact not that any impropriety took place.  You can bet the media is sniffing it out under that context.  If anyone thinks otherwise then they're being naïve.  like it or not we are under the microscope and my point is that we shouldn't speculate on that,  given the current climate/situation.


----------



## Remius

Some more details.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-ranked-soldier-in-canadian-armed-forces-relieved-of-duty/article33632281/?2

_Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was relieved of his duties as the Canadian military’s second-highest-ranking officer over alleged leaks of highly classified information, The Globe and Mail has learned_.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Very surprised at this news.  Looking forward to more clarity when it comes to light.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Just a friendly reminder.....Until all the facts have come out please don't post rumors or hearsay about why the VCDS got relieved of command.


MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## gryphonv

Even the deplorable CBC is spinning it one way. Remind me why they are publicly funded?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-military-relieved-1.3937401


----------



## beachdown

...because Canada something close to the BBC, and better than CNN



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> Even the deplorable CBC is spinning it one way. *Remind me why they are publicly funded?*
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-military-relieved-1.3937401


----------



## Remius

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Even the deplorable CBC is spinning it one way. Remind me why they are publicly funded?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-military-relieved-1.3937401



CTV is sort of doing the same thing mentioning RMC's issues of late. 

I wonder if the media throws in that type of speculation on purpose in the hopes that someone confirms or denies it.  Almost like  A shotgun blast hoping to hit the target. I would think so.


----------



## George Wallace

Remius said:
			
		

> CTV is sort of doing the same thing mentioning RMC's issues of late.
> 
> I wonder if the media throws in that type of speculation on purpose in the hopes that someone confirms or denies it.  Almost like  A shotgun blast hoping to hit the target. I would think so.



The Media are well known for their "Shotgun" approach to seeking information from the Government and DND by means of filing a wide number of ATIP requests.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would expect a letter for sure.
> 
> This is not a US cop show with the Chief just walking in and saying "give me your badge and gun and go home".
> 
> What I find a little more bizarre is that the twitter confirmation that Mercedes Stephenson received does use the peculiar "relieved of  _*military*_ duties". What other type of duties does the VCDS have? I just find it weird that there was a need to specify. instead of just saying "relieved of duty"



Actually that is the wording in the QR & O as well.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-19.page

Section 4 - Authority to Relieve a Member from the Performance of Military Duty

19.75 - RELIEF FROM PERFORMANCE OF MILITARY DUTY

(1) This article does not apply to an officer or non-commissioned member to whom article 101.09 (Relief from Performance of Military Duty – Pre and Post Trial) applies, nor to a military judge, the Provost Marshal, the Director of Military Prosecutions or the Director of Defence Counsel Services.

(2) For the purpose of this article, the Chief of the Defence Staff and an officer commanding a command are the authorities who may relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), only the Chief of the Defence Staff may relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty, if that member is on active service by reason of an emergency.

(4) An authority may relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty if, in a situation other than one provided for under paragraph 101.09(3), the authority considers that it is necessary to relieve the member from the performance of military duty to separate the member from their unit.

(5) The authority who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty shall order that the member return to duty when the circumstances giving rise to the decision to relieve the member from the performance of military duty are no longer present.

(6) Prior to determining whether to relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty, the authority shall provide to the member
a.the reason why the decision to relieve the member from the performance of military duty is being considered; and
b.a reasonable opportunity to make representations.

(7) The authority who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty shall, within 24 hours of relieving the member from the performance of military duty, provide the member with written reasons for the decision.

(8.) An officer commanding a command who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty or orders that the member return to duty, shall make a report in writing to the Chief of the Defence Staff setting out the reasons for the decision.

(9) An officer or non-commissioned member shall cease to be suspended from duty on the coming into force of this article.

(M) [5 June 2008 – (1); 1 June 2014 – (1) and (4)]

NOTES

(A) Relief from the performance of military duty is not to be used as a form of discipline or as a sanction. Action to relieve a member should only be considered after concluding that other administrative means are inadequate in the circumstances. In determining whether to relieve a member, an authority must balance the public interest including the effect on operational effectiveness and morale, with the interests of the member. A commanding officer must monitor each case to ensure that appropriate action is taken if there are changes in the circumstances on which the decision to relieve a member was based.

(B) Although a member is relieved from the performance of military duty, they are required to obey all lawful commands, including an order to attend before a service tribunal or a board of inquiry.

(C) As an example of the application of this article, a commander who has been removed from command for leadership deficiencies and whose presence at any unit would be disruptive to operational effectiveness, could be relieved from the performance of military duty.

(C) [9 January 2001]
-----------------------------------------------------

WRT to the letter from the CDS, the "no details as to why"...doesn't the CAF and GoC have a responsibility to protect the privacy of the VCDS as they would any member?  If I am on C & P, can my CO just post it up on FB and that's all cool and okay?

Something to consider.


----------



## captloadie

Reading through the QR&O, this sounds like the equivalent of a civilian being suspended with pay until further notice. The note at the bottom distinguishes the difference between being relieved of command (and employed elsewhere in the organization) and being relieved of military duties (sent home).


----------



## beachdown

Isn't FB the status board for everything though?  ;D



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I am on C & P, can my CO just post it up on FB and that's all cool and okay?
> 
> Something to consider.


----------



## beachdown

A "civilian suspended with pay"...you mean the average private worker or public servant? I can tell you that HR on civvie street doesn't "suspend with pay". Cops of course are notorious for this luxury even when a matter is clear cut like being stopped on the 401 with drugs

http://www.ckwstv.com/2017/01/13/brockville-police-officer-facing-drug-trafficking-charge/



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> Reading through the QR&O, *this sounds like the equivalent of a civilian being suspended with pay until further notice.* The note at the bottom distinguishes the difference between being relieved of command (and employed elsewhere in the organization) and being relieved of military duties (sent home).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

beachdown said:
			
		

> I can tell you that HR on civvie street doesn't "suspend with pay".



Is there anything you aren't an expert on??  Tell us your "proof" or shut up.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

beachdown said:
			
		

> Cops of course are notorious for this luxury even when a matter is clear cut like being stopped on the 401 with drugs
> 
> http://www.ckwstv.com/2017/01/13/brockville-police-officer-facing-drug-trafficking-charge/



Charges laid doesn't = 'guilty'.   You know, that pesky_ CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS_ thingy...

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;


----------



## little jim

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Charges laid doesn't = 'guilty'.   You know, that pesky_ CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS_ thingy...
> 
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
> 
> Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
> 
> 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
> 
> (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;



Unfortunately in the military this doesn't seem to be the case to a person's reputation and career - reference LCol Stalker.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

little jim said:
			
		

> Unfortunately in the military this doesn't seem to be the case to a person's reputation and career - reference LCol Stalker.



Those aren't guaranteed....


----------



## Nudibranch

little jim said:
			
		

> Unfortunately in the military this doesn't seem to be the case to a person's reputation and career - reference LCol Stalker.



Oh please. Civis falsely accused and then cleared (and also those found "not guilty", which of course is not the same as being cleared) are no more immune from reputational destruction than military folks. The presumption of innocence is for the legal system, not for how your coworkers and acquaintances view you after an accusation has been made.

In fact, a randon non-union civi would just as likely have been fired, not reassigned. And there would be no requirement to rehire after charges were dropped. At least CAF accused are protected from that.


----------



## beachdown

You mean like Ghomeshi?



			
				Nudibranch said:
			
		

> Oh please. Civis falsely accused and then cleared (and also those found "not guilty", which of course is not the same as being cleared) are no more immune from reputational destruction than military folks. The presumption of innocence is for the legal system, not for how your coworkers and acquaintances view you after an accusation has been made.
> 
> In fact, a randon non-union civi would just as likely have been fired, not reassigned. *And there would be no requirement to rehire after charges were dropped.* At least CAF accused are protected from that.


----------



## beachdown

As the previous poster pointed out...if only this is true at all levels Military or NOT. Once a case is out there in the media and social media...there is no way to un F a situation



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Charges laid doesn't = 'guilty'.   You know, that pesky_ CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS_ thingy...
> 
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
> 
> Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
> 
> 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
> 
> (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;


----------



## Old Sweat

More from the Globe and Mail in this piece reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act. Note that, as far as I can determine at this stage, no other news organization has independently confirmed the assertions, which is no indication that the story is true or untrue. It is posted for consideration as a report by a respected publication in a developing situation.

RCMP investigation into alleged leaks prompts Canadian Forces vice-chief’s removal
ROBERT FIFE AND STEVEN CHASE
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-ranked-soldier-in-canadian-armed-forces-relieved-of-duty/article33632281/

Ottawa — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jan. 16, 2017 11:31AM EST
Last updated Monday, Jan. 16, 2017 10:23PM EST


An RCMP investigation into the leak of top-secret defence information led to the removal on Monday of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman from his duties as the Canadian military’s second-highest-ranking officer, sources have told The Globe and Mail.

A source said General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, ordered the temporary relief of Vice-Adm. Norman’s command after an investigation of allegations that “pretty high-level secret documents” were leaked.

The source would not provide further information on the nature of the sensitive leaks. It is unknown whether the alleged leaks involved journalists, business interests or another country.

Another source told The Globe the Mounties had been investigating the case for months. The involvement of the RCMP means the allegations involve the Criminal Code.

RCMP Sergeant Harold Pfleiderer, a spokesman for the force’s National Division, declined comment. “The RCMP does not generally confirm or deny who or who may not be subject of an investigation,” he said in an e-mail. “This is done to protect the integrity of an investigation, the evidence obtained and the privacy of those involved.”

The military is offering no explanation for the extreme measure. Vice-Adm. Norman did not respond to requests from The Globe for comment.

Gen. Vance signed an order for Vice-Adm. Norman’s removal as vice-chief of the defence staff on Friday and the change took effect on Monday morning. Gen. Vance is in Europe this week on “military business,” according to the Forces. “The Chief of the Defence Staff has temporarily relieved the VCDS, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, from the performance of military duty,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Jason Proulx, spokesman for Gen. Vance. “For the time being, he will not be carrying out the functions of VCDS.”

Lt.-Col. Proulx declined to explain why the military is using the word “temporarily” to describe Vice-Adm. Norman’s removal.

Canadian military administrative law says that removal from command reflects a general loss of confidence in a person’s ability to exercise command effectively as a result of professional or off-duty misconduct, unsatisfactory performance related to serious errors in judgment or a trend of errors having significant impact.

A close friend of Gen.Vance said the Chief of the Defence Staff has a zero tolerance policy for any kinds of leaks and would be especially severe if highly classified material was given to people without proper authorization.

“He wouldn’t have blinked for a second because he knows this is the right thing to do,” the friend said. “Jon would not have allowed any of this to come back on him and he is ruthless when that happens.”

Vice-chief of the defence staff is a powerful position, similar to that of a chief operating officer at a company. Among the VCDS’s jobs is promoting security inside the military.

Vice-Adm. Norman has served in the Forces for 36 years and was previously in charge of the Royal Canadian Navy, which he commanded for more than four-and-a-half years until Gen. Vance appointed him as vice-chief in 2016.

As a high-level officer of the military, a person of Vice-Adm. Norman’s rank would be prohibited under the Security of Information Act and under a number of laws as well as the Queen’s Regulations and Orders, the military’s governing documents, from disclosing without permission classified documents, confidential reports, correspondence or deliberations to unauthorized people, including news agencies.

In late 2015, Vice-Adm. Norman went public with his concerns that Canadians had not been given accurate information about the growing price of planned new warships. He told CBC-TV in December, 2015, that it could cost $30-billion – twice as much as budgeted. His warning left open the possibility that Canada could have to buy fewer or less-capable ships unless Ottawa allocated more money for them.

Vice-Adm. Ron Lloyd, the commander of the Navy, has been appointed as the interim vice-chief of the defence staff.


_- mod edit to add link -_


----------



## gryphonv

I really hope this is false, because the shit storm that will follow is going to be massive.


----------



## Inspir

Wonder why the Queens Cowboys are doing the investigation and not the MP/NIS/NCIU. The MP group put out a statement earlier saying they weren't conducting or knew of any investigation.


----------



## JesseWZ

Inspir said:
			
		

> Wonder why the Queens Cowboys are doing the investigation and not the MP/NIS/NCIU. The MP group put out a statement earlier saying they weren't conducting or knew of any investigation.



*Speculation only* the Provost Marshal works directly for the VCDS. Maybe they needed to shunt it outside of the organization entirely.


----------



## Lightguns

Well, it doesn't involve murder, fraud or rape, so it is rather refreshing military crime story.  Seriously, going public is not something one should be doing and expecting to have a job afterward.  He should have done the Unification resignation thing, 1. go public with resignation and his reasons for resignation; 2. enjoy reputation as most ethical flag officer in modern times; 3. become military folk hero to disgruntled ratings after death.


----------



## OldSolduer

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I really hope this is false, because the crap storm that will follow is going to be massive.



And cue " more mandatory training "


----------



## dapaterson

If what is reported I'd correct, then it is covered by the Security Awareness training that must be completed every 3 years.


----------



## PMedMoe

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If what is reported I'd correct, then it is covered by the Security Awareness training that must be completed every 3 years.



Which will now change to annually....   >


----------



## Cloud Cover

Any chance Norman may have reported a security breach that was his own fault, and requested an investigation as some have done with ND's? ? Would Vance have taken the same action?   Here is the most senior sailor with 36 years in the mob, this is all a  bit odd.


----------



## PuckChaser

Anyone else find it hilariously ironic that the info that the VCDS was fired because he leaked classified info to the media was itself leaked to the media?


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anyone else find it hilariously ironic that the info that the VCDS was fired because he leaked classified info to the media was itself leaked to the media?



Not sure I would use the adjective 'hilarious' to describe the irony, but yes, it most likely hasn't gone unnoticed by many.  "A source....."  

Some may posit that 'a leak begets a leak,' although that then raises the question of how far apart from each other are the respective moral planes of the military and the media.

Regards
G2G


----------



## RCDtpr

Inspir said:
			
		

> Wonder why the Queens Cowboys are doing the investigation and not the MP/NIS/NCIU. The MP group put out a statement earlier saying they weren't conducting or knew of any investigation.



In my experience during my time as an MP, the trade is incapable of conducting proper unbiased investigations on senior ranks.  Unfourtunately rank very much influences how investigations are completed and the trade (without even realizing it most of the time) allows outside interference because people seem to be hesitant to tell anyone above the rank of LCol to back off.

I think the Mounties taking the lead on this is the best thing for the CF to ensure a properly investigated, transparent investigation.

Just my opinion though.


----------



## AirDet

Gents, I really don't want to be "that guy" but we need to remember that anything we hear will be pure speculation at this point. The Vice has proven to be an honest and upstanding leader to many of us for years. He deserves our objectivity just as he did for us. He has not been charged with anything at this time and even if he is charged it would still require due process.

All I'm saying is this is a man I respected for years. He EARNED that respect. Let's at least wait until the entire story is made public before jumping to conclusions.

Don't forget that the media in all likelihood is monitoring this site like vultures.


----------



## beachdown

..in other news, Leslie is back! As the Liberals put it, it has to align itself with the Trump Govt which only understand Billionaires and ex Generals. A number of cabinet chief of staffs have been re-assigned.


----------



## Lightguns

beachdown said:
			
		

> ..in other news, Leslie is back! As the Liberals put it, it has to align itself with the Trump Govt which only understand Billionaires and ex Generals. A number of cabinet chief of staffs have been re-assigned.



Likely a good move, Trump, a private military school graduate, has displayed some affinity for soldiers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

beachdown said:
			
		

> the Trump Govt which only understand Billionaires and ex Generals.



I've been on this site a long, long time and never have I had to put up with such a whiny petulant child like yourself.   Must be over 62 million Billionaires and ex-Generals in the USA...........I mean obviously all us pathetic misunderstood common folk couldn't have voted for him.


----------



## Remius

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Likely a good move, Trump, a private military school graduate, has displayed some affinity for soldiers.



And I would bet that he may know a few of the new appointments or at least know people that can open doors to said people.


----------



## beachdown

Relax...don't make this a vendetta thing by reading too much into my posts. I only reported what was written in the media. It takes one to know one re: your comment about "petulant child". Did you actually think I was knocking Leslie or the Liberals????

At times, perhaps just pause and read a post again



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I've been on this site a long, long time and never have I had to put up with such a whiny petulant child like yourself.   Must be over 62 million Billionaires and ex-Generals in the USA...........I mean obviously all us pathetic misunderstood common folk couldn't have voted for him.


----------



## gryphonv

beachdown said:
			
		

> Relax...don't make this a vendetta thing by reading too much into my posts. I only reported what was written in the media. It takes one to know one re: your comment about "petulant child". Did you actually think I was knocking Leslie or the Liberals????
> 
> At times, perhaps just pause and read a post again



No you actually do more than report what is in the news, you spin it to get an inflamed response. The ' Trump Govt which only understand Billionaires and ex Generals. ' Is you simply trying to troll.

Don't act innocent, at least own up to your own side of things, I may not agree with you but I can respect a guy who stands for his side when he get called out.


----------



## beachdown

You are completely out to lunch. If you can open the attached link...read the exact words or such as written in the article. The only person "trolling" is you....suggesting that you know my intent is like you claiming to be able to read minds or being clairvoyant (which I highly doubt)  :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-promotes-former-general-to-forge-closer-ties-with-us/article33643165/





			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> No you actually do more than report what is in the news, you spin it to get an inflamed response. *The ' Trump Govt which only understand Billionaires and ex Generals. ' Is you simply trying to troll.*
> 
> Don't act innocent, at least own up to your own side of things, I may not agree with you but I can respect a guy who stands for his side when he get called out.


----------



## gryphonv

beachdown said:
			
		

> You are completely out to lunch. If you can open the attached link...read the exact words or such as written in the article. The only person "trolling" is you....suggesting that you know my intent is like you claiming to be able to read minds or being clairvoyant (which I highly doubt)  :
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-promotes-former-general-to-forge-closer-ties-with-us/article33643165/



So where in the article does it state 'only understand Billionaires and ex Generals'? I've read the article and there is nothing of the sort, there are statements they are on the same page and , but not 'only understand', it is a spin, Call it what you like, It's still a spin.

Any time you misquote an article, there is a spin, intended or not.

*Edited for Grammar which I always fail at.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Leave personal attacks out of this thread...


----------



## Remius

beachdown said:
			
		

> You are completely out to lunch. If you can open the attached link...read the exact words or such as written in the article. The only person "trolling" is you....suggesting that you know my intent is like you claiming to be able to read minds or being clairvoyant (which I highly doubt)  :
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-promotes-former-general-to-forge-closer-ties-with-us/article33643165/



Had you provided the link and actually quoted it properly it might not have been misunderstood... :dunno:

Sometimes on the internet it is hard to get one's intent unless we are very clear. Otherwise people might rely on other posts and history to guess,


----------



## Old Sweat

Folks, I sense the bickering is growing out of frustration because we don't have a clue as to the reason for the removal, but believe it must be serious. This latest story will not do anything to lessen our frustration, and in fact can only increase speculation. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/01/17/pm-backs-vance-in-relieving-senior-military-commander-but-wont-say-more-2/#.WH5G6hRlsfF

PM backs Vance in relieving senior military commander, but won’t say more
By The Canadian Press — Jan 17 2017

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is backing the decision by Canada's chief of the defence staff to relieve his second in command of his duties, but won't say anything more about the controversy swirling around Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Word emerged Monday that Norman was abruptly stripped of his responsibilities by his boss, Gen. Jonathan Vance, in a tersely worded letter dated Jan. 13.

Neither Vance nor Trudeau would say why Norman was relieved.

Norman, former commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, was appointed to the vice-chief position last summer.

The vice chief is essentially the No. 2 in the military hierarchy and is responsible for security, among other things.

Trudeau says the government is behind Vance, but like Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, has nothing else to say.

"The chief of defence staff took a decision and this government supports Gen. Vance in the decision that he took,"  Trudeau told a news conference today in New Brunswick.

"I have nothing further to say on this at this time."

Citing an anonymous source, the Globe and Mail reported Monday that the decision followed an investigation into the alleged leak of "high-level secret documents."  

Trudeau said Canada wants to reassure allies that security is observed.

"We continue to engage with our allies to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take issues of security, because it's essential for co-operation and collaboration," he said.

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the government owes the public an explanation.

"This situation is unprecedented and it is odd that the government and the military are not providing any details," he said in a statement.

"Of course we expect all necessary precautions to be taken when there are national security and privacy implications involved. However, when a decision of this magnitude is made Canadians deserve to be kept informed."

The RCMP would not say whether they had Norman under investigation for any reason, noting they generally never confirm or deny who is or isn't under scrutiny.

But the military police said they were not involved.

"We weren't, and we are not, investigating on this case," Maj. Jean-Marc Mercier, a public affairs officer with the military police group said in an interview.

Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd — who took over command of the navy from Norman — has been appointed as interim vice chief.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

> We have drawn the conclusion that the two kinds of people these guys rely on is billionaires and generals.






> a senior official said


   

 Journalist-speak for " I made this up". :nod:


----------



## beachdown

There..."on the same page", so I paraphrased big deal. Anyway the article mentioned Billionaires and generals, and not something I pulled from thin air...lets move on



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> So where in the article does it state 'only understand Billionaires and ex Generals'? I've read the article and there is nothing of the sort, there are statements they are on the same page and , but not 'only understand', it is a spin, Call it what you like, It's still a spin.
> 
> Any time you misquote an article, there is a spin, intended or not.
> 
> *Edited for Grammar which I always fail at.


----------



## beachdown

You are right! However, people need to stop trying to read into stuff and stop the vendetta and Trump-like personal attacks.


			
				Remius said:
			
		

> *Had you provided the link and actually quoted it properly it might not have been misunderstood*... :dunno:
> 
> Sometimes on the internet it is hard to get one's intent unless we are very clear. Otherwise people might rely on other posts and history to guess,


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

beachdown said:
			
		

> You are right! However, people need to stop trying to read into stuff and stop the vendetta and Trump-like personal attacks.



Just wow!!!!


----------



## gryphonv

Back on topic though. I like most of us wait with Baited Breath to see how this all pans out. 

Nothing in the Globe and Mail article is a proven fact yet. It still is better than the sexual harassment spin the CBC was using, by saying the last time similar incidents happened was because of sexual harassment. Greasy journalism, but this has been the norm for the CBC last few years.

I do find it interesting that the Globe is saying the RCMP are investigating, makes me think this is bigger than a localized event. Or at least involvement with entities outside of the military. 

I was a sailor for a time and met this the VCDS on a couple times. Being a lower decker I never really cared much for him, but he did seem more personable that the majority of Flag Officers I met. He always felt more approachable. 

I don't think someone in his position would have a lapse of judgement, or do anything inherently against our interests. I hope we all can give him the benefit of the doubt for now at least.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I do find it interesting that the Globe is saying the RCMP are investigating, makes me think this is bigger than a localized event. Or at least involvement with entities outside of the military.



As indicated speculated  before the RCMP are maybe investigating because the Provost Marshal reports directly to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff .... 

Can you imagine the optics if the Provost Marshal was investigating...

Canadian Forces Provost Marshal is also the Commander of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group. The Group includes the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the investigation arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks, the Military Police Security Service and the Canadian Forces Military Police Academy.


----------



## gryphonv

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> As indicated before the RCMP are investigating because the Provost Marshal reports directly to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff ....
> 
> Can you imagine the optics if the Provost Marshal was investigating...
> 
> Canadian Forces Provost Marshal is also the Commander of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group. The Group includes the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the investigation arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks, the Military Police Security Service and the Canadian Forces Military Police Academy.



Good point, I am probably, and hopefully, reading too much into who is investigating.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

gryphons and NFLD Sapper: There is no information whatsoever out there on why the RCMP is said to be investigating or why the Provost Marshal isn't. The only known fact is that the Provost Marshal is not investigation the Admiral - because they said so, and perhaps there is an RCMP investigation, because the Globe and Mail claims to have been so informed (in a leak).

This is pure speculation on your part. And I think we should all avoid speculation of any kind at this time.


----------



## Good2Golf

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Good point, I am probably, and hopefully, reading too much into who is investigating.



Many of the "actions on condition" are almost 'flowchart-like' in their clarity and non-optionality; that is to say that there is a regulatory framework that drives much of the action taken in certain cases: "Condition/situation X, therefore initial action Y to be taken, while follow-on action Z is initiated."

In this case, Y is the only known.  It is appropriate that X is not divulged, and that we may or may not be informed of what Z is, until later.

G2G


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> gryphons and NFLD Sapper: There is no information whatsoever out there on why the RCMP is said to be investigating or why the Provost Marshal isn't. The only known fact is that the Provost Marshal is not investigation the Admiral - because they said so, and perhaps there is an RCMP investigation, because the Globe and Mail claims to have been so informed (in a leak).
> 
> This is pure speculation on your part. And I think we should all avoid speculation of any kind at this time.



Thanks OBGD I went back and re-read the thread, my mistake ...edited my post to reflect this...

And I'll go sit in the corner for posting a speculation....


----------



## NavyShooter

"I'm not going to give you a question."

"No."

"Don't be rude."

Back to the topic at hand, the varied bits of speculation still leave us no further ahead, but in summary:

Rumors:
-Could be related to release of classified material
-Some think it could be OPERATION HONOUR related
-Some think it could be related to early-career missives  

Facts:
-Not being investigated by Military Police according to Military Police statement.
-Being investigated by RCMP according to media (in retrospect, this is a rumor....?)
-Acting VCDS is now Lloyd
-PM has no comment on why, just supports Vance
-MND has no comment on why, just supports Vance
-Vance is in Europe

I've seen not much more than that, and I think it's a very good thing that the CoC that relieved him are not saying a thing.  That means that they want the man to get a fair shake at things when (or if) the details do finally make it to whatever process this is going to involve (judicial?  remedial? criminal? unknown) 

The fact that this has occurred at all indicates the level of seriousness of whatever the reason for it is.

I'm honestly glad I'm not in his shoes.   

NS

(Sorry about the size issue, I was having trouble posting from my DWAN machine and used my 'smarter than me' phone to make the post...looks like it outsmarted me.)


----------



## Nfld Sapper

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> "I'm not going to give you a question."
> 
> "No."
> 
> "Don't be rude."
> 
> Back to the topic at hand, the varied bits of speculation still leave us no further ahead, but in summary:
> 
> Rumors:
> -Could be related to release of classified material
> -Some think it could be OPERATION HONOUR related
> -Some think it could be related to early-career missives
> 
> Facts:
> -Not being investigated by Military Police according to Military Police statement.
> -Being investigated by RCMP according to media
> -Acting VCDS is now Lloyd
> -PM has no comment on why, just supports Vance
> -MND has no comment on why, just supports Vance
> -Vance is in Europe
> 
> I've seen not much more than that, and I think it's a very good thing that the CoC that relieved him are not saying a thing.  That means that they want the man to get a fair shake at things when (or if) the details do finally make it to whatever process this is going to involve (judicial?  remedial? criminal? unknown)
> 
> The fact that this has occurred at all indicates the level of seriousness of whatever the reason for it is.
> 
> I'm honestly glad I'm not in his shoes.
> 
> NS


----------



## gryphonv

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> "I'm not going to give you a question."
> 
> "No."
> 
> "Don't be rude."
> 
> Back to the topic at hand, the varied bits of speculation still leave us no further ahead, but in summary:
> 
> Rumors:
> -Could be related to release of classified material
> -Some think it could be OPERATION HONOUR related
> -Some think it could be related to early-career missives
> 
> Facts:
> -Not being investigated by Military Police according to Military Police statement.
> -Being investigated by RCMP according to media
> -Acting VCDS is now Lloyd
> -PM has no comment on why, just supports Vance
> -MND has no comment on why, just supports Vance
> -Vance is in Europe
> 
> I've seen not much more than that, and I think it's a very good thing that the CoC that relieved him are not saying a thing.  That means that they want the man to get a fair shake at things when (or if) the details do finally make it to whatever process this is going to involve (judicial?  remedial? criminal? unknown)
> 
> The fact that this has occurred at all indicates the level of seriousness of whatever the reason for it is.
> 
> I'm honestly glad I'm not in his shoes.
> 
> NS


----------



## MAJONES

AirDet said:
			
		

> Gents, I really don't want to be "that guy" but we need to remember that anything we hear will be pure speculation at this point. The Vice has proven to be an honest and upstanding leader to many of us for years. He deserves our objectivity just as he did for us. He has not been charged with anything at this time and even if he is charged it would still require due process.
> 
> All I'm saying is this is a man I respected for years. He EARNED that respect. Let's at least wait until the entire story is made public before jumping to conclusions.
> 
> Don't forget that the media in all likelihood is monitoring this site like vultures.



Very well put.


----------



## Remius

It should be at least...THREE TIMES BIGGER!


----------



## Journeyman

beachdown said:
			
		

> ..in other news, Leslie is back!


Idly curious what this has to do with the VCDS being relieved of duty?  :not-again:


----------



## Lumber

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Idly curious what this has to do with the VCDS being relieved of duty?  :not-again:



You're trying to interpret a post by someone who puts their response to a quote before the quote... just don't.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I have heard more than one comment today that runs along the lines of "karma is a bitch".


----------



## Old Sweat

According to a lengthy story here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-shipbuilding-leak-1.3939685

VAdm Norman was relieved for leaking classified material concerning some part of a ship building program. Again, unconfirmed at this time.


----------



## Steve_D

And consider the source. CBC was also the one to officially report that HMCS WINNIPEG hit an American fishing vessel. This being while the ship was tied up alongside the jetty.  It's ok for all of us to share what the media is "reporting" but I will believe none of it until we get something official directly from the CDS's office.


----------



## Monsoon

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> According to a lengthy story here:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-shipbuilding-leak-1.3939685
> 
> VAdm Norman was relieved for leaking classified material concerning some part of a ship building program. Again, unconfirmed at this time.


Correction - the story states that be was relieved because it appears that an RCMP investigation that has been underway since mid-2015 is now investigating him. Depending on your predisposition, you can read this either to understand that they're "closing in" on him as a suspect, or to alternately understand that a flailing RCMP investigation has decided that it can't rule anyone out and that they'll investigate everyone systematically from the top down.

The story also suggests the leak may have something to do with the Project Resolve supply ship out of Davies. On the basis of what I've seen of the new British management of that yard, I can't say I'm surprised at all - their level of media interaction has screamed "shifty" from the beginning. What I can say I'm personally pretty confident of is that Mark Norman had nothing to do with any leak.


----------



## jollyjacktar

More details (perhaps) from the Chronicle Herald today.  Possibly leaking the statement of requirements to Irving for the CSC bid...

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1433665-vice-admiral-mark-norman-dismissal-document-leak-may-stall-irving-ship-work


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> More details (perhaps) from the Chronicle Herald today.  Possibly leaking the statement of requirements to Irving for the CSC bid...
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1433665-vice-admiral-mark-norman-dismissal-document-leak-may-stall-irving-ship-work



Maybe it was a leak of the piss poor product that comes out of the Irving Shipyard?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Irving Shipyard products leak all by themselves. They don't need any external assistance for that. Just ask the Coast Guard about the Hero class mid-shore vessels.  :nod:


On a more serious note, Am I the only one that find it funny, if true, that the Statement of Requirement that is used to ask providers to propose their "product" would have classified technical annexes that contain further and more precise requirements than those appearing in the documents stating the requirements and that those annexes would not have been divulged to all parties interested in biding - confidentialy of course - but provided none the less.

The Chronicle Herald mentions potential delays due to lawsuit if a single competitor knows those "secret" requirements and tailors its bid to be the only one who matches it, but I can tell you from experience that you will also have long and protracted litigation if you hold a competition in which someone's product is eliminated for failure to meet a requirement that was never divulged to them and that they could have met had they been aware of its existence. No court will consider the setting aside of a bidder's bid to be the result of a fair and transparent competition if that bidder was not given a requirement that had to be met to compete and that he could have met had he known. The whole process would have to start again.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Irving Shipyard products leak all by themselves.


I think the speculative worry is about leaks _out_, not leaks _in_ ...  ;D


----------



## NavyShooter

CSC is becoming the new F-35....?


----------



## Loachman

Is there a version that can hover?


----------



## MJP

Loachman said:
			
		

> Is there a version that can hover?



 :highjack:

I got that reference

#relevant


----------



## Occam

Out come the big guns...

https://twitter.com/CTVMercedes/status/834865498915479554


----------



## Jarnhamar

National hero


----------



## The Bread Guy

Occam said:
			
		

> Out come the big guns...
> 
> https://twitter.com/CTVMercedes/status/834865498915479554


Good catch!  Legal counsel's statement also attached in case you can't clilck thru to Twitter from where you are.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> National hero



It's a typo. Should have read "notional" hero. It is the CAF we are talking about after all.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> National hero



This is no time for nuance.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> This is no time for nuance.


Journalist is laying it on a bit thick with that.


----------



## Kirkhill

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Journalist is laying it on a bit thick with that.



Actually, I think that was his lawyer.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Oops. You're correct my mistake.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More on the latest ...

_*"Canadian vice-admiral denies any wrongdoing after being removed from post"*_ (_Toronto Star_)
_*"Vice-Admiral Mark Norman victim of 'bureaucratic crossfire,' says high-profile lawyer"*_ (CBC)
_*"Suspended Canadian admiral brings in prominent lawyer to represent him"*_ (The Canadian Press)
_*"Marie Henein hired to defend vice-chief in military leaks investigation"*_ (_Globe & Mail_)


----------



## Old Sweat

Is this legit? If it is, why has it not been picked up by other media? This story from the Toronto Star, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act, claimed that LGen Alain Parent has been appointed VCDS.

Canada's military gets new senior commander
Canada’s military has a new second-in-command to take the place of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has been sidelined under a cloud.

By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH Ottawa Bureau
Mon., March 6, 2017
OTTAWA — Canada’s military has a new second-in-command to take the place of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has been sidelined under a cloud.

Lt.-Gen. Alain Parent was named acting vice-chief of defence staff Monday by Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff.

Parent is currently is the deputy commander, Allied Joint Force Command Naples, a position he has held since July 2015. He will assume his new role on May 30.

Norman was abruptly removed from his post in January and Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd, the commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, has tapped to do the vice-chief job, too. Monday’s announcement allows Lloyd to return to his navy job full time.

Vance has been tight-lipped about the circumstances surrounding Norman’s sudden departure, saying only several weeks ago that it was the “right thing to do.”

High-profile Toronto lawyer Marie Henein is now representing Norman and last week, she issued a statement declaring that the long-time navy veteran, “looks forward to being cleared and unequivocally denies any wrongdoing.”

Parent joined the air force in 1979 and went on to fly helicopters before rising through the ranks in a series of command roles.


----------



## Flavus101

The good old National Post is reporting this as well.

(Link withheld for legal reasons)...


----------



## TCM621

It's legit. I saw it on the DIN today. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## FSTO

It appears that both sides in this are doubling down.
Admiral Norman hiring a real shark is telling his superiors that he is not going to take one for the team. The release of the story that most security leaks come from the Navy is the senior leadership (IMHO) setting up the evidence for their reasons why Norman was relieved.

I have a feeling that this is not going to end well for either side but there may be silver lining in this cloud. That our procurement system is so FUBARD that this fight will finally show the public how unbelievably bad we are at buying stuff and that we have to burn the whole thing down and start fresh.


----------



## Remius

FSTO said:
			
		

> It appears that both sides in this are doubling down.
> Admiral Norman hiring a real shark is telling his superiors that he is not going to take one for the team. The release of the story that most security leaks come from the Navy is the senior leadership (IMHO) setting up the evidence for their reasons why Norman was relieved.
> 
> I have a feeling that this is not going to end well for either side but there may be silver lining in this cloud. That our procurement system is so FUBARD that this fight will finally show the public how unbelievably bad we are at buying stuff and that we have to burn the whole thing down and start fresh.



The Public already knows.  They just don't care.


----------



## FSTO

Remius said:
			
		

> The Public already knows.  They just don't care.



You would think that the BILLIONS we waste because our procurement system is so FUBARD would cause rioting in the streets. But you are right, nobody cares.

Idiots, the lot of them.


----------



## Flavus101

FSTO said:
			
		

> You would think that the BILLIONS we waste because our procurement system is so FUBARD would cause rioting in the streets. But you are right, nobody cares.
> 
> Idiots, the lot of them.



I don't think the public quite fully understands how messed up the system is. I concur that they understand it is not running how it should, I just don't believe they have wrapped their head around how bad it is.

I am also starting to think that the public is starting to accept that the government misspending a couple billion here and there is the new norm in certain government programs. It happens so frequently that it will have to take a major misstep in order to stimulate the public and get their attention.


----------



## Loachman

FSTO said:
			
		

> You would think that the BILLIONS we waste because our procurement system is so FUBARD would cause rioting in the streets. But you are right, nobody cares.
> 
> Idiots, the lot of them.



Nobody's kicking up a fuss over the billions to be wasted buying eighteen F18s for politically-created reasons, because if dreamy Justin likes them, they must be alright.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I find Ken Hansen pops up a lot as a 'SME' for this stuff, do they have him on the payroll as convenient shill on call?  He's pretty off the mark for the most part; whenever I see him in a story confirming the half baked theories I immediate disregard the whole thing.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I find Ken Hansen pops up a lot as a 'SME' for this stuff, do they have him on the payroll as convenient shill on call?  He's pretty off the mark for the most part; whenever I see him in a story confirming the half baked theories I immediate disregard the whole thing.


They must.  As he has them convinced he's the shit.


----------



## dapaterson

Globe and Mail reports that Project Anchor, the RCMP investigation, is drawing conclusions.



> The RCMP allege Vice-Admiral Mark Norman violated the Criminal Code by leaking government secrets, an accusation that arises from a 16-month probe into the release of information about cabinet deliberations to a Quebec-based shipbuilder that wanted Ottawa to stop delaying approval of a $667-million contract for an interim naval supply ship.A breach of trust conviction under Section 122 of the Criminal Code carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-accuse-vice-admiral-norman-of-leaking-cabinet-secrets/article34611326/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## MilEME09

> *Correspondence shows Norman angered by attempted political interference in shipbuilding contract*
> 
> 
> 
> Correspondence obtained by CTV News shows Vice-Admiral Mark Norman had considered resigning over attempted political interference in a shipbuilding contract by Irving Shipyards, before he was ultimately removed from his duties.
> 
> Norman was the vice chief of the defence staff when Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance temporarily removed him from his duties on Jan. 9. The military has never provided an explanation for Norman’s suspension.
> 
> Sources say Irving wrote to multiple cabinet ministers in the newly minted Liberal government in November of 2015, trying to scuttle a multimillion dollar plan to rebuild a desperately needed supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy that had been awarded to competitor Davie Shipyards.
> 
> Expressing his frustration, Norman wrote: “This is sole [sic] destroying. I might be prepared to resign over this. I can't keep playing along much longer.”
> 
> Documents related to the procurement plan, known as Project Resolve, were leaked to media and the defence industry. CTV News has learned that the leaks prompted an RCMP probe, which led to Norman’s suspension.
> 
> The ongoing probe is being carried out by the Sensitive and International Investigations unit, which deals with politically sensitive cases.
> 
> Sources say Mounties descended on Norman's home at about 7:30 a.m. on January 9, surprising the admiral and his wife as they were about to leave for work. RCMP officers blocked Norman’s vehicle in his driveway.
> 
> The RCMP had a warrant for all electronic devices in the home. They seized mobile phones and computers from Norman and his wife, and those items are still in police custody.
> 
> Fifteen months later, the RCMP has laid no charges and is still interviewing people, including government officials and lobbyists in Ottawa.
> 
> One of the reporters who received leaked information is now serving in the defence minister's office and works closely on the shipbuilding file. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s office refused to comment on departmental staffing and said the minister stands by Norman’s suspension.
> 
> Sources say Norman is not being investigated for breaching national security or seeking financial gain. Those close to him say he’s being scapegoated.
> 
> In a statement to CTV News, Irving said they did not contact the RCMP, nor have they been contacted. They did not respond to questions about alleged attempts to lobby the government on the shipbuilding issue.
> 
> With a report from CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson in Ottawa



The story keeps getting deeper


----------



## The Bread Guy

Not as juicy, but still interestingly meaty, details from the G&M, with the usual reminder that *NONE of this has been proven in a court of law* ...


> The RCMP allege Vice-Admiral Mark Norman violated the Criminal Code by leaking government secrets, an accusation that arises from a 16-month probe into the release of information about cabinet deliberations to a Quebec-based shipbuilder that wanted Ottawa to stop delaying approval of a $667-million contract for an interim naval supply ship.A breach of trust conviction under Section 122 of the Criminal Code carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.
> 
> The RCMP investigation into the leaks – called Project Anchor – has not yet resulted in charges against Vice-Adm. Norman, who has served in the navy for 36 years.
> 
> On Wednesday, an Ottawa court released an affidavit and supporting documents, including e-mails, that police used to obtain a warrant to search Vice-Adm. Norman’s home earlier this year.
> 
> The documents show that the criminal probe has expanded to include interviews of prominent Ottawa lobbyists and executives of the Chantier-Davie Canada Inc. shipyard in Levis, Que. The Mounties also interviewed senior cabinet ministers, including Treasury Board President Scott Brison and top mandarins.
> 
> “Norman is suspected of having committed a Criminal Code section 122 breach of trust offence,” RCMP Corporal Matthieu Boulanger wrote in an affidavit to obtain a search warrant to raid the Vice-Admiral’s Ottawa home on Jan. 9. The Mounties also allege Vice-Adm. Norman violated the Security of Information Act.
> 
> The RCMP affidavit filed in the Ottawa courthouse alleges that Chantier-Davie shipyard and a sister company were attempting to press the Trudeau cabinet to stick with a contract the former Conservative government ordered in the final day of the October, 2015, federal election campaign.
> 
> Soon after taking power in November, 2015, the Trudeau Liberals put the supply ship project on hold after receiving a letter of complaint from Irving Shipbuilding Inc., which already had a multibillion-dollar contract to build the navy’s new fleet of warships. This delay meant that cabinet might look at other, lower bids, threatening Chantier-Davie’s contract.
> 
> The heavily redacted affidavit provides little idea of what the RCMP allege are Vice-Adm. Norman’s motives. The senior naval officer, however, last year said delays in shipbuilding programs had hurt the navy. “It’s important to keep in mind that [the delays were] completely avoidable,” he said in 2016.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding CEO James Irving tried to persuade the Trudeau Liberals to kill the sole-source contract with Chantier-Davie, arguing that his firm had offered a lower-cost option. Another shipbuilding firm, Vancouver-based Seaspan, called for an open competition and said it could convert a civilian cargo ship into a military supply ship at a significantly lower cost.
> 
> Court documents show that the RCMP obtained search warrants in the last two months of 2016 to seize the contents of Vice-Adm. Norman’s mobile devices as well as e-mails from Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services, the Chantier-Davie company in charge of the interim supply ship project.
> 
> The Mounties also raided the offices of Mr. Fraser and three Chantier-Davie executives and their Ottawa lobbyists: Brian Mersereau, chairman of Hill and Knowlton, and Kevin MacIntosh, a partner and senior vice-president at FleishmanHillard.
> 
> “As a result of the data seized at Chantier Davie, it was discovered that Spencer Fraser was supplying information subject to cabinet confidence to [Chantier-Davie vice-president John] Schmidt, to Alex Vicefield, CEO of Inocea, parent company of Chantier Davie, and to various lobbyists working on behalf of Chantier Davie,” Cpl. Boulanger wrote ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

And, in another element of the narrative unveiled via "sources" speaking the CBC News ...


> The military's embattled second-in-command considered resigning when he was head of the Royal Canadian Navy, over what he perceived was political interference from the newly elected Liberal government, CBC News has learned.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's frustration hit the boiling point during one weekend in late November 2015, days after a series of leaks about the troubled national shipbuilding program.
> 
> He confided to a friend that he was "exhausted" by the internal political, bureaucratic and corporate battles; that he was "prepared to go public, if necessary;" how he couldn't "keep playing along much longer" and he was "prepared to resign over this," sources told CBC News.
> 
> The focus of his frustration related to a cabinet decision temporarily halting the planned lease of a much-needed navy supply ship from Levis, Que.-based Chantier Davie shipyards.
> 
> Just days before the pause was ordered, the co-CEO of rival Irving Shipbuilding, James Irving, sent a letter to Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. It was also copied to Treasury Board President and Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison and Finance Minister Bill Morneau, asking for a review of the lease plan ...


Lookit all the information pouring out within a day or two of each other ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Lookit all the information pouring out within a day or two of each other ...



Quite normal, milnews. When the affidavits, redacted, are finally ready for release, you can be sure that they are released to all the various journalists that were trying to get their hands on them. Then they quickly each go to their sources that they believe to know anyone or any thing mentioned in the unreacted portion and "dig". So it all comes out more or less simultaneously.

For those interested, here is a summary by the Supreme Court of what is involved in section 122 Breach of Trust by an official, together with the reference to the case if any one cares to read the whole decision - which goes into great details of the history and legal basis of official's breach of Trust:

*The offence of breach of trust by a public officer is established where the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that:  (1) the accused is an official; (2) the accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office; (3) the accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office; (4) the accused’s conduct represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and (5) the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example,  a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. [58]/i]*_

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2006/2006scc32/2006scc32.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAPQnJlYWNoIG9mIHRydXN0AAAAAAE&resultIndex=4

BTW, it seems to me that the government may have some difficulty with the last aspect of the proof required: that the purpose of his action were other than the public good. The only underlying intent I can see is avoiding the cancellation of a valid contract, at the public's great expense if done, for the purpose of giving a friend of the powers that be (the Irving's - who incidentally were lobbying for the government to breach it's contract here so they could get yet more public money themselves) a chance to get said work, but at great delays for the fleet, with the attached negative consequences. How that is against the public good is beyond me.

Personally, it is starting to look, to me anyway, like a witch hunt for the purpose of creating a chill effect in the civil service. If the problem is a breach of "cabinet confidences", then why aren't the cabinet members or cabinet officials who must be the one who breached the confidence to start with  (Adm. Norman is not part of the cabinet and there is no reason for him being privy to their deliberations unless told by someone who was there) being investigated?_


----------



## PuckChaser

The barrack room lawyer in me concurs with your assessment on element 5 of the charge, OGBD.

I had to chuckle a little bit about him being unable to take the political interference anymore about the supply ships. The political interference for Fighter Replacement, FWSAR, etc must have been good to go, or he failed to remove his RCN-tinted glasses when taking over as the VCDS for all elements.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite normal, milnews. When the affidavits, redacted, are finally ready for release, you can be sure that they are released to all the various journalists that were trying to get their hands on them. Then they quickly each go to their sources that they believe to know anyone amor any thing mentioned in the unreacted portion and "dig". So it all comes out more or less simultaneously ...


I understand the "all the docs are available at the same time to everyone" thing, but only one of these stories appears to be based on the court documents -- G&M cites specific court docs, CTV cites obtained docs (but doesn't say how they were obtained -- if it was from the court package, not quite the scoop it appears to be), and CBC cites "sources", but no docs.  Not suggesting any evil intent - nothing wrong with an aggressive defence -- just sayin' ...


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... here is a summary by the Supreme Court of what is involved in section 122 Breach of Trust by an official, together with the reference to the case if any one cares to read the whole decision - which goes into great details of the history and legal basis of official's breach of Trust ... BTW, it seems to me that the government may have some difficulty with the last aspect of the proof required: that the purpose of his action were other than the public good ...


Excellent sharing, OGBD - thanks!  For my non-legal mind, would all five elements have to be proven to convict, or if, say, between one and four out of five are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the remaining "doubt" would go to sentencing?



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... If the problem is a breach of "cabinet confidences", then why aren't the cabinet members or cabinet officials who must be the one who breached the confidence to start with  (Adm. Norman is not part of the cabinet and there is no reason for him being privy to their deliberations unless told by someone who was there) being investigated?


But if someone were to get information from the Cabinet table without being at the table itself, and shares that information out of turn, that's THEIR breach, not the Minister's no?  (And just asking out of general principle -- I have zero idea what happened in the case of VCDS.)


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The barrack room lawyer in me concurs with your assessment on element 5 of the charge, OGBD.
> 
> I had to chuckle a little bit about him being unable to take the political interference anymore about the supply ships. The political interference for Fighter Replacement, FWSAR, etc must have been good to go, or he failed to remove his RCN-tinted glasses when taking over as the VCDS for all elements.



Correct me if I am wrong but the timeline I read would put the accusations as having happened during is tenure as CRCN; not when he was appointed VCDS.  So his RCN-tinted glasses would be fully understandable. 

It sounds to me like he was about to go full Landymore on JT and his band of Happy Days; and in true Liberal Government fashion he was torpedoed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Landymore


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Milnews: All five elements of the infraction must each be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction to be obtained. "Reasonable Doubt" never goes to the sentencing in criminal matters, unlike in civil liability cases where wrongs can be apportioned between various parties, so you can be found partially at fault. 

As for getting the info from the table without being at it, I don't believe that it is the case. The confidence of cabinet deliberation is for the people at the table to maintain. If they open their big mouths outside of the confidence circle, the recipient is not bound by any rule. These are NOT breach of official secrets, where an accidental recipients is just as bound to keep the secret as the original holder of the info. A person not at the table may be covered if that person is brought in the confidence circle for the specific purpose of commenting on or contributing to the deliberation, such as an expert that would be asked to prepare a brief on a specific subject or provide written answers to cabinet questions, for instance.


----------



## McG

Advice given to cabinet is treated as cabinet confidence.  You do not have to be a member of cabinet to provide advice to cabinet.  A lot of people, both military and civilian, generate cabinet confidence information without being in cabinet.


----------



## PuckChaser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but the timeline I read would put the accusations as having happened during is tenure as CRCN; not when he was appointed VCDS.  So his RCN-tinted glasses would be fully understandable.



He was upset enough to take the job as VCDS? Maybe he thought he'd be able to make changes from the 2nd highest position in the CAF? The Trudeau Government took over in November 2015 and quickly put the project on hold, but Norman was appointed VCDS in January 2016. His comments quoted in the CTV article don't have a date, but that's a pretty quick flash to bang.

I'm not trying to call his character into question, but political interference has been a way of life in military procurement since the 1960s and the Avro Arrow. Norman should have figured that out well before even becoming an Admiral. It shouldn't have been news to him, he served in the RCN during the EH101 debacle.


----------



## FSTO

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The barrack room lawyer in me concurs with your assessment on element 5 of the charge, OGBD.
> 
> I had to chuckle a little bit about him being unable to take the political interference anymore about the supply ships. The political interference for Fighter Replacement, FWSAR, etc must have been good to go, or he failed to remove his RCN-tinted glasses when taking over as the VCDS for all elements.



This all started while he was CRCN, so yes his RCN tinted glasses were in effect.


----------



## Kirkhill

> The two journalists who received the leaked Irving letters, which outlined the company's objections, have since been hired by the Liberal government.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/admiral-shipbuilding-investigation-1.4057763

Ahem! The Admiral is left to twist and the reporters get hired.  With one of them hired by Sajjan himself?  I sense Senate seats in the offing.


----------



## George Wallace

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/admiral-shipbuilding-investigation-1.4057763
> 
> Ahem! The Admiral is left to twist and the reporters get hired.  With one of them hired by Sajjan himself?  I sense Senate seats in the offing.



I must say, that BLUF really makes one ponder the politics of this case.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/admiral-shipbuilding-investigation-1.4057763
> 
> Ahem! The Admiral is left to twist and the reporters get hired.  With one of them hired by Sajjan himself?  I sense Senate seats in the offing.



I have to say, if all that came out today is true, this really changes things...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have to wonder that with him facing criminal charges, he is likely to mention a lot of things during the trial that will not place the Liberals in a good light. I wonder if they are hoping he will plea bargain so it does not actually get to trial?


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have to say, if all that came out today is true, this really changes things...



Change what?
That our political masters have no clue what to do about National Defence? That there is no such thing as a coherent and enduring Foreign Policy Directive that tailors our equipment requirements to our actual needs?

I really hope that this whole putrid sack of shyte called Defence Procurement gets opened to the light of day. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Is it just me, or is anybody else wondering how, somehow, letters from a private citizen, James Irving, on behalf of a private company, Irving Shipbuilding, addressed to various ministers of the crown (and one as their MP) asking the government to reconsider a decision already made suddenly become "confidential cabinet documents"?

These are not working papers of the cabinet, they are letters from Canadians at large (regardless of the stature of the Irving and their companies), and as such, are subject to full release under access to information act. How can they suddenly become covered by privilege? And how is their release a criminal infraction?

This is starting to look like a witch hunt for the sole purpose of protecting the Irving and the large funds they undoubtedly manage to funnel into the Liberal coffers regardless of the law (which has never stopped the Liberals before).

my 2c.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or is anybody else wondering how, somehow, letters from a private citizen, James Irving, on behalf of a private company, Irving Shipbuilding, addressed to various ministers of the crown (and one as their MP) asking the government to reconsider a decision already made suddenly become "confidential cabinet documents"? ...


Methinks these wouldn't be exactly the naughtiest bits of information that made their way out under the door.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or is anybody else wondering how, somehow, letters from a private citizen, James Irving, on behalf of a private company, Irving Shipbuilding, addressed to various ministers of the crown (and one as their MP) asking the government to reconsider a decision already made suddenly become "confidential cabinet documents"?
> 
> ...



Isn't that one of our rights?  The right to petition the King?


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> Change what?
> That our political masters have no clue what to do about National Defence? That there is no such thing as a coherent and enduring Foreign Policy Directive that tailors our equipment requirements to our actual needs?
> 
> I really hope that this whole putrid sack of shyte called Defence Procurement gets opened to the light of day. But I'm not holding my breath.



Easy kid we're on the same team. 

My intent was that this story originally came out and intended to paint Admiral Norman in a poor light, now it seems to have morphed into one of his defense.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Easy kid we're on the same team.
> 
> My intent was that this story originally came out and intended to paint Admiral Norman in a poor light, now it seems to have morphed into one of his defense.



Ah I see what you did there.

Anyway, I hope this goes to court because Norman's Lawyer will shred the government.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Isn't that one of our rights?  The right to petition the King?



Absolutely. Which is why any such letters or petition are part of the official - public - correspondence of the ministers. Not "confidential cabinet documents", a category that is meant to protect deliberations and documents required for the purpose of deliberating, such as briefs on the topics at issue, draft policies or draft orders in council up for review and discussions, policy papers up for review, etc.

Such a fundamental right that I am currently in the process of drafting a nice long letter to my MP, who happens to be Liberal but a backbencher, to ask him to get off his legendary behind, stand for what he was elected for (holding government accountable), and do his part to stop the government current attempt at emaciating the powers of Parliament yet again through rules reform nobody asked for, in favour of even less oversight.


----------



## observor 69

So Vice Admiral Mark Norman has hired defence lawyer Marie Henein.
Having watched her at work in the trail of Jian Ghomeshi I would expect a skilled aggressive defence.
As per previous postings she may have a sound legal basis to attack from.
The Vice Admiral can expect the lawyer he chose will provide a strong competent defence against the charges.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> Ah I see what you did there.
> 
> Anyway, I hope this goes to court because Norman's Lawyer will shred the government by showing he was acting for the good of the nation and how the harebrained secret actions of the government work against the public good but in favour of the governing party's sole interest.



Fixed that for you.  [


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.  [


----------



## George Wallace

From CTV:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/correspondence-shows-norman-angered-by-attempted-political-interference-in-shipbuilding-contract-1.3356844#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=EQDdGWF



> CTVNews.ca Staff
> Published Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:55PM EDT
> Last Updated Thursday, April 6, 2017 10:16AM EDT
> 
> Correspondence obtained by CTV News shows Vice-Admiral Mark Norman had considered resigning over attempted political interference in a shipbuilding contract by Irving Shipyards, before he was ultimately removed from his duties.
> 
> Norman was the vice chief of the defence staff when Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance temporarily removed him from his duties on Jan. 9. The military has never provided an explanation for Norman’s suspension.
> 
> Sources say Irving wrote to multiple cabinet ministers in the newly minted Liberal government in November of 2015, trying to scuttle a multimillion dollar plan to rebuild a desperately needed supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy that had been awarded to competitor Davie Shipyards.
> 
> Expressing his frustration, Norman wrote: “This is sole [sic] destroying. I might be prepared to resign over this. I can't keep playing along much longer.”
> 
> Documents related to the procurement plan, known as Project Resolve, were leaked to media and the defence industry. CTV News has learned that the leaks prompted an RCMP probe, which led to Norman’s suspension.
> 
> The ongoing probe is being carried out by the Sensitive and International Investigations unit, which deals with politically sensitive cases.
> 
> Sources say Mounties descended on Norman's home at about 7:30 a.m. on January 9, surprising the admiral and his wife as they were about to leave for work. RCMP officers blocked Norman’s vehicle in his driveway.
> 
> The RCMP had a warrant for all electronic devices in the home. They seized mobile phones and computers from Norman and his wife, and those items are still in police custody.
> 
> Fifteen months after the investigation began, the RCMP has laid no charges and is still interviewing people, including government officials and lobbyists in Ottawa.
> 
> One of the reporters who received leaked information is now serving in the defence minister's office and works closely on the shipbuilding file.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s office refused to comment on departmental staffing and said the minister stands by Norman’s suspension.
> 
> Sources say Norman is not being investigated for breaching national security or seeking financial gain. Those close to him say he’s being scapegoated.
> 
> In a statement to CTV News, Irving said they did not contact the RCMP, nor have they been contacted. They did not respond to questions about alleged attempts to lobby the government on the shipbuilding issue.
> 
> With a report from CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson in Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or is anybody else wondering how, somehow, letters from a private citizen, James Irving, on behalf of a private company, Irving Shipbuilding, addressed to various ministers of the crown (and one as their MP) asking the government to reconsider a decision already made suddenly become "confidential cabinet documents"?
> 
> These are not working papers of the cabinet, they are letters from Canadians at large (regardless of the stature of the Irving and their companies), and as such, are subject to full release under access to information act. How can they suddenly become covered by privilege? And how is their release a criminal infraction?



Good question indeed.  The letter would/should be public record.  If internal Government assessment meant to provide recommendations to Cabinet as to how best address the situation (i.e. Cabinet Confidential) were leaked, that would be an issue.  Has the actual letter from Irving to Foote/Sajan/Brison/Morneau ever been published, or at least ATI'd?

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or is anybody else wondering how, somehow, letters from a private citizen, James Irving, on behalf of a private company, Irving Shipbuilding, addressed to various ministers of the crown (and one as their MP) asking the government to reconsider a decision already made suddenly become "confidential cabinet documents"?


I saw the letters discussed in news articles, but I must have missed the claim that the letters are what was leaked.  Did you see that in the article, or is this something that you inferred?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The CBC article cited by Chris look would seem to indicate that it was those Irving letters that were leaked to the press and started the leak investigation. That's what I was referring to. If CBC is not accurate (a distinct possibility  ;D), then my whole point falls.


----------



## McG

I don't see it.  All the articles discuss the letters from Irving, but they don't say that those letters are what was leaked.  

In contrast, shortly after mentioning those letters, one article claims the leaked material was:


			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Documents related to the procurement plan


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It's these two paragraphs that follow one another that got me thinking that was the case:

*Just days before the pause was ordered, the co-CEO of rival Irving Shipbuilding, James Irving, sent a letter to Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. It was also copied to Treasury Board President and Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison and Finance Minister Bill Morneau, asking for a review of the lease plan.

All of those details were leaked to the media, setting off a furious round of internal finger-pointing and adding fuel to the fire of an ongoing RCMP investigation into unauthorized disclosures of cabinet documents and decisions*.

The only documents mentioned that far in the article are the Irving letters in the preceding paragraphs, as for actual decisions of the cabinet, they are not protected by any rule of confidentiality. In fact, once a decision is made, that decision is a public decision automatically, unless covered by the secrets act. It is the deliberations that are protected by confidentiality rules.

If I can phrase its that way: The cabinet can make decisions in secret, but it cannot make secret decisions.


----------



## Kirkhill

And in other news:



> Judy Foote taking leave of absence, cites personal and family reasons
> Minister of Public Services and Procurement will be replaced by Jim Carr on interim basis
> CBC News Posted: Apr 06, 2017 4:59 PM NT Last Updated: Apr 06, 2017 5:31 PM NT



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/judy-foote-leave-of-absence-1.4059068


----------



## The Bread Guy

From my aggregate read of the three article...
-- Court docs allege documents "related to the procurement plan ... were leaked to media & the defence industry".  (CTV.ca)
-- Court docs allege a company's officials supplied "information subject to cabinet confidence" to senior company officials, as well as to company lobbyists. (G&M)
-- CBC's story mentions "all those details were leaked" after talking about Irving's letters to government Ministers, and cabinet's decision to delay the planned lease, suggesting information on both _may_ have been leaked.

So, based on the above, we appear to have  cabinet stuff =>company => lobbyists + media, and if company => lobbyists (according to G&M), we have ?=>media and ?=> company.

Then again, this assumes all the articles cover all the bases, which, even in their aggregate, they can't.  Funny how media outlets who mention documents rarely share those documents with readers so they can make up their own minds.  We'll have to see how much is shared if the full documents are released via court action launched by one of the media outlets.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And in other news:
> 
> 
> 
> Judy Foote taking leave of absence, cites personal and family reasons
> Minister of Public Services and Procurement will be replaced by Jim Carr on interim basis
> CBC News Posted: Apr 06, 2017 4:59 PM NT Last Updated: Apr 06, 2017 5:31 PM NT
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/judy-foote-leave-of-absence-1.4059068
Click to expand...

  
Good catch - Canada's version of "wanting to spend more time with the family"?


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If I can phrase its that way: The cabinet can make decisions in secret, but it cannot make secret decisions.



To the contrary; the cabinet can and has made secret decisions.  Granting of Canadian passports to the Americans in hiding in Iran in 1980 for example.


Watching this unfold in slow motion, with both sides putting their best foot forward (and holding their fire until their opposition releases something) one needs to remember that there are agendas at play on both sides, which in turn will dictate what information gets released, and what gets held back.  I suspect that there is much more to this than either side is willing (at this time) to reveal.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's these two paragraphs that follow one another that got me thinking that was the case:
> 
> *Just days before the pause was ordered, the co-CEO of rival Irving Shipbuilding, James Irving, sent a letter to Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. It was also copied to Treasury Board President and Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison and Finance Minister Bill Morneau, asking for a review of the lease plan.
> 
> All of those details were leaked to the media, setting off a furious round of internal finger-pointing and adding fuel to the fire of an ongoing RCMP investigation into unauthorized disclosures of cabinet documents and decisions*.
> 
> The only documents mentioned that far in the article are the Irving letters in the preceding paragraphs, as for actual decisions of the cabinet, they are not protected by any rule of confidentiality. In fact, once a decision is made, that decision is a public decision automatically, unless covered by the secrets act. It is the deliberations that are protected by confidentiality rules.
> 
> If I can phrase its that way: The cabinet can make decisions in secret, but it cannot make secret decisions.



Further to your last:



> Irving denial
> 
> In the aftermath of the leaks, *angry federal bureaucrats accused Irving officials of slipping the letter calling for a review to reporters at CBC News and Postmedia* — something the notoriously media-averse company vehemently denied.
> 
> Kevin McCoy, president of Irving Shipbuilding Inc., issued a statement at the height of the controversy, noting the company had also been asked to come up with an interim supply ship plan, and their call for a review of their rival's deal was meant to ensure "an open, merit-based evaluation of all proposals."
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding 20160907
> Kevin McCoy, president of Irving Shipbuilding Inc., addresses the crowd at DEFSEC Atlantic, the Canadian Defence Security and Aerospace Exhibition Atlantic, in Halifax. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)
> 
> But how hard the company pushed that line behind closed doors with the new Liberal government is unclear.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit *Sajjan, who as the newly appointed minister, toured the Halifax shipyard on Nov. 20, 2015, and met with Irving officials — the same day the first of the leaked stories on the Davie supply ship program appeared in the media*.



The concern of the bureaucrats apparently was the public release of the Irving letter - putting the Government in a tight spot 2 weeks after being sworn in and 10 days before the Davie contract forced a decision.


----------



## Edward Campbell

See, also, this CBC report, from James Cudmore (who is now part of the story, himself) from late Nov 16 which seems to indicate (near the end under "*Rival company "disappointed"*") that the Irving and Seaspan letters and the Navy's views were pretty well known to, at least, Mr Cudmore.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More details on all the intrigue and lobbying at high levels:



> Allegations against military's No. 2 spelled out after months of rumours
> _Search warrant shows Norman was under RCMP covert surveillance for months prior to suspension_
> ...
> Details in the RCMP's search warrant suggest senior officials at Chantier Davie, a company that builds ships, received documents revealing that the Liberal cabinet had paused the $668-million project to supply the navy with an interim supply ship. The RCMP's theory on how Davie got those documents is not revealed in the unredacted portions of the court documents.
> 
> The records go on to claim the information made its way through a high-profile Ottawa lobbying firm to the media, which broke the story on Nov. 20, 2015 — one day after the cabinet committee called a temporary halt.
> 
> The RCMP accuse Norman of breach of trust under the Criminal Code, as well as wrongful communication of information and allowing a cabinet document to be released, both contrary to the Security of Information Act.
> 
> The allegations have not been proven in court and Norman has not commented.
> 
> Just prior to the release of the court documents, email exchanges between Norman and a friend were released to some media. In the emails, which CBC has verified with a source, the career military man said he was considering resigning over the cabinet decision, something he believed was heavily influenced by the politics of the new Liberal government.
> 
> "I can't keep playing along much longer," Norman said in the email, dated Nov. 21, 2015. "The blatant politics of this (and too many other similar files) is just beyond what should be reasonable."
> 
> The emails do not point the finger at any specific cabinet minister, but lay out Norman's belief that Irving Shipbuilding Inc. — a rival to Chantier Davie — was determined to kill the interim supply ship project, which was approved in the waning days of the former Conservative government.
> 
> The RCMP search warrant shows, among other things:
> 
> A staffer in Treasury Board President Scott Brison's office was flagged the day before the media jumped on the story that cabinet documents might have leaked.
> Norman was under covert surveillance by the RCMP months before they raided his home in January of this year.
> Similar raids were carried at the Davie shipyard and the offices of two Ottawa lobbying firms...
> One of the cabinet leaks went to a CBC News reporter, who has since left journalism and is now a senior policy adviser in Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office.
> 
> The 2015 story by James Cudmore alleged — additionally — that Irving Shipbuilding may have had a hand in convincing cabinet to halt the project, which at that point in time would have had disastrous consequences for Davie's financing. It references a Nov. 17, 2015, letter sent by James Irving to Sajjan and Public Works Minister Judy Foote, which argued for a pause and consideration of Irving's rival supply ship proposal.
> 
> "We understand that a contract for Davie Shipyard to provide the Interim Refuelling at Sea capability is awaiting approval by the new government," said the letter, which was released as part of the RCMP court document package. "I ask your support to request that the Irving-Maersk proposal be competitively evaluated before a contract is placed."
> 
> The effect of the leak on cabinet was swift and electric...
> 
> The president of Irving Shipbuilding issued a statement Thursday putting distance between the Halifax-based company and the RCMP investigation of Norman. Kevin McCoy restated opposition to the Davie proposal and denied suggestions of interference.
> 
> "At the time of the letter we understood that no final contract had been awarded and we wanted to ensure that the new government had all relevant information prior to making a final decision," he said.
> 
> Speaking on background late Thursday, a company official said Irving was not aware of the specifics of the Davie contract, but simply knew that the details had not been finalized...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-rcmp-investigation-1.4059398



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

An older article, from March 15, on the investigation and cabinet secrecy:



> DND leak investigation started under Tories, expanded under Liberals
> Expert says where Liberals and secrets are concerned it's 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'
> By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Mar 15, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 15, 2017 5:08 AM ET
> 
> The RCMP has been conducting a secret, wide-ranging investigation for many months into a series of leaks involving classified cabinet papers, decisions and other sensitive information — a high-stakes probe that's not only targeted the country's second-highest military commander, but additional unnamed suspects, CBC News has learned.
> 
> Multiple sources tell CBC News* the hunt for informants began under the former Conservative government, but gained a renewed intensity in November 2015 under the newly elected Liberals following at least three sensitive breaches that were splashed across the media.*
> 
> Two of the leaks referenced cabinet documents or decisions concerning military shipbuilding, said the sources, who were granted anonymity by CBC News because of the sensitivity of the case.
> 
> The disclosures revealed underfunding and other problems with the government's multibillion-dollar national shipbuilding strategy and "infuriated" and embarrassed not only the government, but proponents of the strategy within the bureaucracy.
> 
> The RCMP have questioned suspects in both Ottawa and on the West Coast, the sources said.
> 
> RCMP silence
> 
> The leaks provide a bit of a peek behind the curtain to the back-room war that's been raging over the shipbuilding strategy as the military grows more impatient waiting for the delivery of promised warships.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, Canada's vice-chief of defence staff, was suspended from his duties but not relieved of command two months ago. He apparently came to the attention of the Mounties after investigators examined email traffic that referenced him.
> 
> His lawyer, Marie Henein, who also represented former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi during his sex assault trial, issued a statement on Feb. 23 saying it would be a "profound disservice" if Norman was to be the casualty of "bureaucratic crossfire."
> 
> His legal issues began on Jan. 9, when he was questioned at length by investigators in his home. He was suspended by the military four days later and news of the extraordinary step was leaked to the media.
> 
> Norman being investigated for alleged leak of classified shipbuilding data
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance appointed the head of the navy as the acting vice-chief. But in a sign there will be no swift resolution for Norman, Vance recently tweeted that he plans to shuffle another flag officer into the job on a temporary basis, beginning at the end of May.
> 
> *RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson hasn't spoken publicly about the leak investigation, refusing even to answer a Senate committee's question about the probe.* (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
> 
> Norman's electronics, including home computer and tablet, were seized under a search warrant that has been sealed for national security purposes.
> 
> Both National Defence and the Liberal government, whose members campaigned in 2015 as the antidote to the secrecy of Stephen Harper's Conservatives, have steadfastly refused to explain why Norman has been removed and have not even publicly acknowledged an investigation is underway.
> 
> In an extraordinary move a few weeks ago, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson refused to answer a Senate committee's question about the case.
> 
> Shipbuilding and Syrian leaks
> 
> The most politically sensitive and damaging of the November 2015 leaks led to stories about the Liberal government's temporary halt to the planned lease of a converted cargo ship for the navy, a program known as Project Resolve. Both CBC News and The Canadian Press reported that story and the CBC's sources say the government believed it made them look foolish.
> 
> It was followed days later by another CBC News story that quoted from briefing material prepared for newly minted Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Public Works Minister Judy Foote that warned shipbuilding program costs were out of control and the government needed a four-point plan to address the problem.
> 
> Royal Canadian Navy
> The federal government plans to lease a naval supply ship from Federal Fleet Services Inc. as a stop-gap measure to replace its now retired replenishment ships, including HMCS Protecteur, pictured here. (Marco Garcia/Associated Press)
> 
> The third disclosure to raise the hackles of the government that month involved details about the military's plan to house Syrian refugees and how much it was going to cost. Both Postmedia and The Canadian Press obtained separate leaks on that file.
> 
> The RCMP probe, which sources say is being carried out by the sensitive investigations unit, is focused almost exclusively on disclosures of so-called classified information to the media and the defence industry, and apparently does not involve suspected corruption.
> 
> Computers at National Defence were monitored remotely in order to track incoming and outgoing contacts some in the department were having with outsiders, the sources said.
> 
> The RCMP did not answer requests for comment.
> 
> The secrecy reflex
> 
> *Anger and embarrassment about the leaks appears to have more to do with politics and bureaucratic ineptness than national security, said one expert.
> 
> "There are pressures to keep things closed that come both from the civil service and the politicians," said Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia defence policy expert who has written a number of studies critical of Canada's military procurement.
> 
> There were "procurements that have actually failed because of incompetence within the bureaucracies," he said, referring to examples such as navy supply ships and logistics trucks.
> *
> *"So in that kind of situation, civil servants will want to cover up their mistakes or potential mistakes by casting this veil of secrecy over top of them. At the same time, responsibility for those mistakes actually rests with the political masters."*
> 
> There is a trend towards the over-classification of information, he said.
> 
> *'Right now, it's a little bit of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.'*
> - Mike Larsen, co-author of Brokering Access: Power, Politics, and Freedom of Information Process in Canada
> One example he cites in shipbuilding is the Liberal government's refusal to release cost estimates for the multibillion-dollar frigate replacement program.
> 
> The public works minister said Canadians won't know the price tag of the warships until the government signs the contract in 2019. The same goes for the purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornet jet fighters to help the air force meet its obligations while the government shops for a permanent replacement for the aging fleet of CF-18s.
> 
> Those figures are now treated as confidential and releasing them could be considered a violation of cabinet secrecy.
> 
> Byers says that's a disservice to the public.
> 
> Liberals and secrecy
> 
> Another expert says what's more alarming is the Liberals have become more clandestine than the Conservatives in some key areas — contrary to what they promised on the campaign trail.
> 
> "Right now, it's a little bit of meet the new boss, same as the old boss," said Mike Larsen, a criminology instructor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey, B.C., and co-author of Brokering Access: Power, Politics, and Freedom of Information Process in Canada.
> 
> Last fall, the Liberals introduced an unprecedented gag order to prevent 235 Canadian military personnel and federal workers from ever talking about the fighter jet replacement program.
> 
> Former top security boss says it's 'almost impossible' to trace defence leaks
> 
> They have also refused to roll back changes instituted under the Conservatives that affect how access to information legislation deals with cabinet secrets. The effect of the tweaking of federal Treasury Board regulations in 2013 is that more documents requested by the public can be deemed "cabinet confidence."
> 
> "If we look back in 10 years' time we'll have a better sense of this, but it wouldn't surprise to see that secrecy deepened and intensified and became more entrenched and more of a matter of policy under the Liberal regime," said Larsen. "Precisely because they're dealing with issues around transparency at a time when they're also expanding the entire security apparatus."
> 
> Exercising judgment with secrets
> 
> 
> Former RCMP commissioner Bill Elliott would not comment on the current investigation, but in an interview rejected the wide-ranging assertion that information is routinely withheld to avoid government embarrassment.
> 
> He said during his time as commissioner from 2007 to 2011, he witnessed times when it would have been politically expedient to release something, but it didn't happen because there are sound public policy reasons why government officials are legally and ethically bound to respect the confidentiality of information.
> 
> RCMP Head Quits 20110204
> Former RCMP commissioner Bill Elliott says there are sound public policy reasons why government officials are legally and ethically bound to respect the confidentiality of information, but there are also limits and room for discretion. (Canadian Press)
> 
> But there are limits, he says, and officials need to exercise judgment and discretion when deciding whether there's a greater public interest served by releasing information.
> 
> "You have to have a good reason to keep information secret," he said. "And the reason for keeping information secret isn't because it's embarrassing information — or even if it is in a so-called secret document that is marked secret.
> 
> "You have to look beyond the secret label to the actual contents of the document and make a decision on whether or not that information can and should be released."



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-secrecy-investigation-1.4024459

Michael Byers is not my usual quotable source but this time......

Interesting that he seems to be pointing at suits and not uniforms this time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And in other news:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/judy-foote-leave-of-absence-1.4059068



Well. This is curious timing.... op:


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well. This is curious timing.... op:



I had similar thoughts.

Seems to be a trend (if you look into it) within this Party.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Minister Foote has a history of breast cancer ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Minister Foote has a history of breast cancer ...


If that's the case, then it may actually be for health reasons - thanks for a bit of the REST of the story.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Minister Foote has a history of breast cancer ...



Thank-you. Let's hope it is not that.


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

> I really hope that this whole putrid sack of shyte called Defence Procurement gets opened to the light of day. But I'm not holding my breath.








Amazon Link
It's certainly not a mystery, and as this site has seen, there is no shortage of examples.
...and unlikely to be fixed since both parties see military procurement overwhelmingly in terms returning "favours."



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...I am currently in the process of drafting a nice long letter to my MP, who happens to be Liberal but a backbencher, to ask him to get off his legendary behind, stand for what he was elected for (holding government accountable).....


I can't speak for your MP, but I'd write a short letter, using small words (framed as 'talking points') ....and probably some repetition of the key points.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Amazon Link
> It's certainly not a mystery, and as this site has seen, there is no shortage of examples.
> ...and unlikely to be fixed since both parties see military procurement overwhelmingly in terms returning "favours."
> I can't speak for your MP, but I'd write a short letter, using small words (framed as 'talking points') ....and probably some repetition of the key points.



Or how about a YouTube video, that seems to do a better job catching the sun king's attention.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Let me see if I have this right:
1.  Davie was confirmed with the Project Resolve AOR by previous Conservative Government
2.  Irving sensing an opportunity with their buddies in the new Liberal Government, sent some letters trying to kill that deal.
3.  The Cabinet having reviewed the Irving letter agreed to at least stall the Davie deal (with the likelihood being it would eventually be killed and re-bid so that Irving coudl get the business)
4.  Norman became upset and leaked the Cabinet decision to Davie who engaged lobbyists and the media to shame the Liberal Government into keeping the Davie deal in place
5.  The Liberal Government pissed off that they were unable to shift the deal to their fundraising pals at Irving went on a witch hunt to find out who buggered with their plan.

Is that close?  

M.


----------



## suffolkowner

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Let me see if I have this right:
> 1.  Davie was confirmed with the Project Resolve AOR by previous Conservative Government
> 2.  Irving sensing an opportunity with their buddies in the new Liberal Government, sent some letters trying to kill that deal.
> 3.  The Cabinet having reviewed the Irving letter agreed to at least stall the Davie deal (with the likelihood being it would eventually be killed and re-bid so that Irving coudl get the business)
> 4.  Norman became upset and leaked the Cabinet decision to Davie who engaged lobbyists and the media to shame the Liberal Government into keeping the Davie deal in place
> 5.  The Liberal Government pissed off that they were unable to shift the deal to their fundraising pals at Irving went on a witch hunt to find out who buggered with their plan.
> 
> Is that close?
> 
> M.



I think mostly,probably. I am having a hard time being upset with the former VCDS, for now pending more info I wish him good luck in the future

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/vice-admiral-normans-e-mail-spoke-of-blatant-politics-of-supply-ship-contract/article34625474/


----------



## Kirkhill

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Let me see if I have this right:
> 1.  Davie was confirmed with the Project Resolve AOR by previous Conservative Government
> 2.  Irving sensing an opportunity with their buddies in the new Liberal Government, sent some letters trying to kill that deal.
> 3.  The Cabinet having reviewed the Irving letter agreed to at least stall the Davie deal (with the likelihood being it would eventually be killed and re-bid so that Irving coudl get the business)
> 4.  Norman became upset and leaked the Cabinet decision to Davie who engaged lobbyists and the media to shame the Liberal Government into keeping the Davie deal in place
> 5.  The Liberal Government pissed off that they were unable to shift the deal to their fundraising pals at Irving went on a witch hunt to find out who buggered with their plan.
> 
> Is that close?
> 
> M.



A whole bunch of "facts not in evidence" there Blackshirt.  It is not clear how the information made it from the cabinet table to the reporter who is now the Minister of Defence's Policy Director, or even if it did go by way of the cabinet table.


----------



## OldSolduer

There's something rotten in the state of military procurement in Ottawa, but we've known that for decades.....actually Sam Hughes and his cronies saddled soldiers with the Ross rifle among other things. And the Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled is another example.

It seems we can't or won't learn from mistakes. Maybe a high profile procurement person spending some quality time "rehabilitating" with some fellow miscreants may encourage the others.....

It really is unfortunate that the troops have no one watching their backs when it comes to kitting them out.


----------



## Kirkhill

Inspired by Blackshirt - and based on information found above and on the public record

20 Feb 2014  	Protecteur fire
11 Oct 2014   	Michael den Tandt reports on sole-sourcing of Sea Sparrow replacement
2014		RCMP called in to investigate leaks
14 May 2015	Protecteur  decommissioned
June 2015 	Sole source rules adjusted by Conservative cabinet  
June 2015	Conservatives issue a Letter of Intent to Davie for the procurement of Resolve
10 Aug 2015 	Davie engages Hepburn to supply RAS engineering for Resolve
Sep 2015	Davie engages L3 MAPPs to supply Integrated Ship Systems
Oct 2015	Davie acquires MS Asterix for conversion
Oct 2015 	Conservatives approve plan but withhold authorization until after the election

19 Oct 2015	Election
4 Nov 2015	Liberal government sworn in
Nov 2015 	Irving petitions the government to have the Resolve project reviewed
18 Nov 2015	Mensereau of Hill and Knowlton allegedly offers to feed media story of Resolve project being delayed
19 Nov 2015	Ministers apparently decide on invoking a 60 day delay on the Resolve project
20 Nov 2015 	Defence Minister Sajjan visiting Irving shipyard
20 Nov 2015	James Cudmore breaks the Resolve Pause story
21 Nov 2015	Admiral Norman apparently considers offering his resignation
23 Nov 2015	Shipbuilders Association comes out in support of Irving
25 Nov 2015	Seaspan writes to government to complain about Resolve project
30 Nov 2015	Last day for cancelling Resolve contract without an 89 MCAD penalty
30 Nov 2015 	Liberal government approves Resolve contract
Dec 2015	RCMP called in to investigate leaks

12 Jan 2016	Defence Minister Sajjan hires reporter who broke the Resolve story as press secretary
19 Jan 2016	Admiral Norman on the promotions list for 2016
Summer 2016	Admiral Norman promoted and appointed VCDS
21 Oct 2016	Preserver decommissioned
*24 Nov 2016      National Defence Officials Sign Lifetime Gag Order Over Fighter Jets
*
9 Jan 2017	Admiral Norman’s home raided by RCMP
13 Jan 2017 	General Vance signs Admiral Norman’s orders relieving him of duties
16 Jan 2017	Admiral Norman officially relieved of duties
24 Jan 2017	Defence Minister Sajjan informs press the dismissal has nothing to do with National Security
22 Feb 2017	Liberal’s hire the reporter who broke the Sea Sparrow story
23 Feb 2017	Admiral Norman hires Marie Henein as his lawyer
15 Mar 2017	Murray Brewster publishes story on progress of RCMP leak investigation
27 Mar 2017	James Cudmore promoted to Dir of Policy at DND under Minister Sajjan
5 Apr 2017	Potentially exculpatory articles appear in the press – 15 months and no charges
5 Apr 2017 	RCMP discovered to be investigating Admiral Norman for breach of trust
6 Apr 2017	PSPC Minister Judy Foote takes leave of absence for family reasons

And thus a timeline: a discrete sequence of events that may or may not be connected to each other.
And the truth is what you decide it is.

Edit: Modified on 7 April with highlighted event as suggested by ER Campbell below: (Thanks for that, Sir.)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Also, let's not forget:
1)  The documents "obtained" by the media from the court were redacted (so they - and we - don't know what else was there).
2)  I haven't seen evidence of the obtained documents being shared publicly for everyone to scrutinize.
3)  There's ALWAYS more to the story than we see/hear/read.
It'll be interesting to see what bits come out _*if*_ charges are laid and _*if*_ it goes to trial.

One of my questions (thanks, Chris, for the detailed chronology) ....


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> (...)
> 12 Jan 2016	Defence Minister Sajjan hires reporter who broke the Resolve story as press secretary
> (...)
> 22 Feb 2017	Liberals*** hire the reporter who broke the Sea Sparrow story
> (...)


... is _*if*_ there's a trial, would said (political) staff folks be expected to testify?  Could they be compelled to?  Again, still an _*if*_, but I'm curious nonetheless ...

*** - PMO, to be exact.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Inspired by Blackshirt - and based on information found above and on the public record
> 
> 20 Feb 2014  	Protecteur fire
> 11 Oct 2014   	Michael den Tandt reports on sole-sourcing of Sea Sparrow replacement
> 2014		RCMP called in to investigate leaks
> 14 May 2015	Protecteur  decommissioned
> June 2015 	Sole source rules adjusted by Conservative cabinet
> June 2015	Conservatives issue a Letter of Intent to Davie for the procurement of Resolve
> 10 Aug 2015 	Davie engages Hepburn to supply RAS engineering for Resolve
> Sep 2015	Davie engages L3 MAPPs to supply Integrated Ship Systems
> Oct 2015	Davie acquires MS Asterix for conversion
> Oct 2015 	Conservatives approve plan but withhold authorization until after the election
> 
> 19 Oct 2015	Election
> 4 Nov 2015	Liberal government sworn in
> Nov 2015 	Irving petitions the government to have the Resolve project reviewed
> 18 Nov 2015	Mensereau of Hill and Knowlton allegedly offers to feed media story of Resolve project being delayed
> 19 Nov 2015	Ministers apparently decide on invoking a 60 day delay on the Resolve project
> 20 Nov 2015 	Defence Minister Sajjan visiting Irving shipyard
> 20 Nov 2015	James Cudmore breaks the Resolve Pause story
> 21 Nov 2015	Admiral Norman apparently considers offering his resignation
> 23 Nov 2015	Shipbuilders Association comes out in support of Irving
> 25 Nov 2015	Seaspan writes to government to complain about Resolve project
> 30 Nov 2015	Last day for cancelling Resolve contract without an 89 MCAD penalty
> 30 Nov 2015 	Liberal government approves Resolve contract
> Dec 2015	RCMP called in to investigate leaks
> 
> 12 Jan 2016	Defence Minister Sajjan hires reporter who broke the Resolve story as press secretary
> 19 Jan 2016	Admiral Norman on the promotions list for 2016
> Summer 2016	Admiral Norman promoted and appointed VCDS
> *21 Oct 2016	Preserver decommissioned
> 
> 9 Jan 2017	Admiral Norman’s home raided by RCMP*
> 13 Jan 2017 	General Vance signs Admiral Norman’s orders relieving him of duties
> 16 Jan 2017	Admiral Norman officially relieved of duties
> 24 Jan 2017	Defence Minister Sajjan informs press the dismissal has nothing to do with National Security
> 22 Feb 2017	Liberal’s hire the reporter who broke the Sea Sparrow story
> 23 Feb 2017	Admiral Norman hires Marie Henein as his lawyer
> 15 Mar 2017	Murray Brewster publishes story on progress of RCMP leak investigation
> 27 Mar 2017	James Cudmore promoted to Dir of Policy at DND under Minister Sajjan
> 5 Apr 2017	Potentially exculpatory articles appear in the press – 15 months and no charges
> 5 Apr 2017 	RCMP discovered to be investigating Admiral Norman for breach of trust
> 6 Apr 2017	PSPC Minister Judy Foote takes leave of absence for family reasons
> 
> And thus a timeline: a discrete sequence of events that may or may not be connected to each other.
> And the truth is what you decide it is.




And you might add this story, in the highlighted area, about (apparently quite unprecedented) life-time non-disclosure agreements being put in place in the fall of 2016 as the Liberals decide that "transparency" and "accountability" were neat ideas for campaign slogans but a Liberal government must never be held to such foolish things.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> One of my questions (thanks, Chris, for the detailed chronology) ....... is _*if*_ there's a trial, would said (political) staff folks be expected to testify?  Could they be compelled to?  Again, still an _*if*_, but I'm curious nonetheless ...



I was wondering the same thing. Why would the Liberals hire the flack, who a couple of months earlier had published classified documents that had been a major embarrassment to them?


----------



## Navy_Pete

To put it in context, the timelines for decommisioning where known back in 2012 or 2013(ish) once it was determined that there wouldn't be any further DWPs for the tankers.

Took a while to figure out the actual dates, but the writing was on the wall as that's when you check the hull and tanks to keep the certificate for the hull valid, and that's good for four years after the last inspection (ie last DWP).

Tankers aren't much good if you can't put fuel in the tanks, and Canadians wouldn't be too happy if the standards weren't followed and a fuel spill resulted (nor should they).

Anyway, the tanker decommisioning dates were a concurrent preplanned factor that just happened to coincide with other stuff, and the whole situation was made worse by the PRO fire.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And you might add this story, in the highlighted area, about (apparently quite unprecedented) life-time non-disclosure agreements being put in place in the fall of 2016 as the Liberals decide that "transparency" and "accountability" were neat ideas for campaign slogans but a Liberal government must never be held to such foolish things.



Consider it done.  And thanks again.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Hat tip to Chris Pook for pulling together that chronology....


----------



## Good2Golf

[pedant]

Re: Summer 2016.  VAdm Norman wasn't promoted, but appointed as VCDS.  He was already a VAdm as Comd RCN.

[/pedant]

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Hat tip to Chris Pook for pulling together that chronology....


 :nod:


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And you might add this story, in the highlighted area, about (apparently quite unprecedented) life-time non-disclosure agreements being put in place in the fall of 2016 as the Liberals decide that "transparency" and "accountability" were neat ideas for campaign slogans but a Liberal government must never be held to such foolish things.


Very good catch - the article suggests the STFU Order only applies to procurement folks, but let's see how far that ink blot bleeds as time goes on ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I wonder if it would be possible to ATI the list of 200 people the non-disclosure order applied to? Then do some relationship mapping once you have the names.

That might paint an interesting picture...


----------



## PuckChaser

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I wonder if it would be possible to ATI the list of 200 people the non-disclosure order applied to? Then do some relationship mapping once you have the names.
> 
> That might paint an interesting picture...



Unless that list is "cabinet confidence", you likely could get it.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There's something rotten in the state of military procurement in Ottawa, but we've known that for decades.....actually Sam Hughes and his cronies saddled soldiers with the Ross rifle among other things. And the Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled is another example.


The Ross was not a failure in Procurement, it was the only option at the time (Britain refused to allow us to buy or manufacture more Lee Enfields, Ross came along and offered us the ability to produce and use his rifles). The Ross failed in the trenches not due to a poor design, rather due to poor quality British ammo which should have been condemned being sent to the front instead of making the manufacturer tighten standards. What happened to those Canadians wasn't the fault of Canada, rather the fault of Britain (imagine being given 5.56 for the C7 which was made substandard and wouldn't chamber, you now understand where the Ross went wrong). There was some small flaws with the rifle (all of which were corrected, one of the 'flaws' was making the chamber larger so it could fit out of spec ammo), however faith had been lost in the rifle by that point.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting stuff on the Ross Eaglelord.

With respect to the chronology, there is one other event that I came across yesterday that might be worthy of inclusion.

On 4 Dec 2015 an article was released to the public about the OFSV design.  Some of us saw and commented on the article.  It described how the OFSV design received from the government was unseaworthy and had to be rectified by the yard - in large part by growing the ship's waterline by some 24% across the three planned hulls which, together with the stale date on the original project budget - resulting in a significant increase in the budget.  The curious part now, looking back at it, was that the problem, and the fix were handled back in 2012.  Now, three year's later this Conservative/Coast Guard problem came to light with a new government struggling to grip the NSPS.

The author of the report was the same chap appointed as Sajjan's press secretary the next month.
And the issue pertained to the Coast Guard side of the NSPS programme and not the RCN side.

Again, a discrete event in the sequence that may or may not be connected.


----------



## Kirkhill

> 20 Feb 2014     Protecteur fire
> *Oct 2014 Irving submitted a proposal for an AOR to the Government* http://www.irvingshipbuilding.com/BlogPage.aspx?id=613&blogid=315
> 11 Oct 2014      Michael den Tandt reports on sole-sourcing of Sea Sparrow replacement
> 2014      RCMP called in to investigate leaks
> 14 May 2015   Protecteur  decommissioned
> June 2015    Sole source rules adjusted by Conservative cabinet
> June 2015   Conservatives issue a Letter of Intent to Davie for the procurement of Resolve
> 10 Aug 2015    Davie engages Hepburn to supply RAS engineering for Resolve
> Sep 2015   Davie engages L3 MAPPs to supply Integrated Ship Systems
> Oct 2015   Davie acquires MS Asterix for conversion
> Oct 2015    Conservatives approve plan but withhold authorization until after the election
> 
> 19 Oct 2015   Election
> 4 Nov 2015   Liberal government sworn in
> Nov 2015    Irving petitions the government to have the Resolve project reviewed
> 18 Nov 2015   Mensereau of Hill and Knowlton allegedly offers to feed media story of Resolve project being delayed
> 19 Nov 2015   Ministers apparently decide on invoking a 60 day delay on the Resolve project
> 20 Nov 2015    Defence Minister Sajjan visiting Irving shipyard
> 20 Nov 2015   James Cudmore breaks the Resolve Pause story
> 21 Nov 2015   Admiral Norman apparently considers offering his resignation
> 23 Nov 2015   Shipbuilders Association comes out in support of Irving
> 25 Nov 2015   Seaspan writes to government to complain about Resolve project
> 30 Nov 2015   Last day for cancelling Resolve contract without an 89 MCAD penalty
> 30 Nov 2015    Liberal government approves Resolve contract
> *04 Dec 2015   2012 OFSV design problem story released by Mr. Cudmore.*
> Dec 2015   RCMP called in to investigate leaks
> 
> 12 Jan 2016   Defence Minister Sajjan hires reporter who broke the Resolve story as press secretary
> 19 Jan 2016   Admiral Norman on the promotions list for 2016
> Summer 2016   Admiral Norman promoted and appointed VCDS (Edit per G2G)
> 21 Oct 2016   Preserver decommissioned
> 24 Nov 2016      National Defence Officials Sign Lifetime Gag Order Over Fighter Jets
> 
> 9 Jan 2017   Admiral Norman’s home raided by RCMP
> 13 Jan 2017    General Vance signs Admiral Norman’s orders relieving him of duties
> 16 Jan 2017   Admiral Norman officially relieved of duties
> 24 Jan 2017   Defence Minister Sajjan informs press the dismissal has nothing to do with National Security
> 22 Feb 2017   Liberal’s hire the reporter who broke the Sea Sparrow story
> 23 Feb 2017   Admiral Norman hires Marie Henein as his lawyer
> 15 Mar 2017   Murray Brewster publishes story on progress of RCMP leak investigation
> 27 Mar 2017   James Cudmore promoted to Dir of Policy at DND under Minister Sajjan
> 5 Apr 2017   Potentially exculpatory articles appear in the press – 15 months and no charges
> 5 Apr 2017    RCMP discovered to be investigating Admiral Norman for breach of trust
> 6 Apr 2017   PSPC Minister Judy Foote takes leave of absence for family reasons


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Great work, Chris. Many thanks.

I may actually take that one and expand it to include all the "steps" in the non-existing/then existing fighter gap and competition without-then-with the F-35 but after next election situation (including the Com RCAF, we don't have a gap, oh yes, now I remember the policy created a gap) and also the "we're selecting an African country to go in" morphing into "It's complicated".

I think it would paint an interesting picture of politicking with the military for the sole purpose of not looking like incompetents - even if that is failing IMHO.


----------



## STONEY

What everyone seems to have forgotten in this is the gov asked shipyards for ideas for a interim AOR and when they replied .The Davie was picked But no one here has ever looked at or critiqued or looked at the other proposals. The  Irving proposal was half the cost and was for a sale not a lease. No one seems to have seen many details of these proposals to be able to judge.  I can see why Irving and Seaspan  would be a little irritated that their proposals were not given a fair hearing. Could Quebec politics have played a part.


----------



## Good2Golf

STONEY, cost is but one of three principal factors.  

A project evaluation weighting and rating often/usually seen in defence projects is 65/25/10, i.e. 65% weighting to technical specifications, 25% to costing and 10% to industrial and technical benefits and the value proposition of a particular project.  

Canada, if folks haven't come to realize it, does not operate on a 0/100/0 weighting system.

That Irving "says" they were cheaper (we haven't ever seen their proposal, unless I'm mistaken) doesn't mean that the government didn't give their proposal due regard.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Do you have a reference of that Stoney? 

Because the actual info out there indicates that the Resolve class thingy is the idea of Davie, never asked for by the government but proposed by Davie to the government uninvited. Then, when discovered by Irving, it put something together to propose to the government which would have taken more time because it was not as advanced, and because it was a sale - would have left the Navy with an actual AOR rather than interim, something Seaspan took as an attempt by Irving to deprive it of its work under the Strategy. Seaspan made no proposal, but indicated it would like an open competition so it could put a proposal together. 

Moreover, why would Adm. Norman, who is not from Quebec, be involved in Quebec politics?


----------



## YZT580

and if Seaspan and Irving were bidding on an interim AOR it would still be in the discussion phase instead of being outfitted now.  Plus the new construction would be occupying time and space deferring the already contracted hulls.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Plus the new construction would be occupying time and space deferring the already contracted hulls.



YZT, I figured it wouldn't hurt to make these words of yours a little bigger, just for fear some folks missed it earlier.  

A shipyard with one graving dock IIRC and manpower issues having a problem with one that has what, seven and no apparent personnel challenges?  ???

G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar

For anyone to honestly believe that Irving could deliver cheaper than Davies, then they're seriously deluding themselves.  Irving is the grand master, and I mean MASTER, of lowballing the government before bait and switching up to the vastly more expensive reality of what they do deliver (time after time, just like Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football).  They have that shit down to a precise science that even Stephen Hawking would be challenged to follow the numbers and Machiavellian machinations.


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> For anyone to honestly believe that Irving could deliver cheaper than Davies, then they're seriously deluding themselves.  Irving is the grand master, and I mean MASTER, of lowballing the government before bait and switching up to the vastly more expensive reality of what they do deliver (time after time, just like Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football).  They have that shit down to a precise science that even Stephen Hawking would be challenged to follow the numbers and Machiavellian machinations.



This timeline thing can become quite addictive:

19 Oct 2011 Irving and Seaspan selected for NSPS
12 Jan 2012 Irving and Seaspan and the Government of Canada sign Agreements in Principle

30 Mar 2012 Government of Nova Scotia fronts Irving 300 MCAD to modernize its yards
3 Apr 2012 Seaspan awarded 5 more Coast Guard MEMTVs and 5 more Coast Guard OPVs
19 Oct 2012 Seaspan ground breaking on yard expansion - 170 MCAD of privately raised money
12 Dec 2012 Seaspan and Government of Canada sign Umbrella Agreement

7 Mar 2013 Irving gets 250 MCAD AOPS definition contract
18 Mar 2013 Seaspan get OFSV definition contract
June 2013 Berlin design selected for JSS
21 Aug 2013 Irving invests 300 MCAD in yard
10 Dec 2013 Irving announces the expenditure of 175 MCAD at yard

Time passes

27 Oct 2014 OFSV 01 First Steel Cut
6 Nov 2014 Seaspan ceremony for new yard

23 Jan 2015 Irving gets AOPS Build Contract
24 Jun 2015 Seaspan gets OFSV 01 Build Contract and has Keel Laying Ceremony
3 Sep 2015 First Steel cut on AOPS 01

Now, like I said before, a timeline is a sequence of discrete events that may or may not be connected.

But my sense of looking at that sequence is that Seaspan is the more aggressive, proactive group.  It raised its own money to build the yard and started work on its yard 9 months after signing the original Agreement in Principle.  The OFSV steel was cut 24 months later, 6 months before they got the Build Contract.

Meanwhile Irving doesn't cut steel for another 11 months, and only after it had been fronted 300 MCAD by the Government of Nova Scotia, and then has 250 MCAD of the Government of Canada's money in the bank did it start modernizing its yard, 10 months after Seaspan.

Now, Irving is probably the better company for its investors but Seaspan might be a better choice for its clients. 

But that is just idle speculation on a snowy Sunday morning.


----------



## NavyShooter

I lambasted an Irving rep who's in their CSC project cell.  

Told him some real world, specific examples I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN that in my opinion count as deliberate sabotage that have come out of the Irving yard.

I dislike the pork-barrel politics that see billions dumped into Quebec (Bombardier) but in all honesty, I'd rather see the money for the shipbuilding contract go to Davie than Irving.

YMMV, but in my opinion, a dollar spent at Irving is 99 cents wasted.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar

Damn skippy, saw that on FRE and MON, post FELEX.  Welding rods and 3 inch studs put into the sanitary lines to shut down the system and cause expensive repairs.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I lambasted an Irving rep who's in their CSC project cell.
> 
> Told him some real world, specific examples I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN that in my opinion count as deliberate sabotage that have come out of the Irving yard.
> 
> I dislike the pork-barrel politics that see billions dumped into Quebec (Bombardier) but in all honesty, I'd rather see the money for the shipbuilding contract go to Davie than Irving.
> 
> YMMV, but in my opinion, a dollar spent at Irving is 99 cents wasted.
> 
> NS



There is actually a big difference between the Irving pork barrelling, which does go to the family in the Maritimes only, and the Bombardier one, which goes all over the place.

Yes, sure, Bombardier is headquartered in Quebec, but it has many divisions - which stand on their own - that are located all over the place in Canada and the world.

For instance, Quebec did bridge Bombardier's C-series with $C1.3 b., but in exchange, got a 49 % share of the company (the C-series has it's own separate incorporated company within Bombardier intn'l). The series is now gathering speed, and when it breaks even, Quebeckers will see a basically 50% return on their investment.

Meanwhile, the $C300 M. Canada loaned Bombardier went to Bombardier Aeronautical specifically for the development of the Global 7000 business jet. Guess where it is being developed and built? In Ontario, yep Ontario. Funny enough, that (Ontario) is where the Bombardier Aeronautical's most successful product also hails from: The Q-400 turbo-prop commuter plane.

Similarly, the Ontario light trains that are supposedly in such trouble are designed, built and managed in Ontario, by Ontario, mostly English-Canadian, managers and employees (in their discharge, however, most of the problems appear to come from shady work at the Mexican plant that need stop be corrected in Ontario). Very few, if any, Quebeckers in that plant. In fact, to put the plan back on track, they got the managers/engineers from the Quebec plant in La Pocatière to come up and straighten the mess.

And then, they have other plants in Western Canada, etc.

It is just that Bombardier, as a group, is like Canada's GM: Too big to let fail, and with tentacles in just about every province. So giving them money is not exactly like "Quebec" pork barreling as a lot of that money gets spent everywhere else in Canada.


----------



## kratz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> There is actually a big difference between the Irving pork barrelling, which does go to the family in the Maritimes only, and the Bombardier one, which goes all over the place.
> 
> Yes, sure, Bombardier is headquartered in Quebec, but it has many divisions - which stand on their own - that are located all over the place in Canada and the world....[snip]
> 
> It is just that Bombardier, as a group, is like Canada's GM: Too big to let fail, and with tentacles in just about every province. So giving them money is not exactly like "Quebec" pork barreling as a lot of that money gets spent everywhere else in Canada.



Oldgateboatdriver, 

Thank you for posting the background. Large companies are easy targets for discontent, but it helps when informed comparisons are used in discussions.


----------



## NavyShooter

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Damn skippy, saw that on FRE and MON, post FELEX.  Welding rods and 3 inch studs put into the sanitary lines to shut down the system and cause expensive repairs.



The welding rod in the black water line on MON (it was near the galley if I recall correctly...prevented the entire forward end blackwater from working) was a specific example I used.  That line was cut open, hammered full of welding rods, then welded shut again.  

Harpoon WIU cables cut.

PA system speakers cut, ripped out of speaker boxes.  

Willful, deliberate sabotage.  By individuals, employed at ISI.  

We strip the ships of all fire-fighting gear because they'll use/steal them.  The brass fittings around the ship must be removed as well, otherwise they'll get stolen too.  How many ships did we have the brass hose-ends cut off and stolen before we started completely stripping the ships out?  One is too many.

That place is a cesspool, and I am honestly looking forward to seeing the iAOR show up on time (or early) and actually WORK so that maybe ISI can get their heads out of their butts and live up to their potential.

As I said to the gent...(he had been offering me a job BTW)....I have too much pride in self to let my name be on a business card with the Irving logo on it after the $hit sandwiches they deliver from their yard to the RCN.

NS


----------



## GK .Dundas

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The welding rod in the black water line on MON (it was near the galley if I recall correctly...prevented the entire forward end blackwater from working) was a specific example I used.  That line was cut open, hammered full of welding rods, then welded shut again.
> 
> Harpoon WIU cables cut.
> 
> PA system speakers cut, ripped out of speaker boxes.
> 
> Willful, deliberate sabotage.  By individuals, employed at ISI.
> 
> We strip the ships of all fire-fighting gear because they'll use/steal them.  The brass fittings around the ship must be removed as well, otherwise they'll get stolen too.  How many ships did we have the brass hose-ends cut off and stolen before we started completely stripping the ships out?  One is too many.
> 
> That place is a cesspool, and I am honestly looking forward to seeing the iAOR show up on time (or early) and actually WORK so that maybe ISI can get their heads out of their butts and live up to their potential.
> 
> As I said to the gent...(he had been offering me a job BTW)....I have too much pride in self to let my name be on a business card with the Irving logo on it after the $hit sandwiches they deliver from their yard to the RCN.
> 
> NS


I have heard stories about that over the years about Irving and it's interesting perception of "Quality Control " . 
To be fair I have also heard about Davie as well .During the early days of the City class deliveries .
What the hell is wrong with these people ? Don't they understand they could end up killing people in job lots ?


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I have heard stories about that over the years about Irving and it's interesting perception of "Quality Control " .
> To be fair I have also heard about Davie as well .During the early days of the City class deliveries .
> What the hell is wrong with these people ? Don't they understand they could end up killing people in job lots ?



Interesting question: Is it an abridgment of rights to ask an employee on a government defence contract if he or she has pacifist tendencies?  Or what their political views might be with respect to current affairs?

Edit: But we seem to be drifting from Admiral Norman's travails into NSPS discussions.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting question: Is it an abridgment of rights to ask an employee on a government defence contract if he or she has pacifist tendencies?  Or what their political views might be with respect to current affairs?
> 
> Edit: But we seem to be drifting from Admiral Norman's travails into NSPS discussions.



Political leanings don't seem to matter at airports, why should it in shipyards?   :


----------



## jollyjacktar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The welding rod in the black water line on MON (it was near the galley if I recall correctly...prevented the entire forward end blackwater from working) was a specific example I used.  That line was cut open, hammered full of welding rods, then welded shut again.
> NS



It was the same place ours was, in the EBR adjacent to the mini laundry on 4 deck.  We had 4 studs there which caused a problem, had to cut out the section of pipe to get them out.  Those studs were long enough that they could not have got in there any other way, except by sabotage.  When you guys had the same issue, we said to cut into the line at that location and, ta da! you guys had the welding rods.

I also remember expanding spray foam in the Stbd Fwd scuppers in the hangar.  Liberally applied about 6 feet in.  That was a real pain in the ass to get out. :clubinhand:

Not all of the Irving guys are lousy workers, some, honestly do want to deliver a good product (my youngest is one of them).  Sadly, there are some there who have an axe to grind and take it out on the customer.  I think that if Irving didn't treat it's people like shit at times, they might not have the issues of shit employees.



			
				GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I have heard stories about that over the years about Irving and it's interesting perception of "Quality Control " .
> To be fair I have also heard about Davie as well .During the early days of the City class deliveries .
> What the hell is wrong with these people ? Don't they understand they could end up killing people in job lots ?



Some of the QA disasters in the past have been self inflicted.  When we had some issues about 15 years ago on PRE, we looked into who was writing off on QA back in the mid-90's refit.  When the PO's and Chief saw the names, they said those particular guys were lazy fucks who would sign anything off and didn't give a shit about doing their jobs.  

As for the workers, why should they give a shit like we do?  They'll never sail on their products.  If they had some vested interest in what comes out, they might care, but as they don't...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

"Some of the QA disasters in the past have been self inflicted.  When we had some issues about 15 years ago on PRE, we looked into who was writing off on QA back in the mid-90's refit.  When the PO's and Chief saw the names, they said those particular guys were lazy ****s who would sign anything off and didn't give a crap about doing their jobs.  "

So what has the leadership done to change regulations so that cannot happen again?


----------



## Kirkhill

Two plugs in two ships of the same type in the same place suggests more than a QA problem.

In addition, if the work schedule as described in the NSPS thread is typical where does the RCN find the bodies to supervise/nursemaid all of those separate evolutions?  That simple cabling job would tie up a supervisor/project manager for a couple of weeks with ample opportunity for fun and games, especially if trying to oversee a few equally silly jobs.  Lots of downtime, set up time, clean up time, bodies coming and going.


----------



## Loachman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As for the workers, why should they give a shit like we do?  They'll never sail on their products.  If they had some vested interest in what comes out, they might care, but as they don't...



This is partly why I used to like taking techs on flights whenever I could - not that any of them ever gave me any real cause for concern.


----------



## donaldk

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> "Some of the QA disasters in the past have been self inflicted.  When we had some issues about 15 years ago on PRE, we looked into who was writing off on QA back in the mid-90's refit.  When the PO's and Chief saw the names, they said those particular guys were lazy ****s who would sign anything off and didn't give a crap about doing their jobs.  "
> 
> So what has the leadership done to change regulations so that cannot happen again?



Stand up of under-manned PMO dets (i.e. FELEX Det) and lack of post-ins to NDQARs seems to be the flavour of the day.  In terms of how NDQAR does audits, can't speak for what happened, however the inspection requirements quite often exceed the tech inspector's (TI) availability, postings/retirements for the military TIs (normally guys posted in are senior enough to pension out), and time is NEVER on your side.  As the 'XO' of NDQAR Marine, team motivation, keeping the internal admin horse-crap timely and dealt with, and workload balancing within the office goes a LONG way with my QARs doing better inspections out in the field (i.e. just because it's a CSE system doesn't mean the MAR TECH walking by should look away).  I also make a point of walking the job site when able and do take on odd jobs if required (e.g. just finished doing supply officer like work clearing out the warehouse leading the return of $10M+ unidentified serviceable stock properly back into CFSS).  

As for the 'policy of auditor conduct' (which I refer to as the DQA Quality Management System) is undergoing review and has been for a long time - however the reporting tools that it will call out and the express engagement of the client (TA/CA/PA spelled out in the contract) are already in play.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> This is partly why I used to like taking techs on flights whenever I could - not that any of them ever gave me any real cause for concern.



If you did have a concern... that is when the AERE should be embarked on the flight also  

Edit: Round 3 - had to get Loachman in.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Dumb question as I've never built anything as complicated as a ship....

For QA, does it not just make sense to have workers sign off on section production schedules that they completed the work on their designated  area and QA'd it prior to sealing it up?

I'm a little dumbfounded that there aren't incredibly tight QA controls on a military construction project that would allow such sabotage to get through.

Stuff like your talking about should have led to a public inquiry and a blackballing of the company.


----------



## donaldk

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> For QA, does it not just make sense to have workers sign off on section production schedules that they completed the work on their designated  area and QA'd it prior to sealing it up?



All depends what is spelled out (or CFTO routine called out) in the refit/DWP contract PMRS section, the hard part is when 'extras' (aka PWGSC-1379 forms) are involved - these often miss the inspection points and there are ALOT of them (anything added within 60 days of the docking is usually an 'extra').  Yards love 'extras' - the tax payer backed vote 5 budget not such much


----------



## FSTO

Latest news from Murray Brewster CBC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-leaks-investigation-1.4074493

No real info in this story, but I have a feeling that this has more to do with certain bureaucrats getting their poop in a knot over the circumnavigation of their cherished "process" by members of the government of the day.

My other question to people who are much more knowledgeable of procurement rules and regulations is this; are said rules and regulations set in stone and therefore are infallible and can never be changed? Or can bureaucrats admit the system is so broken that they need to toss out the entire thing and start from scratch? Is that even possible?


----------



## MilEME09

Given that the Senate just came out and said our procurement system is the most broken thing on earth, and the government hasnt said anything to defend it, I would say the bureaucrats cherished system of ineffective buying to inflate a process beyond what it needs to be might be getting the microscope on it.


----------



## ModlrMike

In analyzing politics, one must always ask "who benefits most?" In this instance, it appears that had the Davie project been scuppered, Irving would likely have been the winners. In addition, the optics point to transferring a project from a Conservative riding to a Liberal one. In politics, appearance is everything.

I'm sensing that VAdm Norman, as CRCN at the time, was exasperated by the pure politicking on behalf of Irving, and what the outcome would have been for the Navy had the project been stalled.


----------



## Kirkhill

Up in Alaska they fish for Pollock.  It is a billion dollar industry.  Now it is managed on a quota system and is one of the most, if not the most, sustainable fisheries anywhere.  It didn't used to be that way.

It used to be run under what were called "olympic" or "derby" rules.  The US Government set an annual catch allotment and then it was every man for himself.  The results were disgraceful.  Only 10% of the fish caught were turned into sellable products.  Only the most valuable parts of the fish were kept and other parts, good, nutritious and sellable in their own right, but not as valuable, were chucked over the side.  As sailors will recognize there is only a limited storage capacity on board a ship so it was desirable to keep the boat at sea as long as possible (you didn't want to fill your holds too fast) and come back with the most valuable cargo possible (fill up with roe and not fishmeal).  Fish other than pollock were chucked at the very beginning and went back to the sea dead - the government didn't allow them being processed.

There were a lot of fish and there were a lot of boats chasing those fish.   Based on the number of boats left after the quota system was imposed probably too many boats.

The companies employed a number of tactics, high grading - as described above was one.  Keeping their fishing holes and tackle "secret" was another (like every other fisherman).  They also put as many nets in the water as they could and scooped fish as fast as they were able.  This scooping invariably resulted in the season closing early which, coupled with the really low yields, meant many boats struggled to pay their bills.  If they had fished slower, processed more efficiently and co-operated more then more of them would have survived and the quota system would not have been imposed.  But that wasn't how it worked.

The base line strategy was beggar thy neighbour.  While there was fish in the water the purpose was to scoop them before the other guy could, even if you couldn't use them and had no intention of using them.   You wanted to drive the competition out of business by denying them a revenue stream.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Up in Alaska they fish for Pollock.  It is a billion dollar industry.  Now it is managed on a quota system and is one of the most, if not the most, sustainable fisheries anywhere.  It didn't used to be that way.
> 
> It used to be run under what were called "olympic" or "derby" rules.  The US Government set an annual catch allotment and then it was every man for himself.  The results were disgraceful.  Only 10% of the fish caught were turned into sellable products.  Only the most valuable parts of the fish were kept and other parts, good, nutritious and sellable in their own right, but not as valuable, were chucked over the side.  As sailors will recognize there is only a limited storage capacity on board a ship so it was desirable to keep the boat at sea as long as possible (you didn't want to fill your holds too fast) and come back with the most valuable cargo possible (fill up with roe and not fishmeal).  Fish other than pollock were chucked at the very beginning and went back to the sea dead - the government didn't allow them being processed.
> 
> There were a lot of fish and there were a lot of boats chasing those fish.   Based on the number of boats left after the quota system was imposed probably too many boats.
> 
> The companies employed a number of tactics, high grading - as described above was one.  Keeping their fishing holes and tackle "secret" was another (like every other fisherman).  They also put as many nets in the water as they could and scooped fish as fast as they were able.  This scooping invariably resulted in the season closing early which, coupled with the really low yields, meant many boats struggled to pay their bills.  If they had fished slower, processed more efficiently and co-operated more then more of them would have survived and the quota system would not have been imposed.  But that wasn't how it worked.
> 
> The base line strategy was beggar thy neighbour.  While there was fish in the water the purpose was to scoop them before the other guy could, even if you couldn't use them and had no intention of using them.   You wanted to drive the competition out of business by denying them a revenue stream.



And this has what to do about "VCDS relieved of duty?"


----------



## Kirkhill

Overly obtuse.  Sorry.

I am sure that Irving was quite happy to have Davie resurrect as a viable competitor.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I got it.

In your opinion, if Irving could not get the contract, they at least wanted to be be sure that Davie lost it, too.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I got it.
> 
> In your opinion, if Irving could not get the contract, they at least wanted to be be sure that Davie lost it, too.



Your reading comprehension is better than mine lol


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks SKT.  And my apologies to the rest.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Or, to paraphrase the Hunt for Red October:

"Zampolit: It is rumoured that Irving has a special place for Davie in its heart.

Captain: There is no room in Irving's heart for anyone but Irving!*"


*: And that means, not even for the Navy, to whom ISI owes its continued existence.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Or, to paraphrase the Hunt for Red October:
> 
> "Zampolit: It is rumoured that Irving has a special place for Davie in its heart.
> 
> Captain: There is no room in Irving's heart for anyone but Irving!*"
> 
> 
> *: And that means, not even for the Navy, to whom ISI owes its continued existence.



I believe I've said this before but Irving Shipbuilding exists to support the Irving Group of Companies.  That the Government of Canada uses them to build warships is of little consequence to Irving.  My opinion, Irving sees this as a way for them revitalize their own fleet of Irving Oil, Kent Line, etc... ships which are going to need replacement soon as the Irving fleet was built by their now shuttered Saint John Shipbuilding location.  These replacements will be funded off the back of the profits of the NSPS.

Yes the Irving group of companies have their own ships, railroads, trucking companies, steel fabrication, etc.  Nothing like government money for corporate expansion.

Note:  Forgot to mention that Irving just bought a refinery in Ireland with a plan to expand in to Europe.  Don't be surprised if some new ships get built for that purpose.


----------



## George Wallace

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I believe I've said this before but Irving Shipbuilding exists to support the Irving Group of Companies.  That the Government of Canada uses them to build warships is of little consequence to Irving.  My opinion, Irving sees this as a way for them revitalize their own fleet of Irving Oil, Kent Line, etc... ships which are going to need replacement soon as the Irving fleet was built by their now shuttered Saint John Shipbuilding location.  These replacements will be funded off the back of the profits of the NSPS.
> 
> Yes the Irving group of companies have their own ships, railroads, trucking companies, steel fabrication, etc.  Nothing like government money for corporate expansion.
> 
> Note:  Forgot to mention that Irving just bought a refinery in Ireland with a plan to expand in to Europe.  Don't be surprised if some new ships get built for that purpose.




 :goodpost:


So many people have no inkling as to how large an empire the Irving empire actually is, and how wide it is spread across NB, the Maritimes and the world.  So few know the other "names" that are part of the Irving "family".   

I remember when Canada Splint went on strike in Pembroke.  I said then and there, that as an Irving company, these guys were putting themselves out of work.  They didn't seem to know how the Irving's operated.  I said that they would close the plant and lay off all the workers, and that is exactly what they did.  The plant remained empty, still owned by the Irving's, until such time as the property was in demand at a higher property value and then sold to build a Retirement Residence.  Profit drives them and all their "family" of companies.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> 
> So many people have no inkling as to how large an empire the Irving empire actually is, and how wide it is spread across NB, the Maritimes and the world.  So few know the other "names" that are part of the Irving "family".
> 
> I remember when Canada Splint went on strike in Pembroke.  I said then and there, that as an Irving company, these guys were putting themselves out of work.  They didn't seem to know how the Irving's operated.  I said that they would close the plant and lay off all the workers, and that is exactly what they did.  The plant remained empty, still owned by the Irving's, until such time as the property was in demand at a higher property value and then sold to build a Retirement Residence.  Profit drives them and all their "family" of companies.



Aye, and they ARE NOT a publicly traded company.  100% owned and controlled by the Irving family and have been for a few generations.

K.C. was a great industrialist and a man with real vision.


----------



## PuckChaser

More info coming soon, Globe and Mail has won a suit to lift publication ban on the redacted documents.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-lifts-publication-ban-on-rcmp-case-against-vice-admiral-norman/article34791139/ (Globe has an adblock detector on now, so you'll have to temporarily disable to read article)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Aye, and they ARE NOT a publicly traded company.  100% owned and controlled by the Irving family and have been for a few generations.
> 
> K.C. was a great industrialist and a man with real vision.



I wouldn't mind the family so much if K.C. hadn't been taking all their money off shore and not keeping the money in Canada.  That trend continues, I believe.


----------



## Edward Campbell

So, the Globe and Mail reports that "*An Ontario Superior Court justice has issued a ruling to lift a publication ban and unseal large sections of a redacted RCMP affidavit concerning the criminal investigation of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for alleged breach of trust in leaking government secrets.*"

The order will be stayed for a week to allow VAdm Norman's lawyers to appeal but the judge said, according to the linked report that "*“I note that the main statements allegedly attributable to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman are contained in e-mails apparently written by him* ... [and] ... *It cannot be said that the mere fact of the communications in question leads inexorably to a conclusion of guilt such that potential jury impartiality would be compromised”*" ... [and] ... "*The judge went on to say: “Nowhere is there any suggestion that the man was even thinking of trying to line his own pockets, or get any personal advantage whatsoever.”*" Further, the judge said that "*“In my view, the mindset and alleged communications arising from it is hardly the stuff of stigma or moral turpitude* ... *At its highest, it appears that the potential allegation against Vice-Admiral Norman is that he was trying to keep a contractual relationship together so that the country might get a badly needed supply ship.”*"


----------



## Good2Golf

It seems as though the Ontario Supreme Court judge's mind is heading where many others seem to have been thinking, regarding the point that breach of trust, through existing jurisprudence, seems to require elements of the individual acting to their own benefit, counter to that of the Crown -- as Oldgateboatdriver notes in his post up-thread.

Regards
G2G


----------



## MilEME09

To me if his actions are as stated, he was committing rhe acts he did with the best intetests of the Navy, and by extention the national defense of Canada. Something that should be commended in my opinion 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## ModlrMike

If the Ontario Superior Court's view is upheld, this has the potential to seriously blow back on the CDS and the government.


----------



## PuckChaser

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the Ontario Superior Court's view is upheld, this has the potential to seriously blow back on the CDS and the government.



Concur. This could potentially be a Mike Duffy incident for the Liberal government, but with a lot more ability to embarrass because its easy to link to elected officials.


----------



## FSTO

The Norman issue came up on CTV's Question Period with the former head of CSIS. Right at the end of the piece old Craig Oliver stated without reservation that Adm Norman would do nothing to harm the security of Canada and inferred that there will be blowback on the perpetrators of this farce.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the Ontario Superior Court's view is upheld, this has the potential to seriously blow back on the CDS and the government.


:nod:


----------



## Loachman

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the Ontario Superior Court's view is upheld, this has the potential to seriously blow back on the CDS and the government.



I do not see this causing our CDS any problem, even with the revelatory trend happily moving in Vice-Admiral Norman's favour. Even a hint of impropriety would require such action as he took.

The government, and Irving, by comparison, will likely not look good as this continues to develop, and I'll not weep much for either.


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

> ....Craig Oliver stated without reservation that Adm Norman would do nothing to harm the security of Canada and inferred that there will be blowback on the perpetrators of this farce.


I agree with the first bit.  But I suspect that once the media and average Canadian see that there's no linking a high-ranking military person to sexual abuse, inappropriate PW training 20-30 years ago, killing subordinates with their panties on your head, etc.... the "blowback" will be insignificant.  

The CDS can justify his actions as due diligence.  The other target would be the government.  Is the media likely to hold this government accountable for _anything_,  let alone something as uninteresting as military procurement....?!  [Maybe I missed the public outcry at the budget putting defence $$$ in abeyance]

There's another day or two... maybe three because it's the weekend... of voyeuristic interest in reading any 'blacked-out bits,'  then it's no longer news.  Even for a wrongful dismissal suit, if there's cause, won't make it to page 3.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Loachman said:
			
		

> I do not see this causing our CDS any problem, even with the revelatory trend happily moving in Vice-Admiral Norman's favour. Even a hint of impropriety would require such action as he took.
> 
> The government, and Irving, by comparison, will likely not look good as this continues to develop, and I'll not weep much for either.



 :goodpost:

I'll add that should this all go pear shaped for the sunshine gang, I expect the monetary costs to be paid out as a result will be eye watering.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I found the view of Richard Fadden (ex-head of CSIS) more interesting: First of all, he called the type of politically driven / civil service arses-covering secrecy at issue here "*quasi*-confidential" as opposed to truly being national secret. Then he went on to state that this type of information is leaked over coffee by everyone on a daily basis in Ottawa. He finally concluded that, he sincerely hopes that this is not the type of leak at issue, but that to justify the unprecedented action taken, there is something truly much more nefarious at issue. He intimated that otherwise ....


Modified to replace "serious" with the word that was on the tip of my tongue and finally came to me: "nefarious".


----------



## ModlrMike

Loachman said:
			
		

> I do not see this causing our CDS any problem, even with the revelatory trend happily moving in Vice-Admiral Norman's favour. Even a hint of impropriety would require such action as he took.
> 
> The government, and Irving, by comparison, will likely not look good as this continues to develop, and I'll not weep much for either.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> The CDS can justify his actions as due diligence.  The other target would be the government.  Is the media likely to hold this government accountable for _anything_,  let alone something as uninteresting as military procurement....?!  [Maybe I missed the public outcry at the budget putting defence $$$ in abeyance]



I'm not sure I can agree with you. If the CDS acted at the urging of a cabinet official, or if the flash-to-bang time was protracted, it looks bad on the General. Of course neither the CDS nor Cabinet are going to admit that, but from what little has already been released, we can infer some political butt covering.


----------



## Kirkhill

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I can agree with you. If the CDS acted at the urging of a cabinet official, or if the flash-to-bang time was protracted, it looks bad on the General. Of course neither the CDS nor Cabinet are going to admit that, but from what little has already been released, we can infer some political butt covering.



The CDS, like every other soldier, still gets orders to follow.  And those orders come from elected civilians via their civilian minions.  

In any event, regardless of any orders, all that the CDS did was relieve him of duties, effectively suspend him, until the issue could be cleared up.  The Admiral would have been unable to function effectively in any event with an ongoing investigation hanging over him.

I don't see any issue affecting the CDS.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not quite how it works, Chris, but I agree with the gist of your post.

You may recall that, after it came out that the CDS had suspended the admiral, the minister indicated that he supported that decision of the CDS - not that he had ordered it. Same for the PM.

The investigation at the base of this affair does not originate from the Department of defence, but rather from the Government - who did not know where it would go after passing it to the RCMP.

Obviously, if as CDS I am approached by RCMP officers feeling me they will soon raid the house of my right hand man and that the actual investigation revolves around "leaking classified information", instead of mentioning that it is a 'leak" inquiry into cabinet pseudo-confidential information, my first reflex would be "Shit, he is talking to the Russians", or something and I would not want him anywhere near anything until I know more. It might have been different if the CDS had known from the start what, apparently, is truly at stake here from what bits are known. 

And if I was the CDS, knowing what I now know, and considering the time elapsed, I would be on my Minister's ace everyday to tell him "get the damn RCMP to either charge him now or clear him, otherwise I'll throw a wrench in your lovely plans by taking him back in his functions. Period".

But that's just me.  [


----------



## George Wallace

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The CDS, like every other soldier, still gets orders to follow.  And those orders come from elected civilians via their civilian minions.



That is insinuating that the CDS was ordered to relieve him of his position.

I tend to agree with Loachman and Journeyman, in suspecting that if allegations were laid against the VCDS, the CDS was being diligent in removing him from his post.  There was no implication of "guilty" on the part of the CDS; but a cautionary move to remove a person from a position of authority until the investigation had run its course.  Would you not think that to be the common procedure of any organization when it had a member being investigated in a similar manner?


----------



## Kirkhill

I'll stand corrected by both of you.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Maybe some of you are following this more closely than I ~ it doesn't get very many of "column inches" in _The Economist_, the _Financial Times_, the _South China Morning Post_ or even the _Globe and Mail_, which are my main sources of news and opinion ~ bit it seems to me that:

     1. Immediately before the election the CPC government (Stephen Harper, prop) fiddled more than just a few systems, potentially to shore up votes in selected ridings;

     2. One of Scott Brison's very first acts on being named President of the Treasury Board was to initiate a senior level (TB Secy and A/Secy's) review of those "fiddles"
         to ensure that there was some modicum of bureaucratic oversight ~ not an unreasonable precaution, given that Liberals had done that sort of thing time and
         time and time again over the decades centuries;

     3.  The fairly public Norman e-mail put what he (Brison) had hoped would be a low key but important pice of "good management" off the rails;

     4. Someone in his office ~ a neophyte political staffer, as they almost all were in late 2015 ~ over-reacted and called in the RCMP, saying that either
        'trust' or national security had been breached;

     5. The RCMP conducted a thorough investigation but they may have also jumped to a conclusion if what Ontario Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips
          says is both properly reported and a fair and accurate reading of the law;

     6. Vice Admiral Norman may soon be in a good position to cause the government HUGE political embarrassment; and

     7. Embarrassment is what frightens politicians more than anything else ~ Justin Trudeau isn'r afraid of Putin or free trade with China: it is screw-ups
          in cabinet and in the bureaucracy that keep him awake at nights.

Is that a fair reading of what has transpired?


----------



## George Wallace

I wonder is this may be part of what is going on with the VCDS being relieved of his duties, a side affect of this investigation:

Police arrest Toronto man on suspicion of spying for P.R. China is a thread posted in the Military Current Affairs & News forum here.

It in no way means that he was in any way involved, but more likely may be a sign that the Security at Irving is not up to snuff.


----------



## Navy_Pete

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder is this may be part of what is going on with the VCDS being relieved of his duties, a side affect of this investigation:
> 
> Police arrest Toronto man on suspicion of spying for P.R. China is a thread posted in the Military Current Affairs & News forum here.
> 
> It in no way means that he was in any way involved, but more likely may be a sign that the Security at Irving is not up to snuff.



That was a completely different story that far predated this; in this case the guy worked for a class society that was doing work with Irving on the CSC RFP.  He called the chinese embassy and offered them sensitive information.  There would have had a standard NDA between Irving and the company he worked for.  I hate to say it, but there really isn't any blame on Irving here either.

If I had to guess it probably had to do with specific requirements on the combat side; but to be honest that kind of info is available in Jane's and wikipedia after it's built (range, speed etc).  It's super amateur hour spy attempts, and I think it may have even predated when Adm Norman became CRCN.


----------



## Monsoon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is that a fair reading of what has transpired?


It seems not: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-sought-rcmp-probe-of-cabinet-leaks-on-navy-supply-ship/article34802910/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

According to the source for this piece (which can only have been the Liberals themselves trying to get ahead of the story), the direction for an RCMP investigation came from the PM himself.

Add in two interesting facts:

The order for the investigation came days after Norman testified in Parliament that he was worried the government cost envelope for the CSC project was way insufficient; and

Both of the journalists who reported the Project Resolve leak are now employed as Liberal political staffers.
And you've got yourself the makings of a scandal that goes right to the top. Something along the lines of:

"We need to get rid of this Admiral we don't like without the political blowback of firing him directly. Why don't you tell us who the source was for your Davie story so we can trigger a police investigation, and we'll give you a nice cushy job."


----------



## McG

So, now there is a cabinet level leak (sorry an "insider") that is leaking information about the investigation into leaks?   Will that be another investigation that needs to get started now?


----------



## Kirkhill

op: op:

At least a two bag movie this one.


----------



## ModlrMike

I'm suddenly reminded of that classic Shakespearean tragedy... Richard II. Particularly Act 5 "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"


----------



## Halifax Tar

Its really sad that with the exception of this forum and my uniformed friends this story is making nary a ripple with the public... 

Support for the military, a mile wide, no depth.


----------



## Monsoon

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its really sad that with the exception of this forum and my uniformed friends this story is making nary a ripple with the public...
> 
> Support for the military, a mile wide, no depth.


I've actually been surprised at the heft of the reporters the various outlets have assigned to this one: it's not just the usual "defence beat" guys (although about half of them are now Liberal staffers...). When the Globe/CTV puts Robert Fife on a story (and he accepts it), it's because they smell something delectable. If there hasn't been a lot of recent coverage it's because there hasn't been much to report; stories like this take months to get up a head of steam. I suspect things will start to get interesting after the publication ban on the RCMP affidavit gets lifted on Friday.


----------



## runormal

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its really sad that with the exception of this forum and my uniformed friends this story is making nary a ripple with the public...
> 
> Support for the military, a mile wide, no depth.



Do we really expect the general public to be on "the edge of their seat", regarding this or any other issue related to the military?

I agree, it'd be awesome if everyone cared about the issues surrounding the military. However outside of the P-Res, most civilians have very little interaction with the military in their day to day life.

Hell citizens of Toronto thought that they were being invaded.. when they did an excercise.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/military-exercise-toronto-us-election-twitter-1.3817563

That should show everyone the disconnect that the general public has with the military.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Monsoon said:
			
		

> I've actually been surprised at the heft of the reporters the various outlets have assigned to this one: it's not just the usual "defence beat" guys (although about half of them are now Liberal staffers...). When the Globe/CTV puts Robert Fife on a story (and he accepts it), it's because they smell something delectable. If there hasn't been a lot of recent coverage it's because there hasn't been much to report; stories like this take months to get up a head of steam. I suspect things will start to get interesting after the publication ban on the RCMP affidavit gets lifted on Friday.



I hope you are right. 



			
				runormal said:
			
		

> Do we really expect the general public to be on "the edge of their seat", regarding this or any other issue related to the military?
> 
> I agree, it'd be awesome if everyone cared about the issues surrounding the military. However outside of the P-Res, most civilians have very little interaction with the military in their day to day life.
> 
> Hell citizens of Toronto thought that they were being invaded.. when they did an excercise.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/military-exercise-toronto-us-election-twitter-1.3817563
> 
> That should show everyone the disconnect that the general public has with the military.



Well stated.  Still a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Lightguns

Well, they are not calling you "Federal Welfare".  They are not denying you a mortgage because you are in the army can't be trusted to pay a mortgage or making you pay a premium on a loan because of your military rank.  They are not barring you from their town because army guys are all molesters, rapists and trouble makers.  No one is giving you the finger when you drive in an army bus through their town.  And I kinda miss being called a baby killer.........  Things are 100% better than 30 years ago.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Well, they are not calling you "Federal Welfare".  They are not denying you a mortgage because you are in the army can't be trusted to pay a mortgage or making you pay a premium on a loan because of your military rank.  They are not barring you from their town because army guys are all molesters, rapists and trouble makers.  No one is giving you the finger when you drive in an army bus through their town.  And I kinda miss being called a baby killer.........  Things are 100% better than 30 years ago.



Well that escalated quickly


----------



## Kirkhill

I get what you are saying Tar but I think Monsoon has a point.  It is interesting (in a good way) that CBC, CTV and the Globe have all broken chunks of this story.

I wonder if some of the reporters may not have a special interest given the involvement of some of their own in the story line.

I'm still not getting what was "leaked".

The petitions to the Government are all perfectly legal and are/should be a matter of public record.
The decision of the Cabinet is also a matter of public record. 
And it is common for the concerned parties to be immediately informed of any tribunal's decision immediately, rather than having to wait for the press release.

The discussions within the Cabinet themselves were never (to my knowledge) released and that, in my view, is the only part of the proceedings that would have been confidential.

I'm not getting it.  ???


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I get what you are saying Tar but I think Monsoon has a point.  It is interesting (in a good way) that CBC, CTV and the Globe have all broken chunks of this story.
> 
> I wonder if some of the reporters may not have a special interest given the involvement of some of their own in the story line.
> 
> I'm still not getting what was "leaked".
> 
> The petitions to the Government are all perfectly legal and are/should be a matter of public record.
> The decision of the Cabinet is also a matter of public record.
> And it is common for the concerned parties to be immediately informed of any tribunal's decision immediately, rather than having to wait for the press release.
> 
> The discussions within the Cabinet themselves were never (to my knowledge) released and that, in my view, is the only part of the proceedings that would have been confidential.
> 
> I'm not getting it.  ???



Like I said, I hope he (Monsoon) is right.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

There is no getting it Chris.

Which, BTW, is the real story that is starting to emerge. And sorry to disappoint those of you who rehash the "Mile wide - inch deep" image. Here, the military implication is purely circumstantial to the story (other than the unprecedented removal).

The real story is a cabinet decision, allegedly "confidential" (Here I agree with Chris: It is not, only the advice of the civil service and the actual deliberations are - not the decision itself unless National Security is at issue, in which case it must be made to become covered by the National Secrets Act in its current form according to the agreed procedure - and I am only saying that to assuage those who would raise the "secret" decisions that were used of the Iran Embassy affair) political decision was "leaked" when they didn't want it to, as occurs on a daily basis in Ottawa according to the past head of CSIS*, and it pissed-off the PM and the head of the civil service because it foiled their politicking. They were mad enough that when the office leak investigation  failed to reveal the source (as should be since, as Yes Minister teaches again, the purpose of leak investigation is to make sure no one ever knows who leaked), they set the RCMP on to the trail as a criminal investigation.

Now this is the real story, and the real danger. This is like a SLAP suit we see by large corporations in the public courts, Libel suits taken by deep pocket corporations to silence their public  critics and create a chill against any further attempt at public criticism. In the present case, these leaks are the bread and butter in Ottawa - in fact, the way the article refer to "insider information" basically means that they were the recipient of a leak of that information. Similarly, when the media make a show of their "XYZ media has obtained this spectacular document through an access to information request ..." do you actually believe that they just happen to decide to ask for such document at random "in case". Of course not, somebody inside the civil service or the political staff  tipped them as to the existence of such document.

So the real story for the press here will be ultimately did the PM use the RCMP for political purposes of "chilling" leaks that make Ottawa and the media capable of doing their work. The military aspect is secondary and would not have been different if an Assistant Deputy Minister had been on the receiving end instead of an Admiral.

*: Or to put it the way Sir Humphrey did: "The ship of state, Bernard, is the only ship that leaks from the top".


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> There is no getting it Chris.
> 
> Which, BTW, is the real story that is starting to emerge. And sorry to disappoint those of you who rehash the "Mile wide - inch deep" image. Here, the military implication is purely circumstantial to the story (other than the unprecedented removal).
> 
> The real story is a cabinet decision, allegedly "confidential" (Here I agree with Chris: It is not, only the advice of the civil service and the actual deliberations are - not the decision itself unless National Security is at issue, in which case it must be made to become covered by the National Secrets Act in its current form according to the agreed procedure - and I am only saying that to assuage those who would raise the "secret" decisions that were used of the Iran Embassy affair) political decision was "leaked" when they didn't want it to, as occurs on a daily basis in Ottawa according to the past head of CSIS*, and it pissed-off the PM and the head of the civil service because it foiled their politicking. They were mad enough that when the office leak investigation  failed to reveal the source (as should be since, as Yes Minister teaches again, the purpose of leak investigation is to make sure no one ever knows who leaked), they set the RCMP on to the trail as a criminal investigation.
> 
> Now this is the real story, and the real danger. This is like a SLAP suit we see by large corporations in the public courts, Libel suits taken by deep pocket corporations to silence their public  critics and create a chill against any further attempt at public criticism. In the present case, these leaks are the bread and butter in Ottawa - in fact, the way the article refer to "insider information" basically means that they were the recipient of a leak of that information. Similarly, when the media make a show of their "XYZ media has obtained this spectacular document through an access to information request ..." do you actually believe that they just happen to decide to ask for such document at random "in case". Of course not, somebody inside the civil service or the political staff  tipped them as to the existence of such document.
> 
> *So the real story for the press here will be ultimately did the PM use the RCMP for political purposes of "chilling" leaks that make Ottawa and the media capable of doing their work. The military aspect is secondary and would not have been different if an Assistant Deputy Minister had been on the receiving end instead of an Admiral.*
> 
> *: Or to put it the way Sir Humphrey did: "The ship of state, Bernard, is the only ship that leaks from the top".



I suspect if this story starts heading in your highlighted direction someone will step in front of the PM and be quickly thrown under the bus.  I think we will find our PM is made of Teflon, nothing will stick to him.  

Now the fact that reporters like Cudmore are now government staffers, that reeks of patronage.


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> .....our PM is made of Teflon, nothing will stick to him.


Technically, it's not Teflon....


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I suspect if this story starts heading in your highlighted direction someone will step in front of the PM and be quickly thrown under the bus.  I think we will find our PM is made of Teflon, nothing will stick to him.
> 
> Now the fact that reporters like Cudmore are now government staffers, that reeks of patronage.



I think the candidate has already been identified.  It wasn't "just" Justin that made the decision.   He made the decision with "professional" advice, according to that latest Globe and Mail article.  Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick.

Sir Humphrey.  Ambassador to Zanzibar or New Year's List?


----------



## Loachman

Monsoon posted the link to this article earlier - here it is in full (highlights mine):

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-sought-rcmp-probe-of-cabinet-leaks-on-navy-supply-ship/article34802910/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

Trudeau sought RCMP probe of cabinet leaks on navy supply ship

Robert Fife  and Steven Chase  

OTTAWA

_*Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pushed for the RCMP to investigate leaks of classified cabinet deliberations *_regarding a $667-million naval supply ship project that eventually led the police to accuse Vice-Admiral Mark Norman of breach of trust, according to an insider.

The decision to ask the Mounties to probe the matter was made at the highest level of the government after an internal investigation by Security Operations at the Privy Council Office failed to discover the source of the cabinet leaks.

It is common for confidential information to be leaked in Ottawa, and it is unusual for a Prime Minister to get involved in summoning the RCMP to investigate. This sends a powerful message throughout the government and may account for the energy and effort the RCMP has invested over the past 17 months that now centres on Vice-Adm. Norman.

The insider told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Trudeau and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick were frustrated and angry that information about a cabinet decision in November, 2015, to delay approval for the project with Quebec's Chantier Davie Canada Inc. shipyard _*was leaked to CBC reporter James Cudmore, who is now a senior adviser to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan**_.

"The Prime Minister and the Clerk were furious and ordered the RCMP to investigate once the PCO [Privy Council Office] said they couldn't find out who was leaking," the insider said. "There was a lot of anger because cabinet decisions were revealed."

Mr. Cudmore had reported in detail on a Nov. 19, 2015, cabinet decision to delay the sole-source contract to Chantier Davie that the former Conservative government had awarded before the October general election. The Liberals, who had just taken power, had pressed pause on the matter while they fielded complaints about how the Tories had handled it.

CBC reported that James Irving, chief executive of Irving Shipbuilding Inc., had allegedly "meddled in the decision by sending letters to several cabinet ministers about the deal," saying his firm could deliver the supply ship at a lower cost.

A heavily redacted RCMP affidavit used to obtain a warrant to search Vice-Adm. Norman's Ottawa home on Jan. 9 demonstrated the level of concern within the Trudeau cabinet about the leaks. The affidavit included material from interviews the Mounties did with a number of cabinet ministers.

Treasury Board President Scott Brison told RCMP the leaks prevented cabinet from doing its job to properly analyze the Chantier Davie project as political pressure mounted in Quebec City for Ottawa to keep the contract in place.

"The rendering of this [classified information] into the public domain did an awful lot to limit our ability to what we'd intended to do, and that is more due diligence on this," Mr. Brison is quoted in the affidavit as saying.

The Liberal government, facing protests from the Quebec government and the union for the Chantier Davie shipyard, eventually approved the project.

The Prime Minister's Office did not respond to a request for comment from The Globe regarding Mr. Trudeau's role in initiating the RCMP probe.

A government official later provided a statement, saying the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is Canada's top bureaucrat, "may ask for the involvement" of the RCMP after an internal investigation.

"The RCMP will then determine if there are sufficient grounds to investigate," said Raymond Rivet, spokesman for the Privy Council Office. "PMO does not direct investigations and we cannot comment further as the matter is currently under investigation. The Government of Canada takes the issues of leaks very seriously."

The Mounties have alleged Vice-Adm. Norman violated the Criminal Code by leaking cabinet secrets. The investigation into the leaks - called Project Anchor - has so far spanned 17 months without laying any charges against the high-ranking naval officer.

A Chantier Davie executive who spoke on background to The Globe said the cabinet delay of the project was no surprise and that the company learned about it from two senior civil servants the day of the decision and not from Vice-Adm. Norman.

"We were told that straight after the cabinet meeting by the bureaucrats … so how did everybody find out there was going to be a delay in cabinet? The whole of Ottawa knew," the executive said.

The details of the RCMP allegations against Vice-Adm. Norman remain secret because large segments of the affidavit are redacted.

However, Ontario Superior Court judge Kevin Phillips issued a ruling on Friday to lift the publication ban and unseal 76 of 123 paragraphs in the affidavit - about 60 per cent of the document.

Justice Phillips' decision was stayed until this Friday to allow Vice-Adm. Norman's legal team to consider filing an appeal to a higher court. The Globe and Mail, later joined by CBC, CTV and National Post, had gone to court to get access to the RCMP document.

On Monday, Vice-Adm. Norman's lawyer said her client will not appeal Justice Phillips' ruling.

In his ruling, Justice Phillips said the "potential allegation against Vice-Admiral Norman is that he was trying to keep a contractual relationship together so that the country might get itself a badly needed supply ship." He went on to say "nowhere is there any suggestion that the man was even thinking of trying to line his own pockets."

The unredacted parts of the RCMP court documents suggest Chantier Davie and a sister company, Federal Fleet Services, were attempting to press the Trudeau cabinet to stick with the contract. Two weeks after the leaks, the Liberal government approved the project to transform a cargo vessel into a temporary navy supply ship.

As part of the investigation, the RCMP obtained search warrants in the last two months of 2016 to seize the contents of Vice-Adm. Norman's mobile devices as well as e-mails from Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services.

The Mounties also raided the offices of Mr. Fraser and three Chantier Davie executives and their Ottawa lobbyists.

*** While I am reasonably certain that Mr Cudmore was hired into his new position because of his excellent journalist skills, I could forgive somebody for wondering if a confidential source or insight was offered up in exchange. Mr Cudmore was once a Member here, and may still be, if memory serves me correctly.


----------



## Kirkhill

Do journalists have friends or interests?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Monsoon said:
			
		

> I've actually been surprised at the heft of the reporters the various outlets have assigned to this one: it's not just the usual "defence beat" guys (although about half of them are now Liberal staffers...). When the Globe/CTV puts Robert Fife on a story (and he accepts it), it's because they smell something delectable ...


... or because some former defence correspondents have ended up in ... eye-catching positions, they want truly arms-length folks on it?  #PulledFromMyHatGuess


			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> ... Trudeau sought RCMP probe of cabinet leaks on navy supply ship ...


Well, THAT certainly narrows it down re:  the reason for the interest ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... *** While I am reasonably certain that Mr Cudmore was hired into his new position because of his excellent journalist skills, I could forgive somebody for wondering if a confidential source or insight was offered up in exchange. Mr Cudmore was once a Member here, and may still be, if memory serves me correctly.


Given some legal history involving others, IMHO, we miiiiiiiiiiiiiight want to be careful about the type of speculating done on public fora here to avoid grief for the site owner.  Just sayin' ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I get that some members would wish to infer that the entry of Mr. Cudmore, amongst others, into the political staff of  minister has something to do with the investigation, but must say that, IMHO, I very much doubt any such connection.

While hiring political staff is easy, and therefore a nice "perk" a politician may grant someone, it is also just as easy to take it away, without cause, at any time thereafter. Moreover, it is also somewhat attached to the good fortune of the politician, either as a member of cabinet or as a member of the government. Considering the duration of one in a given department as minister, and the fact that there are elections every four years, I am far from convinced that such duties would be considered a good career move by an otherwise established member of the mainstream media. Especially when you consider that a few years as 'politico" may not necessarily make one easily re-hired in the said main stream media afterwards.

Put into the mix the fact that the political staffers salary is not necessarily any better than that of  established journalist, and I am not convinced that it would entice any of them to relent on the journalist creed of protection of confidential sources (something they go to court over all the time), especially considering what breaching that code would entail for any future employment as a journalist.


----------



## ModlrMike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick.



Has the sacrificial lamb already identified?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I agree with you OGBD.  I am also troubled by the casual impugning of the character of two men whom most on this board have never met.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ... I am also troubled by the casual impugning of the character of two men whom most on this board have never met.


Don't matter - once the partisan outrage bus is wound up ...


----------



## Kirkhill

I can't unsay words said.

Do I want to? I'm not sure.  

The public domain is rife with speculation. And some folks make a living speculating.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I can't unsay words said.
> 
> Do I want to? I'm not sure.
> 
> The public domain is rife with speculation. And some folks make a living speculating.


And some folks make a living litigating against certain forms of speculation.  I was just keeping the site owner (who's already dealt with legal beagles because of things posted here) in mind.


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And some folks make a living litigating against certain forms of speculation.  I was just keeping the site owner (who's already dealt with legal beagles because of things posted here) in mind.



I understand you milnews. And I share the interest in keeping this site and its owner safe.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I understand you milnews. And I share the interest in keeping this site and its owner safe.


Seen - actually just a reminder from the "glass is half full" part of me


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Seen - actually just a reminder from the "glass is half full" part of me


----------



## Halifax Tar

The story continues to develop:

*RCMP allege Vice-Admiral Norman fed cabinet secrets to Quebec shipbuilder*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-leaks-inestigation-1.4085703

The RCMP are accusing the military's second-in-command of passing cabinet secrets to a Quebec shipping executive in a cozy relationship meant to advance a navy project he "personally" favoured, according to a newly unsealed search warrant.

The court documents also say the Mounties suspect there were two government officials who possibly leaked classified shipbuilding information, but they do not name the other individual.

The documents establish a back-channel dialogue between Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and Spencer Fraser, the CEO of Federal Fleet Services (FFS).

The personal, sometimes profane, conversations started in mid-2015 soon after the former Conservative government entered into negotiations with the Levis, Que. company, CBC News has learned.


----------



## The Bread Guy

*Nothing proven in court at this point*, but more from the _Globe & Mail_ ...


> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman divulged cabinet secrets to an executive with a Quebec-based shipyard and advised him how to use the media to pressure the Liberals into approving a $667-million naval supply-ship contract, the RCMP allege.
> 
> On Tuesday, an Ottawa judge lifted a sealing order on a heavily redacted RCMP affidavit that sheds light on the criminal investigation that led to the removal of the Canadian military’s second-highest-ranking officer.
> 
> The affidavit includes e-mails from Vice-Adm. Norman to Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services, the company in charge of refitting a cargo ship to serve as a naval supply vessel at the Chantier Davie Canada Inc. shipyard in Lévis, Que. Chantier Davie and Federal Fleet are sister companies.
> 
> “I believe that Norman contrary to his obligation as an official of the government of Canada used his position as the Vice-Admiral of the Royal Canadian Navy to willfully provide, on an ongoing basis, information subject to cabinet confidence to Fraser in an effort to circumvent the established processes and procedures put in place by the government to ensure the secrecy and confidentiality of cabinet discussions,” RCMP Corporal Matthieu Boulanger wrote in the affidavit ...


... and from CTV.ca:


> The man who was Canada's top naval officer leaked cabinet secrets to a Quebec shipyard in order to pressure the government to move forward on a military procurement project, the RCMP allege in newly unsealed court documents.
> 
> The documents lay out the Mounties’ case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who was suspended from his role as the country's second-highest ranking military officer in January. The RCMP are investigating Norman for breach of trust and two breaches of the Security of Information Act. Norman's lawyer says he has served Canada honorably and is the victim of a bureaucratic crossfire.
> 
> The court records had been previously released, but were heavily redacted. CTV News joined several other media companies in arguing to have the records unredacted. Some sections remain blacked out to maintain privacy or to keep secret the cabinet discussions and investigative techniques covered ...


Funny how none of the media I'm looking at shared the whole document ...


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ....sometimes profane, conversations .....


I can't imagine Canadian military procurement discussions playing out otherwise.


----------



## Halifax Tar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny how none of the media I'm looking at shared the whole document ...



Meaning ?


----------



## Lightguns

The Irvings, "greedy and self serving"?  Lies, all lies any NBers can tell you otherwise, it's regularly published in NB papers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

He considers the Irving Executives as the "4 horsemen of the Apocalypse" I am really beginning to like the man.  :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Meaning ?


That media can be big about sharing what they read in a document, but only rarely shares said document for the rest of us to read - especially when it's a public (now, anyway) document.  It does happen occasionally, but not enough for my taste.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quoting here part of one my earlier posts in this thread:

[size=8pt]For those interested, here is a summary by the Supreme Court of what is involved in section 122 Breach of Trust by an official, together with the reference to the case if any one cares to read the whole decision - which goes into great details of the history and legal basis of official's breach of Trust:

The offence of breach of trust by a public officer is established where the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that:  (1) the accused is an official; (2) the accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office; (3) the accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office; (4) the accused’s conduct represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and (5) the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example,  a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. [58]/i]

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2006/2006scc32/2006scc32.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAPQnJlYWNoIG9mIHRydXN0AAAAAAE&resultIndex=4
[/size]

I still believe they will have (and it's probably the reason nothing is happening) a hard time proving any benefit to him personally (i.e. fulfilling the requirement to prove a purpose "other than the public good"). I also like how the affidavits indicate that the RCMP could not remotely get into his electronic devices. The Admiral was obviously taking his information protection obligations seriously.

Finally, from what we can read up there, I think that there will not be too many Canadians that will believe that the machinations behind closed doors of top civil servants (constantly called officials in the affidavits) and politicians truly are state secrets that are protected because they can harm national security. I think the population can easily see that it only serves to prevent the politicians / civil servants decisions to be scrutinized by the press and people so they can criticize the decisions, especially dubious ones.

Little additional personal view here: Anybody out there willing to bet against me that the "national defence officials" (and it is civil servants here) that worked with the ones at procurement services and didn't like Davie's proposal - thinking or alleging that the shipbuilding strategy would suffice even if 4 years behind - are the same that made all sorts of noise and inflammatory findings to scuttle the purchase of the two French Mistral ships the minister of the time wanted to purchase, again because it might endanger the strategy?


----------



## Kirkhill

> The RCMP interviewed Fraser last May, as they executed search warrants on his office and the office of one of Davie's lobbyists in Ottawa.
> "Fraser never mentioned he received information from Norman, but rather that *it came from the Integrated Project Team*," made up of top-ranking civil servants, Boulanger wrote in the court documents.



http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rcmp-allege-mark-norman-leaked-cabinet-secrets-to-pressure-government-1.3385461?autoPlay=true

Under the yes-no-maybe head.  Just curious.

Also curious.



> The e-mails between Mr. Fraser and Vice-Adm. Norman refer to *a source called “the Wolf.”* Mr. Fraser said the source told him in November, 2016, that Irving executives had met privately with the Defence Minister in Halifax. Vice-Adm. Norman wrote back to assure Mr. Fraser that the meeting did not take place, saying he was with the minister at all times. The court documents do not indicate the identity of “the Wolf.”



And 



> Section 82: On November 23, 2015 at 841 pm, Fraser sent an email to [Chantier Davie executives] Vicefield and Schmidt with the subject : Our friend has made an ask.’ The email stated: “He want us to discredit Hansen and he will go after *the Knight of No* re: TKMS.”



both from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/vice-admiral-norman-leaked-cabinet-secrets-helped-pressure-liberals-in-navy-contract-rcmp-affidavit/article34816333/

Two interesting personalities for digging? The Wolf and the Knight of No?


----------



## FSTO

The comment from Peter McKay to Scott Brison is one that could be made to every DM and MP involved in this file.


----------



## MilEME09

The knight of No, im calling the corporal at clothing stores that now. Atleast these names suggest Davie wanted to protect its sources. That said once the burracrats couldnt get thete way like they did with the mistrals someone had to be a scapegoat.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## FSTO

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The knight of No, im calling the corporal at clothing stores that now. Atleast these names suggest Davie wanted to protect its sources. That said once the burracrats couldnt get thete way like they did with the mistrals someone had to be a scapegoat.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



This is the image I get when I think of the military going to TB to request funding.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Adding to this ...


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That media can be big about sharing what they read in a document, but only rarely shares said document for the rest of us to read - especially when it's a public (now, anyway) document.  It does happen occasionally, but not enough for my taste.


... if you read all three most-recently-posted stories here, you'll see some overlapping, recurring elements, and some slightly different elements in each one.  The best way to untangle things would be to see the whole document.  And since I don't live in Ottawa or wherever the court document's filed, and it doesn't seem to be filed electronically anywhere, I live with the overlaps and differences.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... I think that there will not be too many Canadians that will believe that the machinations behind closed doors of top civil servants (constantly called officials in the affidavits) and politicians truly are state secrets that are protected because they can harm national security ...


But "cabinet confidence" doesn't _just_ cover security stuff, no?  *If all this is proven in court*, it may not cross the criminal breach of trust line, but it raises the question of how a senior officer can or can't undermine civilian authority/oversight.

When the Conservatives were in power, if a General Officer thought a fully-open tender was the best way to get the best ship for the Navy, what if said General Officer helped a company shut out of sole sourcing with exactly the same type of information we're talking about here, advising them on how to twist government's arm?  

If it's OK for one, it's OK for both, but if it's wrong for one ...


----------



## Kirkhill

Wasn't the project sole-sourced under the Conservatives?

There is more than one Devil in advocacy here.


----------



## Baz

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Adding to this ...... if you read all three most-recently-posted stories here, you'll see some overlapping, recurring elements, and some slightly different elements in each one.  The best way to untangle things would be to see the whole document.  And since I don't live in Ottawa or wherever the court document's filed, and it doesn't seem to be filed electronically anywhere, I live with the overlaps and differences.



The affidavit is at the CTV link posted above as a Scribd document in full; here is the link again: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rcmp-allege-mark-norman-leaked-cabinet-secrets-to-pressure-government-1.3385461?autoPlay=true


----------



## FSTO

My reading is that Davie saw an opportunity to fill a capability gap and put forward an unsolicited proposal that was accepted by the former government. That acceptance was (AFAIK) violently, in bureaucratic terms, resisted by the mandarins because it did not follow the "process". As if the process is inviolable law like the law of gravity. 
Irving led the charge to stop this madness which was followed by a cut and paste attempt by Sea Span. Admiral Norman felt that it was his duty as the head of the RCN to do everything possible to keep the project alive in the face of uninformed attempts to kill it. 
Mckay's comment to Brison to "Get your head out of your ass" proves (to me) that the Liberals were going to kill the project on purely partisan reasons and not for the best interests of the Navy and the Canadian public.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> My reading is that Davie saw an opportunity to fill a capability gap and put forward an unsolicited proposal that was accepted by the former government. That acceptance was (AFAIK) violently, in bureaucratic terms, resisted by the mandarins because it did not follow the "process". As if the process is inviolable law like the law of gravity.
> Irving led the charge to stop this madness which was followed by a cut and paste attempt by Sea Span. Admiral Norman felt that it was his duty as the head of the RCN to do everything possible to keep the project alive in the face of uninformed attempts to kill it.
> Mckay's comment to Brison to "Get your head out of your ass" proves (to me) that the Liberals were going to kill the project on purely partisan reasons and not for the best interests of the Navy and the Canadian public.



That sounds like the Lieberals, they're not friends of the Forces or the navy as far as I am concerned.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Baz said:
			
		

> The affidavit is at the CTV link posted above as a Scribd document in full; here is the link again: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rcmp-allege-mark-norman-leaked-cabinet-secrets-to-pressure-government-1.3385461?autoPlay=true


Thanks for that!


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That sounds like the Lieberals, they're not friends of the Forces or the navy as far as I am concerned.



Our Admirals have this unfortunate habit of publicly calling out the government's bullshit when it really affects the fleet. Hence the Navy's lack of representation at the CDS level. IMHO of course!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Wasn't the project sole-sourced under the Conservatives?
> 
> There is more than one Devil in advocacy here.


True dat - and I asked if it would have been OK for a GO went to a potential competitor and tried to help them twist government arms a different way in that scenario.  Hence the "if it's OK for one, it's OK for both, otherwise ..."


			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That sounds like the Lieberals, they're not friends of the Forces or the navy as far as I am concerned.


Outside of what we know about this siutation, does that still make it ok for serving officers to help third parties twist government arms on policies they're personally not in line with?


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> Our Admirals have this unfortunate habit of publicly calling out the government's bullshit when it really affects the fleet. Hence the Navy's lack of representation at the CDS level. IMHO of course!



Is there ever a good time to go tilting at windmills to slay the dragons?  I suppose you could say that at least they have the balls to stand up and fight.


----------



## jollyjacktar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Outside of what we know about this siutation, does that still make it ok for serving officers to help third parties twist government arms on policies they're personally not in line with?



Tough question, but if it's for the good of the service and country and should be done... then yes.  Too many times we've been saddled with shit just because it buys votes here and there.  LSVWs and Kim Campbell comes to mind.


----------



## MilEME09

To often we see flag officers hold back until they are retiring, they let it all out and get 15 seconds of fame and it's gone. Now a public battle over political interference, that would give the government a black eye, imagine if the CDS stood with the forces and called out the governments BS, firing him would make the government look guilty by removing a critic.


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Tough question, but if it's for the good of the service and country and should be done... then yes.  Too many times we've been saddled with shit just because it buys votes here and there.  LSVWs and Kim Campbell comes to mind.


Ah, but who defines the "good of the service and country"?  And what if there's a conflict between good of the service and good of the country?  Remember "loyalty up & loyalty down"?  In the example I gave earlier, different people would have very different answers depending on the government in power and the solution being proposed.


			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> ... imagine if the CDS stood with the forces and called out the governments BS, firing him would make the government look guilty by removing a critic.


But if the same CDS stood up to the previous government, would he have been seen as a hero or disloyal?  That's what I mean about "good for the goose, good for the gander" -- naive as it sounds, "right" and "wrong" can coloured in a pretty partisan way in such situations.


----------



## jollyjacktar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Ah, but who defines the "good of the service and country"?  And what if there's a conflict between good of the service and good of the country?  Remember "loyalty up & loyalty down"?  In the example I gave earlier, different people would have very different answers depending on the government in power and the solution being proposed.But if the same CDS stood up to the previous government, would he have been seen as a hero or disloyal?  That's what I mean about "good for the goose, good for the gander" -- naive as it sounds, "right" and "wrong" can coloured in a pretty partisan way in such situations.



You missed the third proviso, "and should be done".  I know, I know, you'll respond "who decides that..."  all I can say as don't ask me, I'm not an Admiral, just a plebe.


----------



## FSTO

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Ah, but who defines the "good of the service and country"?  And what if there's a conflict between good of the service and good of the country?  Remember "loyalty up & loyalty down"?  In the example I gave earlier, different people would have very different answers depending on the government in power and the solution being proposed.But if the same CDS stood up to the previous government, would he have been seen as a hero or disloyal?  That's what I mean about "good for the goose, good for the gander" -- naive as it sounds, "right" and "wrong" can coloured in a pretty partisan way in such situations.



Okay I'll bite.
I wasn't too pleased with the Davie proposal when it first came out because my perception was coloured by previous Davie production issues and I was worried about the product and timeline. I have been proven wrong and now see that there is tangible evidence that this way of getting a critical piece of capability may just work. Seeing that blatant politics are involved in attempting to pause or kill this project caused the Admiral to put his career on the line. I hope I would have the same opinion if this was team blue in the spotlight not team red, although the real enemy (IMHO of course) is Irving and the faceless bureaucrats at DND/TB/Public Works.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Project Resolve won me over too.  We need this ship's capability and if what the Admiral did, saved the day and all, then I support his actions 100%.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Project Resolve won me over too.  We need this ship's capability and if what the Admiral did, saved the day and all, then I support his actions 100%.



I agree but sadly that won't save his career. What he did was wrong but he did it for the right reasons in my opinion.


----------



## Rifleman62

> To often we see flag officers hold back until they are retiring, they let it all out and get 15 seconds of fame and it's gone. Now a public battle over political interference, that would give the government a black eye, imagine if the CDS stood with the forces and called out the governments BS, firing him would make the government look guilty by removing a critic.



The CDS, the Command of the RCAF (and the CFCWO/CCWO) re the CF-18 replacement Super Hornet/ F-35?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Was Davie actually in contract at this point if it was awarded by the Conservative government before the election?  Not clear if the contract decision was made but not actually signed between Canada and Davie.

I can see why this would be potentially considered unprofessional, but the duty to the elected officials vice Canadian interests can get fuzzy.  Certainly don't see anything suggesting this was for anything but the benefit of the Navy though.


----------



## Kirkhill

37. On July 31, 2015, the Government of Canada signed a Letter of Intent with
Chantier Davie and Project Resolve Inc. (Chantier Davie) to start negotiations for
the procurement of services agreement for an interim AOR ship. The relevant 
clauses of the Letter of Intent are set out as follows:
i.	The Government of Canada will enter into a non-competitive
Contract with Chantier Davie to retrofit an AOR for approximately
$667M.
ii.	Should the Government of Canada decide to not award the contract
To Chantier Davie by November 30, 2015, the Government of 
Canada is to reimburse Chantier Davie’s costs up to $89M.

(Transcribed from the RCMP deposition referenced here - http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rcmp-allege-mark-norman-leaked-cabinet-secrets-to-pressure-government-1.3385461?autoPlay=true )


----------



## Kirkhill

An even more interesting piece of information, IMO, is on page 49 of 97, under Appendix A.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rcmp-allege-mark-norman-leaked-cabinet-secrets-to-pressure-government-1.3385461?autoPlay=true

It is the "Briefing Note - Project Resolve AOR Gap Filler Solution" dated November 19, 2015.

It states "In December 2014 (Redacted) Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) invited the domestic and international marine industry to provide solutions to cover the Royal Canadian Navy's five-ten year operational gap in Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment ship (AOR) capability:

A competitive process, including a thorough industry consultation and industry event, was completed by PWGSC, the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) in January 2015.

As a result Canada selected Davie's solution, Project Resolve and has been negotiating with Davie on contract terms and conditions since June 24th, 2015 and terms and conditions are now agreed."

So the claim here is that in *December 2014* the Government of Canada *requested solutions* from industry at large.
Industry was consulted and submissions received and *decision made *in favour of Davie by *January 2015*.
*Terms and conditions* were hashed out by St-Jean Baptiste Day, *June 24 2015* and a Letter of Intent signed.

This from Irving Shipyard



> Statement from Irving Shipbuilding Regarding CTV Power Play Report on Refitting Commercial Ships to meet Canada’s Navy Need
> 
> *May 25, 2015* : Statement from Irving Shipbuilding Regarding CTV Power Play Report on Refitting Commercial Ships to meet Canada’s Navy Need
> 
> CTV host Mercedes Stephenson and participants in the panel, along with CTV's online story, suggested that "Quebec's Davie Shipyard will be granted the contract." However, *Irving Shipbuilding understands that the Government has not yet fully evaluated all industry proposals and has not determined which proposal will be selected.*
> 
> *At the request of the Federal Government in the fall of 2014, Irving Shipbuilding submitted a comprehensive proposal *and we have collectively spent a significant amount of time and money developing an innovative, low-risk, rapid, and low-cost ship conversion and crewing proposal. We expect that our proposal will be evaluated by the Government in an open, transparent, and fair manner and that the proposal that offers the best value to Canada will be selected.
> 
> We are very confident that our proposal is superior. It provides tremendous capability and flexibility to meet the needs of Canada's Navy in the shortest possible time, with the lowest risk based on modular construction in our new $350 million world-class shipbuilding facilities in Halifax.
> 
> We currently have over 400 workers on layoff. The conversion of a commercial ship to meet Canada's needs by the qualified Irving Shipbuilding team will allow us to recall workers on layoff, leveling our work force needs over the next two years and ensuring a smooth transition to building the Arctic Offshore Supply Ships.
> 
> Our workforce is ready and anxious to come back to work. Canada can rely on the reputation and the proven track record of the Irving Shipbuilding team to deliver this much needed capability.
> 
> We eagerly await the completion of this procurement by Canada in an open, transparent, and fair manner that achieves the best value for Canada.
> 
> -END-
> 
> CONTACT:
> 
> Mary Keith
> Vice President, Communications
> Irving Shipbuilding
> (506) 632-5122 office
> keith.mary@jdirving.com



http://www.irvingshipbuilding.com/BlogPage.aspx?id=604&blogid=315

Not only is this job being done cheap and fast (the third leg of the triangle, well, remains to be seen) but it also appears to have broken records for managing a "competitive" process.


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Tough question, but if it's for the good of the service and country and should be done... then yes.  Too many times we've been saddled with crap just because it buys votes here and there.  LSVWs and Kim Campbell comes to mind.



As long as they passed the online CTAT training, just like every Class A rookie, they should be good to go, right?


----------



## TCM621

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Ah, but who defines the "good of the service and country"?  And what if there's a conflict between good of the service and good of the country?  Remember "loyalty up & loyalty down"?  In the example I gave earlier, different people would have very different answers depending on the government in power and the solution being proposed.But if the same CDS stood up to the previous government, would he have been seen as a hero or disloyal?  That's what I mean about "good for the goose, good for the gander" -- naive as it sounds, "right" and "wrong" can coloured in a pretty partisan way in such situations.


The answer to that is easy. Rick Hillier is seen as a hero by most. I like the idea that Norman was willing to fight to get us what we need but he should have done it publicly. He tried to get what he wanted and not have any of the consequences that come with it. If he had taken all of this public and resigned we would be having a very different conversation. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## FSTO

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The answer to that is easy. Rick Hillier is seen as a hero by most. I like the idea that Norman was willing to fight to get us what we need but he should have done it publicly. He tried to get what he wanted and not have any of the consequences that come with it. If he had taken all of this public and resigned we would be having a very different conversation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk




There would have been no conversation at all because everything would be buried by the government and bureaucrats. GOFO's have resigned before over principles and nothing has changed. Admiral Norman may go down in flames but at the very least he has opened the door on the seedy underbelly of defence procurement.


----------



## NavyShooter

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Not only is this job being done cheap and fast (the third leg of the triangle, well, remains to be seen) but it also appears to have broken records for managing a "competitive" process.



Even if the 3rd leg of the triangle ends up just being 'good enough'  I think we'll be ahead on this one.


----------



## Monsoon

FSTO said:
			
		

> Mckay's comment to Brison to "Get your head out of your ***" proves (to me) that the Liberals were going to kill the project on purely partisan reasons and not for the best interests of the Navy and the Canadian public.


Remember that Brison is the ranking member of cabinet from Atlantic Canada, and as such is the de facto "Minister Responsible for J.D. Irving" (and is thick as thieves with them). He also seems to have been the minister who officially sicced the RCMP investigation on Norman, and despite the leak that attributed the decision to Trudeau, I have a hunch the idea originated with Brison (and the leak blaming Trudeau too).

The Globe article goes out of it's way to highlight the curious fact that the RCMP didn't bother to interview as part of their investigation the very journalist who produced the article that contained the alleged cabinet confidence. Almost as if they already knew what he'd have to say...


----------



## The Bread Guy

A couple of more renditions of the story, based on the same source document (via Scribd.com - well done CTV for sharing) - one from The Canadian Press ...


> The military's second-in-command leaked cabinet secrets to a shipbuilding executive as a means of pressuring the Liberal government to approve a $700-million contract, the RCMP alleges in newly disclosed court documents.
> 
> The Mounties say Vice-Admiral Mark Norman used his position to provide cabinet confidences to Spencer Fraser, chief executive of a special arm of Quebec City shipyard Chantier Davie that was in charge of a tentative project to convert a civilian ship into an interim navy supply vessel.
> 
> In turn, Fraser passed the information on to lobbyists and the media with the aim of ensuring final federal approval of the project, RCMP Cpl. Matthieu Boulanger says in his Jan. 4 request for a warrant to search Norman's house.
> 
> Ontario Superior Court had released a heavily censored version of the documents earlier this month. A fuller version was disclosed Wednesday after the Globe and Mail and other media successfully argued in court that the public had a right to know more about the allegations.
> 
> The RCMP request for a search warrant was part of a months-long investigation into how details of a Liberal cabinet meeting in November 2015 were passed on to defence lobbyists and the media.
> 
> During that meeting, Liberal ministers decided to push pause on the controversial ship conversion project.
> 
> "Norman was opposed to the delay in the (project) process proposed by cabinet and leaked information subject to cabinet confidence in order to achieve the result that he wanted personally," Boulanger alleges in his request for the warrant.
> 
> The Conservative government had awarded the $700-million project to Chantier Davie without a competition after the navy's previous two resupply vessels were forced into early retirement.
> 
> The request to search Norman's house came after the RCMP had already interviewed several senior Liberal cabinet ministers as well as influential Ottawa lobbyists about the alleged leak.
> 
> In his request, Boulanger says there were "reasonable grounds" to believe there had been a "breach of trust by a public officer," a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
> 
> No charges have been laid against Norman, who was appointed as vice-chief of the defence staff in August 2016, then abruptly suspended from that role without explanation on Jan. 16 by his superior officer, defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance.
> 
> Norman's lawyer, Marie Henein, said in a statement in February that the 36-year military officer "unequivocally denies any wrongdoing." ...


... and one from the _Toronto Star_:


> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman leaked secret cabinet confidences to an executive with a Quebec shipbuilding firm and coached him on how to use the media to pressure the Liberal government to move ahead with a supply ship contract that he favoured, a court document alleges.
> 
> An RCMP affidavit made public Wednesday sheds new light on the police investigation that forced Norman’s surprise removal as the second-in-command of Canada’s military in January.
> 
> And it provides a window into the cutthroat, high-stakes world of military procurement, where companies wield political influence and backroom discussions in the fight for lucrative contracts.
> 
> But now Norman’s long military career is under a cloud and in limbo as Mounties probe his alleged role in leaking classified information to Spencer Fraser, CEO of Project Resolve Inc., which was created by the Chantier Davie shipyard in Quebec to manage construction of an interim supply ship for the Canadian navy.
> 
> In the affidavit, RCMP Cpl. Matthieu Boulanger alleges that Norman, “contrary to his obligation” as a public official, used his position as a senior navy officer to “willfully provide, on an ongoing basis, information subject to cabinet confidence” to Fraser.
> 
> “I believe Norman did this to influence decision-makers within government to adopt his preferred outcome,” the police officer states.
> 
> Norman gave Fraser “continuous updates” of secret information related to the supply ship, known as auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR), directed the executive to discredit a critic of the project and “advised Fraser on the amount of pressure to apply toward government through the media.”
> 
> Boulanger alleges that Norman leaked confidential information about the ship contract to Fraser so that he could compel the new government to approve the deal for the new ship without delay.
> 
> “Norman was opposed to the delay in the AOR process proposed by cabinet and leaked information subject to cabinet confidence in order to achieve the result he wanted personally,” Boulanger wrote.
> 
> Boulanger, attached to the RCMP unit that handles sensitive and international investigations, says he has “reasonable” grounds to suspect two individuals leaked classified information, though the other person is not named.
> 
> According to the affidavit, the RCMP are investigating potential wrongdoing that includes breach of trust by a public officer, under the Criminal Code, and wrongful communication of information and allowing possession of document, two offences under the security of information act.
> 
> At the heart of the leaks is a contract given to Chantier Davie shipyard in Quebec to retrofit a private ship to serve as an ocean-going delivery vessel to carry fuel and supplies to Canadian warships deployed on missions.
> 
> There was an urgent need for the stopgap measure after two resupply ships were taken out of service in 2014, leaving the navy with no means to replenish its vessels at sea.
> 
> The RCMP say they suspect Norman leaked the classified cabinet information to Fraser, who in turn provided updates to the shipbuilding team in Quebec.
> 
> “A review of Fraser’s emails demonstrates that Fraser had a source of information he referred to as ‘our friend’ and that this source, I believe, was Norman,” the affidavit states.
> 
> Norman, it’s alleged, supplied Fraser with insider knowledge of the ship contract, providing the shipyard with “insight” on how to mitigate concerns ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You missed the third proviso, "and should be done".  I know, I know, you'll respond "who decides that..."  all I can say as don't ask me, I'm not an Admiral, just a plebe.


Just caught this - if it's any comfort, you're in good company in being a plebe (myself included in that group)  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62

> Boulanger, attached to the RCMP unit that handles sensitive and international investigations, says he has “reasonable” grounds to suspect two individuals leaked classified information, *though the other person is not named*.



Why has the second person not been named? A Liberal MP from PQ, or the PQ riding where Davie is located? (I am not PQ bashing). There has to be a reason why the name has not been released.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Why has the second person not be named? ...


That _*is*_ a good question - draws the eye a bit, doesn't it?


----------



## FSTO

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That _*is*_ a good question - draws the eye a bit, doesn't it?



Would that be "The Wolf"?

Love the Pulp Fiction reference though!


----------



## The Bread Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> Would that be "The Wolf"?
> 
> Love the Pulp Fiction reference though!


If Harv Keitel was involved in ship acquisition, I think a lot more would have been done a lot more quickly  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62

IMHO if the second person is _known_ but has not been unmasked or charged it would be for a Liberal Party reason, not a security breach or whatever to the nation. Is this person a Liberal MP protecting jobs in their area or Liberal Party connected? VCDS charged but not a connected person may be an interesting legal argument. 

Just speculation and curiosity.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> IMHO if the second person is _known_ but has not been unmasked or charged it would be for a Liberal Party reason, not a security breach or whatever to the nation. Is this person a Liberal MP protecting jobs in their area or Liberal Party connected? VCDS charged but not a connected person may be an interesting legal argument.
> 
> Just speculation and curiosity.



I understand the inclination but I think the thought is a bit premature.  Right now all we have is a big black hole that has the potential to suck the story line off its current course.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Your lack of faith in the Liberal party ethics is disturbing, but well founded.  :Jedi:


----------



## Kirkhill

From John Ivison:



> *John Ivison: If this is the case against Mark Norman, it’s awfully thin gruel
> *
> 
> John Ivison | April 27, 2017 2:50 PM ET
> 
> It is not yet clear whether charges will be levelled against one of the country’s top military officers, who RCMP investigators believe broke the law by passing sensitive information to the chief executive of a firm chosen to build a supply ship for the navy.
> 
> But, *based on the information contained in documents the RCMP filed to obtain a search warrant for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s electronic devices, the decision to prosecute would be folly and likely end up in another embarrassment for the Horsemen.*
> 
> I’m not a lawyer but I have seen this movie before. The RCMP sensibly decided not to lay charges against Nigel Wright, Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, at the time of the Mike Duffy affair because they decided that criminal intent would be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, on a breach of trust charge prompted by Wright’s decision to pay $90,000 of Duffy’s expenses, investigators did not believe that Wright received a personal or “tangible” benefit or that they would be able to prove “mens rea” — intention of wrongdoing.
> 
> “The evidence in fact shows that Mr. Wright thought it in the public interest to repay the $90K,” wrote former RCMP superintendent Biage Carrese in a 2014 report, obtained by the Globe and Mail through an access to information request.
> 
> The RCMP did pursue Duffy and received a bloody nose from the judge, who cleared the senator of all 31 criminal charges, deeming his transactions “unorthodox” but not criminal.
> 
> The Duffy affair is instructive because it suggests that a successful prosecution in the murky world of politics, in the absence of demonstrable bribery or corruption, is an exceptionally hard task.
> 
> A review of the documentation now publicly available in the Norman case suggests that not only is there so far no indication he prospered in any personal or tangible way, he had no criminal intent and believed he was acting in the public interest.
> 
> His lawyer, Marie Henein, has released a statement that denies the vice-admiral did anything wrong and that he has been caught in a “bureaucratic cross-fire.”
> 
> My suggestion is that the cross-fire is entirely political, as Liberal ministers from the Maritimes caved to pressure from New Brunswick’s powerful Irving family, owners of the Halifax shipyard, to delay signing off on a contract that had been investigated thoroughly under the Conservatives.
> 
> To recap — the government operated two Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment supply ships between 1960 and 2016, when both were decommissioned earlier than expected. This left the navy without a vessel of its own to resupply warships at sea.
> 
> The replacement ships were not scheduled to be in service until 2020, so the Conservatives signed a letter of intent with the Chantier Davie shipyard in Levis, Que., to negotiate an interim AOR ship — a retrofit that would cost around $670 million. As part of the agreement, Davie would be paid $89 million in reimbursed costs, if the contract were not awarded.
> 
> On Oct. 7, 2015, the commercial ship, Asterix, arrived at the Levis yard.
> 
> On Nov. 20, CBC reporter James Cudmore, now an adviser in the office of defence minister Harjit Sajjan, published an article stating the government had delayed deciding on the deal for at least two months to do more due diligence — a potentially massive blow for the Davie yard but also for Norman’s hopes of the navy getting a supply ship to fill its capability gap.
> 
> In the end, the government decided to proceed with the project, faced with the prospect of paying $89 million if it cancelled.
> 
> But the inquiry into how word had leaked out was already in train.
> 
> The committee meeting at which that decision to delay was made was covered by the rule on “cabinet confidence,” meaning it should not have been made public.
> 
> The investigation by RCMP corporal Matthieu Boulanger is detailed in the search warrant application that was made public this week when the documents were unsealed thanks to an application made by Postmedia and other media organizations.
> 
> Boulanger says in the documents he does not know who talked to Cudmore but he established a clear link between Norman and Spencer Fraser, CEO of Project Resolve, the firm selected to refit the supply ship at the Davie yard.
> 
> Scott Brison, the Treasury Board secretary, told Boulanger in an interview that “it made our jobs more difficult,” adding he could not remember a similar breach of Cabinet confidence. “The rendering of this (classified information) into the public did an awful lot to limit our ability to really do what (the committee) intended to do, and that is more due diligence on this.”
> 
> For a parliamentarian with nearly 20 years experience, that seems remarkable. Perhaps he should eat more oily fish. More likely, the Liberals were nervous about favouring a Halifax shipyard over one in Quebec.
> 
> It does seem clear from emails received by Fraser that Norman was sharing information with him regarding the government’s concerns around the AOR contract.
> 
> Before the Cudmore article was published, Norman was briefed by John Mack, then director-general of procurement services at National Defence, giving him an update of a teleconference in which Mack participated.
> 
> Emails received by Fraser appear to suggest Norman contacted him to advise of the potential delay.
> 
> The email, which Fraser then circulated to his superiors as coming “from Mark,” stated that “a cynical view could be folks manipulating the new government and trying to kill it (the Davie deal).”
> 
> The “folks” referred to are undoubtedly representatives of Davie’s rival, Irving Shipbuilding, whose co-chief executive James D. Irving wrote on Nov. 17, 2015, to Sajjan and procurement minister, Judy Foote, requesting his company’s proposal for a similar vessel be considered by the Liberals.
> 
> Boulanger considers the email “from Mark” the smoking gun that justifies charges of breach of trust by a public officer and wrongful communication of information, in violation of the Security of Information Act.
> 
> “The content of the email demonstrates that, despite being protected by cabinet confidence, Norman shared information subject to cabinet confidence … with Fraser,” he wrote. The allegation is that Norman tried to influence decision-makers to adopt his preferred outcome.
> 
> And that, essentially, is it.
> 
> Boulanger states that Norman’s conduct represented “a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the official’s position of public trust.”
> 
> This may be true. Some of the emails purported to come from Norman, or paraphrased by Fraser to others, make hard reading, not least the request to discredit a maritime security analyst at Dalhousie University, Ken Hansen, who had publicly questioned the need for the Davie supply ship.
> 
> But, unless something more damning has been discovered on Norman’s computer, it looks like thin gruel for a criminal case.
> 
> Every journalist, lobbyist and politician in Ottawa trades on gossip, some of which leaks out from cabinet meetings.
> 
> Even if Norman did pass on sensitive information, did he benefit and was there criminal intent? Apparently not. Did he genuinely believe the navy’s capability to defend Canada would be dramatically diminished without access to a supply ship? It would seem so.
> 
> Based on the documentation available, the RCMP has taken a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, ruining the career of Canada’s second-most senior military officer in the process.
> 
> After the raid on his home in January he was abruptly removed from his post, without a public explanation.
> 
> *The damage to Norman’s reputation will never be repaired but he can at least console himself with the thought of punitive damages likely coming his way, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer*.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-if-this-is-the-case-against-mark-norman-its-awfully-thin-gruel

That could be an extremely interesting civil case, if it ever came to trial.


----------



## daftandbarmy

More importantly, has anyone prooosed the ''Thursday Toast' yet?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To a bloody war and a sickly season ???  :dunno:


----------



## Half Full

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> More importantly, has anyone prooosed the ''Thursday Toast' yet?


Although I enjoy the old toasts...VAdm Norman would be the last person I would wish that upon.  He was the *ONE* and only bright light of the upper echelon here in NDHQ.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Still irked about the alcohol at sea ban he directed.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Still irked about the alcohol at sea ban he directed.


Moi aussi.
Mainly because the issue is the drinking ashore vice the minimum amount of drinking at sea.

Back to the case at hand.

In this piece by Murray Brewster, it seems that the supporters of Irving and Liberals are coming out to defend their actions. Its going to get ugly now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-vice-admiral-rcmp-davie-search-1.4087662


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The greater the defense of the Irvings/Liberals use and slander the Admiral, the more likely this will end up in court and may drag into the next election season.


----------



## Kirkhill

Timeline Update - incorporating both previous timelines, current news and the "interim" Icebreaker project.

Jun 2011 RAdm Norman appointed DComd RCN
19 Oct 2011 Irving and Seaspan selected for NSPS
12 Jan 2012 Irving and Seaspan and the Government of Canada sign Agreements in Principle

30 Mar 2012 Government of Nova Scotia fronts Irving 300 MCAD to modernize its yards
3 Apr 2012 Seaspan awarded 5 more Coast Guard MEMTVs and 5 more Coast Guard OPVs
Aug 2012 Irving asserts a suspected security breach in letter to Davie CEO Alan Bowen, ex-Irving employee

19 Oct 2012 Seaspan ground breaking on yard expansion - 170 MCAD of privately raised money
Nov 2012 Inocea buys Chantier Davie
12 Dec 2012 Seaspan and Government of Canada sign Umbrella Agreement

7 Mar 2013 Irving gets 250 MCAD AOPS definition contract
18 Mar 2013 Seaspan get OFSV definition contract
April 2013 Jared Newcombe leaves Irving after 24 years to become COO at Davie

June 2013 VAdm Norman appointed Comd RCN
June 2013 Berlin design selected for JSS
21 Aug 2013 Irving invests 300 MCAD in yard
Sept 2013 Irving sues Newcombe for Breach of Confidence
10 Dec 2013 Irving announces the expenditure of 175 MCAD at yard

Feb 2014 Irving expands statement of claim against Newcombe to include Davie
20 Feb 2014     Protecteur fire
20 Feb 2014 Davie anticipates need for, and develops Project Resolve (per Vicefield in Esprit de Corps)
Q2 2014  Davie makes unsolicited proposal for Polar Icebreaker
29 May 2014 Government of Canada rejects Davie ice-breaker offer

Fall 2014   Government of Canada requests AOR solutions
Oct 2014 Irving submitted a proposal for an AOR to the Government http://www.irvingshipbuilding.com/BlogPage.aspx?id=613&blogid=315
Oct 2014 Davie and Seaspan submit interim AOR proposals
11 Oct 2014      Michael den Tandt reports on sole-sourcing of Sea Sparrow replacement
2014      RCMP called in to investigate leaks
27 Oct 2014 OFSV 01 First Steel Cut
6 Nov 2014 Seaspan ceremony for new yard
22 Dec 2014 PWGSC invited industry to provide AOR solutions 

12 Jan 2015 AOR Industry Day held by PWGSC, DND & RCN
12 Jan 2015 "One-on-One" Industry consultations held on interim AOR
16 Jan 2015 "One-on-One" Industry consultations on interim AOR end
23 Jan 2015 Irving gets AOPS Build Contract

14 May 2015   Protecteur  decommissioned
25 May 2015 Irving issues public appeal to have its AOR proposal reconsidered
June 2015    Sole source rules adjusted by Conservative cabinet 
24 Jun 2015 Davie AOR Proposal accepted 
24 Jun 2015 Seaspan gets OFSV 01 Build Contract and has Keel Laying Ceremony

July 31 2015   Conservatives issue a Letter of Intent to Davie for the procurement of Resolve
July 31 2015 Government of Canada commits to 89 MCAD deposit and a decision by Nov 30 2015
2 Aug 2015  Stephen Harper dissolves Parliament
10 Aug 2015    Davie engages Hepburn to supply RAS engineering for Resolve
Sep 2015   Davie engages L3 MAPPs to supply Integrated Ship Systems
3 Sep 2015 First Steel cut on AOPS 01
Oct 2015   Davie acquires MS Asterix for conversion
Oct 7 2015 MV Asterix arrives at Davie’s Levis yard
Oct 2015    Conservatives approve plan but withhold authorization until after the election

19 Oct 2015   Election
4 Nov 2015   Liberal government sworn in
Nov 2015    Irving petitions the government to have the Resolve project reviewed
18 Nov 2015   Mensereau of Hill and Knowlton allegedly offers to feed media story of Resolve project being delayed
19 Nov 2015   Ministers apparently decide on invoking a 60 day delay on the Resolve project
20 Nov 2015    Defence Minister Sajjan visiting Irving shipyard
20 Nov 2015   James Cudmore breaks the Resolve Pause story
21 Nov 2015   Admiral Norman apparently considers offering his resignation
23 Nov 2015   Shipbuilders Association comes out in support of Irving
25 Nov 2015   Seaspan writes to government to complain about Resolve project
30 Nov 2015   Last day for cancelling Resolve contract without an 89 MCAD penalty
30 Nov 2015    Liberal government approves Resolve contract
04 Dec 2015   2012 OFSV design problem story released by Mr. Cudmore.
Dec 2015   RCMP called in to investigate leaks

12 Jan 2016   Defence Minister Sajjan hires reporter who broke the Resolve story as press secretary
19 Jan 2016   Admiral Norman on the promotions list for 2016
24 Feb 2016 Davie offers unsolicited proposal to lease four existing new Ice Breakers to the Government
10 Mar 2016 Murray Brewster breaks story of Davie's unsolicited proposal 
10 Mar 2016 Davie proposal criticized by Seaspan and Irving
11 Mar 2016 Davie proposal criticized by Mayor of Halifax and Premier of Nova Scotia
11 Mar 2016 Government of Canada says it will not entertain the Davie proposal
Apr 2016 Davie CEO and ex-Irving employee Alan Bowen promoted to Global Operations at Inocea of Monaco, Davie's parent
Apr 2016 Davie COO and ex-Irving veteran promoted to CEO at Davie

13 Jun 2016  Government announces “streamlined” CSC programme – Number of ships and budget unknown
5 Aug 2016   Vice Admiral Norman appointed VCDS (Edit per G2G and milnet)

21 Oct 2016   Preserver decommissioned
27 Oct 2016    CSC design competition announced
17 Nov 2016   Government launches official solicitation for lease of “interim” ice-breakers
24 Nov 2016   National Defence Officials Sign Lifetime Gag Order Over Fighter Jets
8 Dec 2016     Government holds Industry Day for “interim” ice-breakers

9 Jan 2017   Admiral Norman’s home raided by RCMP
13 Jan 2017   General Vance signs Admiral Norman’s orders relieving him of duties
16 Jan 2017   Admiral Norman officially relieved of duties
24 Jan 2017   Defence Minister Sajjan informs press the dismissal has nothing to do with National Security
2 Feb 2017 Davie wins Icebreaker St-Laurent refit
22 Feb 2017   Liberal’s hire the reporter who broke the Sea Sparrow story
23 Nov 2017  PWGSC amends “interim” Icebreaking and Towing proposal
23 Feb 2017   Admiral Norman hires Marie Henein as his lawyer
27 Feb 2017  Government deadline for “interim” ice-breakers proposals
27 Feb 2017  Davie/Federal proposal for “interim” ice-breakers submitted (terms as per Project Resolve)
28 Feb 2017   Government awards JSS Design and Production Engineering contract to Seaspan

15 Mar 2017   Murray Brewster publishes story on progress of RCMP leak investigation
27 Mar 2017   James Cudmore promoted to Dir of Policy at DND under Minister Sajjan
5 Apr 2017   Potentially exculpatory articles appear in the press – 15 months and no charges
5 Apr 2017   RCMP discovered to be investigating Admiral Norman for breach of trust
6 Apr 2017   PSPC Minister Judy Foote takes leave of absence for family reasons
15 Apr 2017 Closing date of Davie/Federal Project Resolute offer for interim ice-breakers

22 Apr 2017 Publication ban on search warrant lifted by Ontario Superior Court judge
24 Apr 2017 PM Trudeau and CPC Wernick implicated in action over leaks

Summer 2017 Decision on CSC design projected

Edit: As per info from milnet below.
Edit 2: to add in Admiral Norman's appointments as DComd RCN, Comd RCN as well as VCDS. 
Edit 3: to add information on Irving suing ex-Irving employees at Davie


----------



## The Bread Guy

Well done, Chris!  A tidbit to add ...


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> (...)
> 
> 5 Aug 2016 Summer 2016   Admiral Norman promoted and appointed VCDS (Edit per G2G)
> 
> (...)


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen and adjusted. Thanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

Irving vs Davie - 11 March 2016



> Federal government won’t entertain Davie Shipyard bid to build coast guard ships
> 
> By Steve Silva
> Video Journalist	 Global News
> 
> The federal government confirmed Friday it will not entertain a bid submitted by a Quebec-based shipbuilding company last month to provide ships to the coast guard.
> 
> “The government is committed to a National Shipbuilding Strategy which adheres to an established and competitive procurement process. There are currently no requests for proposals for‎ icebreakers and multi-purpose ships for the Coast Guard,” said Judy Foote, minister of public services and procurement, in an emailed statement.
> 
> There are and will be other other opportunities for other shipyards under the strategy, she added.
> 
> Earlier in the week, The Canadian Press reported that Chantier Davie Shipyard sent a bid to the government offering to build ships.
> 
> The proposal has the potential to undercut one pillar of the national shipbuilding strategy, which delegates the construction of civilian ships to Vancouver’s Seaspan shipyard.
> 
> The concern in Nova Scotia is that this could threaten Irving Shipbuilding‘s $25 billion contract for combat ships.
> 
> “I don’t know much about the detail, but I fully expect work that has already been awarded to the yards to be done in those yards,” said Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil on Thursday.
> 
> 
> “I think it’s outrageous for anybody to just throw in on an ad hoc basis unsolicited proposals,” said Halifax Mayor Mike Savage. “This is a big deal, and it came about in the right way. So let’s not make something that was so good be tainted by destroying a process that had so much integrity.”
> 
> He said Irving was picked fairly and that the contract should be honoured.
> 
> The first ship in the company’s deal is already under construction.
> 
> “We take very seriously a shipyard who lost a national competition, coming in and trying to threaten a really sound strategy,” said Kevin McCoy, president of Irving. “We’re not going to let somebody come in at the eleventh hour and say, ‘Well, I can do it better,’ when we know they can’t.”
> 
> In an emailed statement sent past broadcast deadline, Alex Vicefield, director of Davie, said the proposal was submitted for new classes of ships outside of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).
> 
> He said there are two offshore multipurpose vessels that are 40 and 70 per cent complete and could be bought for “a very attractive price” because the original buyer went into bankruptcy. There are also small icebreakers, and a polar icebreaker available.
> 
> When asked if Davie will go after the aforementioned Irving deal, Vicefield said it was not.
> 
> “No. We don’t understand the comments purportedly made by Halifax and Nova Scotia officials,” Vicefield said in a statement. “This has nothing to do with the NSPS or contracts which Irving Shipbuilding are hoping to get in Nova Scotia related to the [Arctic/offshore patrol ship] and surface combatants. Our proposal relates to ships for the Canadian Coast Guard outside of the NSPS packages. It seems someone has been feeding false information to them.”
> 
> With files from The Canadian Press
> 
> © 2016 Shaw Media



http://globalnews.ca/news/2573440/federal-government-wont-entertain-davie-shipyard-bid-to-build-coast-guard-ships/


----------



## Edward Campbell

One lesson from this, which apparently VAdm Norman did not learn from Prince Charles, is that electronic communications are not, inherently, secure and while, in the case of the Prince of Wales infamous "tampon" remarks, it may be illegal for almost anyone to intercept e.g. telephone call, including mobile phone calls, it is not (generally) illegal to forward or quote from a person's e-mails. 

Some of VAdm Norman's remarks, especially about selected and named individuals, were intemperate and will, I am about 99% sure, be used to smear him or, at least, to _contain_ any political damage he might do in a wrongful dismissal suit.

My personal sense, at this stage of the process, is that an inexperienced government overreacted and that there is considerable tension in official Ottawa between the many who are wedded to the notion of process and a few small groups including those (in this (Liberal) government) fascinated with "deliverology" and those very few (including VAdm Norman) interested in tangible, beneficial results. The "process" people are intelligent, organized and united ... the "fews" are anything but.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Off-the-books notes between vice-admiral and shipyard boss in 'legal grey zone,'



From the latest Murray Brewster article.  

"Legal grey zone".  Grey: the mixture of black and white.  And every bit of white constitutes "reasonable doubt".

All that grey is probably the reason for no charges after 18 months.


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "process" people are intelligent, organized and united ... the "fews" are anything but.



I think it's these process people that are more the problem.  Their process they defend and enforce is what is broken and makes it so difficult and disheartening to try and get anything procured in a reasonable time frame and manner.  It's unfortunate, in that they are intelligent, organized and united as it makes them hard to change direction or ways, go around or defeat.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think it's these process people that are more the problem.  Their process they defend and enforce is what is broken and makes it so difficult and disheartening to try and get anything procured in a reasonable time frame and manner.  It's unfortunate, in that they are intelligent, organized and united as it makes them hard to change direction or ways, go around or defeat.




They would argue that "process" is what makes government work as well as it does (acknowledging that it doesn't, usually, work very well) and (more important) what makes politicians and government "accountable."

I plead guilty to be more interested in the "machinery of government" than in either it's "inputs" (you and me, the voters and our wants and needs) or "outputs" (policies, plans, programmes and operations) because I think it is less surprising that we do govern ourselves than it is that we have found ways (ours are different from e.g. those in America or France) to do so with some reasonable levels of efficiency, effectiveness and political accountability.


----------



## Loachman

Process can be the enemy of efficiency, economy, agility, innovation, initiative, and timeliness as well.

Absolute prevention of error and abuse means absolute prevention of _any_ result, good or bad.

Process should help something good to happen, not stifle it.


----------



## FSTO

Irving now crying butthurt.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/irving-shipbuilding-says-norman-e-mails-unfairly-malign-company/article34842685/

Hey Irving! If the shoe fits.
It is well documented the poor product the RCN receives from Irving and they deserve every piece of bile tossed their way.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> They would argue that "process" is what makes government work as well as it does (acknowledging that it doesn't, usually, work very well) and (more important) what makes politicians and government "accountable."
> 
> I plead guilty to be more interested in the "machinery of government" than in either it's "inputs" (you and me, the voters and our wants and needs) or "outputs" (policies, plans, programmes and operations) because I think it is less surprising that we do govern ourselves than it is that we have found ways (ours are different from e.g. those in America or France) to do so with some reasonable levels of efficiency, effectiveness and political accountability.



Come on ERC.

You've been known to sing the praises of this character:







Minister of Everything.   Hardly a paragon of process.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Come on ERC.
> 
> You've been known to sing the praises of this character:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minister of Everything.   Hardly a paragon of process.


He was a Minister, not a General Officer _*alleged*_ to have counselled someone on how to diss competitors for contracts.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Come on ERC.
> 
> You've been known to sing the praises of this character:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minister of Everything.   Hardly a paragon of process.




Actually he was a bit of a "process" guy: our current National Harbours Board, for example, was his idea: to make the business of harbour development and maintenance more bureaucratic (process driven) and less about pork-barrel politics. His organization and management of the Department of Munitions and Supply seems, to me, to indicate an engineer's fascination with results and he designed several "processes," the echoes of which can still be seen today, as he tried to get politicians' hands out of the business of winning the war and letting the bureaucrats and his own "dollar a year men" get on with it.

I have argued that Canada made three really vital contributions to winning World War II:

     3. Organizing, managing and conducting the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan;

     2. Helping to lead and win the Battle of the Atlantic; and

     1. Being a disproportionately HUGE part of the "arsenal of democracy" in both agriculture and heavy industry.

Howe and his "processes" were a large part of #1.


----------



## Kirkhill

Howe's processes, like Beaverbrook's, had little to do with the modern processes of government, as you well know.

His processes were geared towards productivity with accountability rather than "accountability" for the sake of accountability.

If the modern mob were running the Air Training Plan we would still be trying to figure out what aircraft we were going to be using.


----------



## MilEME09

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/politics/globe-investigation-of-davie-shipyard-finds-complex-web-ofownership/article34857698/?click=sf_globefb



> A tale of two shipyards
> 
> 
> 
> The towering seven-storey superstructure that will sit atop Canada’s newest naval supply ship weighs 2,200 tonnes and is outfitted with cabins, provision stores and all of the vessel’s public areas. It is a key part of the ship and it cost tens of millions of dollars to build, enough to employ 400 people at its peak and provide a badly needed boost for a shipyard that was, until recently, on the verge of collapse.
> 
> In 2013, this shipyard was on its knees. The owners had announced plans to close it, putting 650 people out of work and ripping the heart out of a community where shipbuilding had been a way of life for centuries. Now, rows of soaring cranes dance above sleek warehouses.The sprawling yard is busier than ever, and nearly all the jobs are back.
> 
> This is a revival sparked by a Canadian contract, but the yard is not the Chantier Davie Canada Inc. shipyard in Lévis, Que., which was awarded a controversial sole-source deal by Ottawa to build the vessel and make Quebec a boat-making powerhouse in the process. It is Rauma Marine, a resurgent Finnish company in the small port town of Rauma, 250 kilometres northwest of Helsinki, where much of the work is actually being done.
> 
> The shipbuilding project worth an estimated $667-million Canadian, according to the RCMP, is at the centre of a criminal probe of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-highest-ranking member of the Canadian military. Vice-Adm. Norman, who has been suspended as vice-chief of the defence staff, is alleged to have leaked secrets to help Davie pressure the Liberal cabinet into sticking with a project the Conservatives awarded the day before the 2015 election campaign began. On Aug. 1, 2015, the Tories signed a letter of intent, the first step to a contract and one that committed Ottawa to a break fee of as much as $89-million.
> 
> The Liberals were concerned about the viability of the shipbuilder, and the leaks hindered cabinet from doing due diligence on the plan, which was meant to revive the struggling Davie as Quebec was attempting to position itself as a transatlantic trade hub. But as the Finnish connection shows, not all of the work is being done in Quebec, and there are questions about the long-term value of the deal for Canadians.
> 
> A Globe and Mail investigation has discovered that Davie is owned by a complex web of companies that can be traced from Canada and the United Kingdom to the tax havens of Monaco and the British Virgin Islands.
> 
> In addition, the investigation revealed that the company – which bills itself as the country’s largest shipbuilder – has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from lenders of last resort, including Bay Street financier Newton Glassman and a small financing firm whose directors own a Windsor, Ont., paving company. These lenders extend credit to distressed companies at annual interest rates of up to 25 per cent.
> 
> Alex Vicefield, a former British fencing champion and chief executive offier of Inocea Group, an offshore consortium that bought Davie five years ago, said the ownership group is not public information.
> 
> “It is a blend of Western European private investors and major U.S.-based financial institutions and banks,” he said.
> 
> He acknowledged that the company approached Canadian banks for financing, but said that without a final contract in hand, “there was far too high a risk for a normal bank to finance.”
> 
> The Quebec government also provided a $14.2-million interest-free loan to Davie in December to address the company’s “short-term liquidity problems.” The province and Davie are in a commercial dispute over a contract to build two ferries, which have faced significant delays and a $100-million cost overrun.
> 
> Mr. Vicefield said he did not want to discuss the ferry dispute and defended the decision to outsource part of the supply-ship project to Finland, saying Davie could not have delivered the ship to the navy on time this fall had it done the work in Quebec.
> 
> Project Resolve
> 
> The deal with Davie, dubbed Project Resolve, is unusual. Instead of buying a ship, the Canadian military will rent the vessel, even though the money Ottawa is spending is equivalent to – or more than – what it costs NATO allies such as Norway and the Netherlands to purchase similar supply vessels. Davie’s backers, not Canadian taxpayers, still own the new ship at the end of the day.
> 
> The Globe has also learned that ownership of the new naval-support ship has been placed in a separate corporation, called Asterix Inc. In the event that Davie and its sister company Federal Fleet Services go into bankruptcy, creditors cannot seize the ship.
> 
> “This is quite a standard thing,” Mr. Vicefield said. “The way ship companies work is for every ship you own, you put it in a single-purpose company.”
> 
> The federal and Quebec governments have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the shipyard over the past decade, including a $229-million federal Export Development loan to the previous owners for three offshore exploration ships for the oil industry. Only one of those ships was completed at Lévis in 2014.
> 
> Vice-Adm. Norman championed the Davie supply ship when the Trudeau Liberals swept to power in the fall of 2015. The Liberals decided to review the plan after Canada’s Irving Shipyards and Vancouver-based Seaspan – owned by a U.S. firm – said they could do it for half the cost and in less time.
> 
> Before the 2015 election, the Harper cabinet circumvented the government’s own rules to bypass an open competition and hand the supply ship project to Davie, which is based in the riding of then-cabinet minister Steven Blaney.
> 
> The RCMP allege in an affidavit filed in court that Vice-Adm. Norman divulged cabinet deliberations to one of the executives of the shipyard and helped devise a media and lobbying campaign to pressure the Liberals to go ahead with the contract.
> 
> The Mounties obtained e-mails from Vice-Adm. Norman to Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services, the company in charge of the navy supply vessel project. The RCMP allege those e-mails reveal the admiral shared confidential information with Mr. Fraser, who passed it to other shipyard executives, including the British owners.
> 
> Davie was passed over for major federal government shipbuilding contracts in a 2011 disbursement of work because it was insolvent and under court protection from creditors. The bulk of big-ticket military and non-military work went to Irving’s Halifax shipyard and Seaspan in Vancouver. The Davie shipyard emerged from bankruptcy protection in November, 2012, after it was bought by new owners, and began lobbying Ottawa hard for major work.
> 
> Financial records in foreign registries appear to indicate that Davie is owned by ZM Industries Ltd. of the U.K., which in turn is owned by ZM Offshore Management in the British Virgin Islands. Records also show that Federal Fleet Services is owned by Inocea U.K. Ltd.
> 
> Inocea and ZM Industries have identical directors, whose addresses are listed at a small accounting firm in a rundown area of mid-London. The Globe was unable to determine all the owners of ZM Offshore Management. A British Virgin Islands official declined to release a list of directors of ZM Offshore.
> 
> Mr. Vicefield told The Globe he and Davie shipyard president James Davies are the main principals of the three offshore firms, although he acknowledges there are other investors based in Western Europe and the United States, whom he refused to name.
> 
> “The actual structures are more complex than actually the way it is, which is a fairly simple organization owned by a group of individuals with different financial institutions backing us on different projects,” Mr. Vicefield said. “If you are looking for the ultimate beneficial owners of all it, you know, it is myself and Mr. Davies and then amongst different companies, there are financial investors who invested in different subsidies.”
> 
> Inocea and ZM Industries have borrowed heavily from lenders that specialize in distressed firms in need of a lot of cash to turn things around. The financing – at high-percentage returns – was used to refit the navy supply ship, and to assist in building two high-tech car ferries, contracted by the Quebec government at a cost of $125-million.
> 
> Toronto-based Callidus Capital Corp. lent $318-million to Inocea and ZM Industries, which used $309-million of that money, The Globe has learned. Callidus was paid interest rates in the high teens, according to a source with knowledge of the transaction.
> 
> Callidus – headed by financier Newton Glassman – bills itself as a lender of last resort that provides “fast, flexible and creative funding solutions to companies that cannot access traditional lending sources.” The company reports that it makes returns of 17 per cent to 19 per cent on loans. But Mr. Vicefield said in a telephone interview from Monaco that the overall cost of the borrowing was 3 per cent to 4 per cent. A source told The Globe that Callidus does not lend money at those low rates.
> 
> “It has been a great project from the financing perspective because we have been able to borrow at rates that are lower than the normal level,” Mr. Vicefield said. “That’s because of the credit worthiness of the federal government. That is why we are down at the 3- to 4-per-cent interest rates.”
> 
> The loan from Callidus was paid off in March, and Mr. Vicefield found new financing of $385-million from U.S. Bank National Association. That debt was then resold to JPMorgan and Anchorage Capital – a New York hedge fund that specializes in distressed companies and is known to be secretive about its clients.
> 
> The shipyard also registered a $57.5-million loan in March with Bridging Finance Inc., a firm whose directors own Coco Paving of Windsor, Ont. Mr. Vicefield said this financing was for the ferry project to help the shipyard’s cash flow while awaiting payment from the Quebec government for labour tax credits, he said.
> 
> Financial filings for collateral on the loans Davie owners have taken out show an annualized interest rate of 25 per cent. The holding companies put up the shipyard and Federal Fleet Services as collateral.
> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has been suspended as vice-chief of the Defence Staff of Canada, is alleged to have leaked secrets to help Davie pressure the Liberal cabinet into sticking with a project the Conservatives awarded the day before the 2015 election campaign began.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has been suspended as vice-chief of the Defence Staff of Canada, is alleged to have leaked secrets to help Davie pressure the Liberal cabinet into sticking with a project the Conservatives awarded the day before the 2015 election campaign began.
> 
> Cpl Michael Bastien
> ‘Full capacity’
> 
> Mr. Vicefield played down the high-risk financing and talked up the naval project as a boost to Quebec’s economy through shipyard jobs and purchases from hundreds of domestic suppliers. He was less willing to discuss the ferry project.
> 
> Quebec’s provincial ferry corporation, Société des traversiers, has already paid $125-million to Davie for the two ferries. This includes a $20-million payment that was made “under protest,” meaning that the provincial agency has reserved the right to seek repayment at a later date, according to a spokeswoman for the agency.
> 
> “I am not going to talk about the ferry dispute with the Quebec government,” Mr. Vicefield said.
> 
> A senior provincial official described the haggling over the two ferries as a mere “commercial dispute,” with Davie and the provincial Société des traversiers unable to come up with a final price tag for the vessels.
> 
> An independent arbitrator is being hired to determine the formal value of the two ferries, who owes what to whom, and to put an end to the $100-million cost-overrun dispute, a provincial official said.
> 
> The Quebec government is doing everything in its power to boost the fortunes of the struggling shipyard, stating it is convinced the current ownership team has a long-term strategy to win future contracts.
> 
> In an interview in their offices near the shipyard in an industrial part of Lévis, officials of the union that represents the Quebec shipyard workers said they signed a five-year contract with Davie last year to bring stability to the shipyard and be in a position to win additional federal contracts after Project Resolve is finished.
> 
> They said the shipyard is operating at “full capacity” these days, with about 1,400 unionized workers, administrative staff and subcontractors working on the supply ship and the ferries. They said the superstructure on the refuelling vessel would have ideally been built at their shipyard, but agreed with the company’s decision to do the work in Finland in order to meet Ottawa’s deadline.
> 
> They have no idea what will come after these contracts, with nothing in the order books that they know of, but hope that Davie will find its next act.
> 
> “We are starting to have job security, families are moving here, we know the value of having work,” said Steeve Sanschagrin, a steelworker and union official. “We have gone through years of misery. Now that we are working, we don’t want to lose it.”
> 
> A contract questioned
> 
> Mr. Vicefield and his partners sold the former Conservative government on the ship-leasing proposal after a 2014 fire destroyed the 45-year-old HMCS Protecteur, the last supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy. The navy has been relying on countries such as Spain and Chile to replenish its ships at sea.
> 
> The British entrepreneur and his partners bought a commercial vessel, the MV Asterix, in Europe for $20-million (U.S.) and are transforming it into what he says will be a $500-million interim oil-replenishment ship to lease to navy.
> 
> Mr. Vicefield insisted there is no risk to Canadian taxpayers, because his companies do not get paid until the supply ship is operational and the leasing payments kick in.
> 
> “We guarantee a fixed rate and we don’t get paid until we deliver that service. There is no mechanism for cost overruns. There is no money from the Canadian taxpayer until we actually deliver,” Mr. Vicefield said.
> 
> He maintained his companies will get paid far less than the $667-million (Canadian) identified by the RCMP in court documents. The government has said the supply-ship contract will cost Canadian taxpayers as much as $587-million, which includes five years of in-service support.
> 
> Mr. Vicefield said the lease contract is valued at $300-million, plus $150-million operational costs, over five years. Ottawa has an option to renew the lease for another five years as well as to buy the $500-million ship.
> 
> Kevin McCoy, president of Irving Shipbuilding, said his company could have supplied the same ship for much less, arguing the Halifax shipyard could convert an existing vessel and lease it to Ottawa for six years, “including maintenance … and a Canadian crew,” for $220-million. The work would have been done in Halifax and been ready last year, he said.
> 
> The Davie project, by comparison, was awarded in late 2015 and the ship is scheduled to be ready for service this fall.
> 
> Knut Arne Trellevik, director of Tudor Shipping Ltd., a ship brokerage, agency and consultancy, said Canada could have bought a similar ship for considerably less than the leasing arrangement it has with Davie. “The government in the U.K. and Norway and Denmark ordered the same ship from South Korea and the bill was $175-million all in, a complete ship,” he said.
> 
> He also pointed out that the naval supply ship is owned by Asterix Inc., which leases it to Federal Fleet Services, which will then lease it to the navy.
> 
> “So Asterix will always get the money, but if Federal Fleet Services goes bankrupt, Asterix is not bankrupt. The ship-owning company Asterix will not be part of the bankruptcy and they are within their legal right to do this,” he said.
> A Finnish revival
> 
> For companies around Rauma, the Canadian project has been a boon. The contract for the superstructure came just after the city bought the local shipyard from its South Korean owners and had begun trying to lure companies to the renamed Seaside Industry Park. Rauma Marine was formed at the same time by a group of local shipworkers, backed in part by the Finnish government. At its peak, the Davie project employed 400 workers in the shipyard, with Rauma Marine drawing on suppliers from across the region. The Davie contract was crucial to “keep [Rauma Marine] alive and continue their business,” said Timo Luukkonen, a city official who manages the shipyard.
> 
> And more work could be coming. The company that designed the superstructure, Almaco, is based in nearby Turku, and it hired Rauma Marine to do the construction work. Almaco has signed a technology transfer agreement with Davie, which Almaco officials believe will lead to more business in Finland.
> 
> Even if the Davie connection ends, the Canadian contract has already helped kickstart a revitalization of the shipyard. Today it is busier than ever with a major ferry project and clients from as far away as Dubai. There is new equipment in the yard, a steelworks operation, an assembly centre and docking areas that allow firms to build ships and large components onshore and then load them on to barges for quick delivery. More than 30 specialized companies have set up here and the city government is spending €100-million to make the waterway deeper so it can handle even larger vessels.
> 
> Mr. Vicefield said the Davie contract amounts to about $60-million in payment to the Finns. He said this represents less than 15 per cent of the overall contract between Davie and Ottawa.
> 
> The Trudeau Liberals were concerned about the financial viability of the shipyard and the cost of the navy ship when they formed the government and launched a review in late fall of 2015.
> 
> Treasury Board President Scott Brison told that RCMP that leaks to Davie executives prevented cabinet from doing its jobs to properly analyse the navy project as political pressure mounted in Quebec City for Ottawa to approve the contract.
> 
> “The renderings of this [classified information] into the public domain did an awful lot to limit our ability to really do what [the committee] intended to do, and that is more due diligence on this,” Mr. Brison is quoted saying in the RCMP affidavit.
> 
> In the end, a senior government official said, cabinet approved the deal because it would have cost $89-million to get out of it. Opening the competition would also have “significantly delayed” the supply vessel, badly needed by the navy to refuel its frigates at sea.
> 
> “We inherited a turd,” a senior official told The Globe.
> 
> On Friday, RCMP spokeswoman Corporal Annie Delisle said the force’s investigation into the leak of classified information continues.
> 
> Meanwhile, the new naval supply ship’s superstructure entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence on Friday, pulled by the tug Fairmount Glacier, which is due to arrive in Quebec City shortly.


----------



## Rifleman62

Half Full: you cannot post articles or links from that person here.


----------



## Half Full

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Half Full: you cannot post articles or links from that person here.



Curses...
My apologies.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Unfortunate, because he who must not be linked seems to be one of the very few people keeping up tabs on where the VCDS story stands.


----------



## Lightguns

So, the RCMP have found the leaker but are continuing to focus on the Admiral instead.


----------



## Strike

Lightguns said:
			
		

> So, the RCMP have found the _*leaker*_ but are continuing to focus on the Admiral instead.



I hate Trump-isms.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> So, the RCMP have found the a potential leaker but are continuing to focus on the Admiral instead.


Since it's not proven in a court of law at this point   


			
				Strike said:
			
		

> I hate Trump-isms.


Me too, but if Oxford and Harper-Collins is good with it, I can live with it.


----------



## Kirkhill

I reckon Trump is older than I thought.




> *leak*
> v.
> "to let water in or out" [Johnson], late 14c., from Middle Dutch leken "to drip, to leak," or from Old Norse leka, both of them related to Old English leccan "to moisten" (which did not survive into Middle English), all from Proto-Germanic *lek- "deficiency" (cf. Old High German lecchen "to become dry," German lechzen "to be parched with thirst"), from PIE root *leg- "to dribble, trickle." *The figurative meaning "come to be known in spite of efforts at concealment" dates from at least 1832; transitive sense first recorded 1859. *Related: Leaked ; leaking.
> 
> n.
> late 15c., from leak (v.) or Old Norse cognate leki. Sense of "revelation of secret information" is from 1950. Meaning "act of urination" is attested from 1934 ("Tropic of Cancer"); but the verb meaning "to piss" is from 1590s: "Why, you will allow vs ne're a Iourden, and then we leake in your Chimney." ["I Hen. IV," II.i.22]
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper



The font of all evil.  I hear he used to go by the name Beelzebub.


----------



## Journeyman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The font of all evil.  I hear he used to go by the name Beelzebub.


It's not so much the font, as the tweets themselves.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... The font of all evil ...


I thought this was the font of (at least some) evil ...


----------



## dapaterson

Quebec shipbuilder Chantier Davie Canada Inc. suspected Treasury Board President Scott Brison of doing the bidding of its Halifax rival when the Liberal cabinet hit pause on giving final approval to a $667-million contract to provide the navy with an interim supply vessel, according to RCMP affidavits.

The RCMP affidavits unsealed by an Ottawa judge on Wednesday reveal how Davie shipyard and its lobbyists reacted in November, 2015, after they obtained confidential cabinet information that indicated Ottawa might renege on the contract awarded by the Harper government.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com///news/politics/davie-shipyard-suspected-scott-brison-of-favouring-irving-in-dispute-affidavits/article36076369/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe


----------



## FSTO

I don't what Irving was smoking to think that they could deliver a ship a year earlier. Their reputation does not support that claim at all.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More from CBC's Murray Brewster:



> Lobbyists scrambled to manage Liberal cabinet's review of Davie ship contract, documents show
> _Judge unseals search warrants from RCMP's investigation of alleged cabinet leak_
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vice-admiral-norman-documents-lobbyists-davie-ship-1.4259758



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

> "*I spoke with CBC tonight and I know the source of their insight into Brison's review," Nicolas Ruszkowski, of Fleishman-Hillard* wrote before the story broke.
> 
> "There is a concern the information that was transmitted was transmitted without sufficient context. CBC was told this was possibly an Irving gambit, for example and if Brison caught wind — ever — that any of Davie's [government relations/public relations] firm was managing Davie's concerns at this early stage through the media, all the while doing Irving's bidding, we would have hell to pay."
> 
> *Ruszkowski went on to say that "knowing Scott Brison personally, as I do,* I can tell you that suggestion is not accurate."
> 
> *He also suggested he be allowed to manage the flow of information to the media *at that delicate point in time as the story was unfolding.
> 
> "Where *CBC is concerned*, between the enormous *amount of time and confidence we've invested in building a relationship with Terry Milewski and my close personal relationship with James Cudmore (we vacation together and raise our respective three-year-old boys together), I'd ask that activities be coordinated through* [Fleishman-Hillard]."



Nowt to see here folks.  You can move along now and let your betters sort these things out for you.  Don't forget to tug that forelock as you go by.


----------



## FJAG

A bit late on posting this one but being an old fan of the Asterix and Obelix comics, I'm a bit chuffed by the fact that the new Auxillary Oiler/Replenishment ship will continue to carry the _Asterix_ name.

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=interim-aor-unveiled-at-ceremony-in-quebec/j6wnzw5w

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill

Asterix is afloat.
https://twitter.com/chantierdavie/status/904692691002433538


And, Obelix is the planned sister.   I do like a sense of humour.
http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/DEFSEC-FOR-WEB.pdf


----------



## FJAG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Asterix is afloat.
> https://twitter.com/chantierdavie/status/904692691002433538
> 
> 
> And, Obelix is the planned sister.   I do like a sense of humour.
> http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/DEFSEC-FOR-WEB.pdf



Double chuffed!  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Asterix is afloat.
> https://twitter.com/chantierdavie/status/904692691002433538
> 
> 
> And, Obelix is the planned sister.   I do like a sense of humour.
> http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/DEFSEC-FOR-WEB.pdf



Davie is killing everyone with their PR game (even though I think Irving and Seaspan are both doing good jobs).  That is going to make for an awesome set of ship tshirts etc.

As opposed to * and failed ship mottos like M/V Asterix; Some Conditions may Apply!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes they have grasped the PR angle better than anyone. I challenged them a bit on their comparison of the Berlin Class and Resolve, in regards to propulsion. The Berlins have complete dual propulsion systems, the Resolve has a thruster as a backup, more of a limp home motor, with a side benefit of assisting in other operations. They responded quickly to point this out. I think this is one area the Berlins have over the Resolve and they want to gloss over it, I think it is problematic as it makes you wonder about the other claims. I am no expert but as far as I can tell, the Berlins are meant to be closer to combat and stand a chance of surviving it. I am not so sure the Resolve are as well prepared for that in regards to damage control and survivability.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You can't blame private companies for tooting their own horns. 

Of course the Asterix is not at the military standards of the Berlins. But for the 1.2B$ difference per ship for costs, is there a need for all of our AOR's to be fully mil specs?

As I have indicated before, to me the perfect mix is something like 2 Berlins for oversea service with the CTF or any other CAF deployment, as required, while you keep two Asterix' for home operations and training. While any of the Berlin is undergoing refit/maintenance period, you can then still use one of the Asterix if the deployment is in a safe area.

Flexibility at a reasonable cost, and no infringement of the Shipbuilding Strategy since both selected yards still build exactly what they were meant to build.

Personally, I would take them up on the interim icebreakers projects too. After all, the Diefenbaker won't hit the water before the mid 2020's and (1) the Louis is getting really beaten up right now and (2) the Radisson's are already 40 years old and as is now, will be in their mid fifties by the time their turn comes. The Coast Guard can use the relief of modern icebreakers now instead of 15 years from now.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Agreed,  OGBD that would be fantastic but crewing would be challenging.  We're going to have problems finding sailors for all that.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Davie is killing everyone with their PR game (even though I think Irving and Seaspan are both doing good jobs).  That is going to make for an awesome set of ship tshirts etc.
> 
> As opposed to * and failed ship mottos like M/V Asterix; Some Conditions may Apply!



Federal Fleet was very accommodating to my request for photos for my RCN page, they gave me access to all of their media pictures of the Asterix build, many not in the media. I made the same request of Irving for AOPS, nothing but crickets.

If anyone's interested.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/GOCANADANAVY/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1574518742606850


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Federal Fleet was very accommodating to my request for photos for my RCN page, they gave me access to all of their media pictures of the Asterix build, many not in the media. I made the same request of Irving for AOPS, nothing but crickets.
> 
> If anyone's interested.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pg/GOCANADANAVY/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1574518742606850



Great page Chief.  Thanks for doing that.

And speaking of Federal Fleet Services - don't they provide the answer to JJT's question above?  The "Davie" packages all seem to be based on FFS (sorry - chuckle alert  ;D )  providing ship, support and crew.

Final thought, wrt employment of the Asterix: not just for home service and training but also for open water and uncontested waters, permitting Task Groups to slingshot forwards with their Berlins retaining a full fuel load.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is, I think, a serious _*doctrinal*_ issue with what _Davie_ is proposing.

As I understand it, not doubt very, very imperfectly, the RCN sees an AOR as a combat vessel that sails into serious harm's way. Thus, it is armed and has a full military crew. _Davie_ is proposing something that goes beyond even what the UK's Royal Fleet Auxiliary does: they propose a fully civilian, not adapted civil service, system, contractor owned and operated, which, presumably, means that _Asterix_'s civilian captain could, legally, refuse an order from an RCN task group commander. Is that right, _matelots_?

I think there is a case for a government to say, to its Navy: rethink your fleet support doctrine, please, because we cannot afford to give you what you say you need now.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief: Super page. Keep it up.

Chris: Don't confuse "Canadian Territorial Waters" with home waters.  ;D

Home waters in the Atlantic is everything down to Bermuda and half way across to Europe, while home water in the Pacific is everything North of California to midway across to Hawaii. And, on top of that, I would not have any problems with the Asterix' operating in the Caribbean, in the Atlantic all the way to Europe and in the Mediterranean in support of EX there.

And yes, Federal fleet approach would solve most of the manning problems.

And ERC, we have used our AOR's in the past as semi-warships, but it is not the reason they were originally armed with the"bow-chaser" useless 3'50 gun. It was so we would get the warship rate going through the Panama canal. Otherwise, the main reason we used them in more dangerous area than most other navies was because they had the facilities to house the higher command teams (as in the Gulf war, for instance). It is not exactly ingrained doctrine. The RCN had the ships and they had the capability, so they were used. It's called doing with what you have, and as such I suppose it is general CAF doctrine.  :nod: 

And yes, a fully civilian captain does not have to answer to a military commander - so you don't even get to call it refusing an "order". If the military wants to put the Asterix - a ship that legally belongs to civilian - in harms way, there are provision in the contract for the Government of Canada to immediately acquire her and put a government crew on board.


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> is there a need for all of our AOR's to be fully mil specs?



Why not?

All of the Army's trucks do...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Actually Chris, OGBD the civilian crew portion of the iAOR is much smaller than the military manning.  The ratio keeps spreading wider too.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief, really great group of photos, thanks very much.  Really like the old school Hudson bay style fire blankets for some reason; that is much more homely looking than the standard itchy grey ones.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Asterix (and more from Davie?)--see mostly civilian-crewed USNS Robert E. Peary et al.:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USNS-Robert-E-Peary-TAKE5







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Asterix (and more from Davie?)--see mostly civilian-crewed USNS Robert E. Peary et al.:
> https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USNS-Robert-E-Peary-TAKE5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Yes but not really comparable at all with the setup with Federal Fleet.


----------



## jollyjacktar

No, not at all.


----------



## observor 69

This is the latest I can find  on this topic.

" RCMP should drop investigation into Vice-Admiral Norman, lawyer says."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-should-drop-probe-into-vice-admiral-norman-lawyer-says/article36054961/

Anyone have an update on Admiral Norman or did I just miss something in the news?
Just curious!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Pure speculation, but curious if they are negotiating a settlement for wrongful dismissal?  This whole thing is ugly, particularly when they have found a few civvies that also leaked the same info, and the whole thing was watercooler talk anyway.


----------



## Remius

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Pure speculation, but curious if they are negotiating a settlement for wrongful dismissal?  This whole thing is ugly, particularly when they have found a few civvies that also leaked the same info, and the whole thing was watercooler talk anyway.



Except that he has not yet been dismissed.


----------



## Kirkhill

And the options are what?

Reinstatement?  Leaving the government open to criticism and the Admiral free to speak within the limits imposed by the uniform?  Including the freedom to defend himself publicly?

Dismissal? Leaving the government open to criticism and the Admiral free to speak withinout the limits imposed by the uniform?  Including the freedom to defend himself publicly?

Keep him on the books at full pay until the Conservatives return to power and reinstate him prior to promoting him to CDS?


----------



## Remius

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And the options are what?



No clue.  I'm merely pointing out that he hasn't been dismissed therefore talk of some sort of settlement for wrongful dismissal is innacurate. 

The most likely outcome is a plum posting somewhere in Europe after some statements about how awesome he is and that he did nothing wrong.  out of sight out of mind until he can retire with the best possible pension in 2020. Then he might run for politics or write a book.  He'll never be CDS after this, guilty or not.


----------



## Ostrozac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And the options are what?



Isn't one of the options to drag out the investigation until the Admiral hits Compulsory Retirement Age, and therefore has to be released? Therefore preventing the member coming back into uniformed service, while also not having to actually prove any allegations.

If memory serves, that's a common tactic being used by the SQ and RCMP when dealing with bikers in Quebec, make an arrest, investigate a crime for 5-10 years or so, then let the accused go with time served, but never actually go to trial.

VAdm Norman graduated from Queen's in 1985. That means he probably finished Grade 13 in 1981, with a probable birth year of 1962. Can they drag this thing on until 2022?


----------



## PuckChaser

VAdm pay, mission accomplished stopping the Liberals from ending the badly needed Asterix purchase, and he doesn't have to go to work. 

Where do I sign up?


----------



## brihard

Another consideration- Loss of security clearance. There doesn’t need to be any finding of guilt, and loss of clearance can be an instant death blow for a military career, leading to release.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Any which way you look at it, his credibility has taken damage regardless of any determination of culpability.  His career was over the minute the Mounties raided his home.  To have this drag on for a year now, only increases the damage done.  I am sure the monies awarded will be substantial, when that day arrives.


----------



## Ostrozac

There are many ways that this could end, of course. In between full reinstatement to duty with an apology and a cash payout and criminal prosecution leading to conviction are a host of other ways that this situation could play out.

Part of me wonders if this could eventually lead to a General Court Martial -- that would require yet another LGen/VAdm to be taken away from his day job in order to serve as the senior member of the panel.


----------



## Rifleman62

I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's.


----------



## Kirkhill

I doubt that VAdm Norman will ever be found guilty of anything

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-lifts-publication-ban-on-rcmp-case-against-vice-admiral-norman/article34791139/



> "I note that the main statements allegedly attributable to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman are contained in e-mails apparently written by him," Justice Phillips said. "*It cannot be said that the mere fact of the communications in question leads inexorably to a conclusion of guilt *such that potential jury impartiality would be compromised."
> 
> The judge went on to say: "*Nowhere is there any suggestion that the man was even thinking of trying to line his own pockets, or get any personal advantage whatsoever.*"
> 
> Vice-Adm. Norman had expressed concerns in e-mails obtained by The Globe that any delay in the supply ship refit could pose serious problems for the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> Justice Phillips also dismissed concerns the affidavit would stigmatize Vice-Adm. Norman, saying it might actually help his legal defence should he eventually be charged with breach of trust.
> 
> "In my view, the mindset and alleged communications arising from it is hardly the stuff of stigma or moral turpitude," he wrote. "*At its highest, it appears that the potential allegation against Vice-Admiral Norman is that he was trying to keep a contractual relationship together so that the country might get a badly needed supply ship*."


----------



## FJAG

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's.



While I'm very sensitive to the political aspects of this case, I'd just like to remind folks that both the NIS and the Director of Military Prosecutions are independent agencies by way of legislation. The test for whether or not there will be a court martial is whether anything has been done which is an offense and whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the "public" interest to proceed.

Any interference by the chain of command or the political leadership would lead to a scandal well beyond what there is now.

 :cheers:


----------



## Rifleman62

The gist of my post was not aimed at the NIS and the Director of Military Prosecutions. I thought it was the RCMP who was doing the investigation, and who would lay/recommend or not lay/recommend charges, thus "I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's".

Or, am I missing something and or the responsibility and sequence.


----------



## FJAG

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The gist of my post was not aimed at the NIS and the Director of Military Prosecutions. I thought it was the RCMP who was doing the investigation, and who would lay/recommend or not lay/recommend charges, thus "I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's".
> 
> Or, am I missing something and or the responsibility and sequence.



??? - I'm a bit confused. I cued on the word "CM" so thought you were alluding to a process that would end up in military charges regardless who is investigating now. I'd be surprised if there isn't cooperation/communication between the RCMP and NIS (and DoJ and DMP lawyers) as the offences (if any) would relate to his military duties (and/or breach thereof).

Conceivably the RCMP could find offences under other federal legislation that could end up being prosecuted in a civilian court by DoJ prosecutors and not a CM. 

Regardless, the police and prosecutors (whether military or civilian) run investigations/prosecutions that are independent of political interference. All of these organizations are subject to leaks if individuals feel that political interference has curtailed the administration of justice and, again, the consequences of such interference would exceed the existing circumstances.

I think that the most probable reason that a case won't get to trial is if it is concluded that either there was no offence committed or even if there was that the evidence/case is so questionable that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

 :cheers:


----------



## McG

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The gist of my post was not aimed at the NIS and the Director of Military Prosecutions. I thought it was the RCMP who was doing the investigation, and who would lay/recommend or not lay/recommend charges, thus "I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's".
> 
> Or, am I missing something and or the responsibility and sequence.


You seem to still be saying that the decision to go to a court martial will be a politically driven decision.

RCMP lay criminal charges that go to civilian court and not to Court martial. If that is what you are trying to state, then the comments about the government not wanting an open trial are irrelevant to your point.


----------



## brihard

The investigation is RCMP, though I imagine NIS has been involved too in order to access military documents and information systems...


----------



## FSTO

CBC keeping the story alive.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-case-prosecutors-1.4478470

There was also a quick blurb on CTV's Question Period last week. 

I have a feeling that senior government and military people are wishing that they never pulled the trigger so quick. Like all bad news it never gets any better with time.


----------



## garb811

FSTO said:
			
		

> CBC keeping the story alive.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-case-prosecutors-1.4478470
> 
> There was also a quick blurb on CTV's Question Period last week.
> 
> I have a feeling that senior government and military people are wishing that they never pulled the trigger so quick. Like all bad news it never gets any better with time.



And if nothing had been done even after the CDS had been briefed in on the investigation and it turns out he had been leaking, what then?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

garb811 said:
			
		

> And if nothing had been done even after the CDS had been briefed in on the investigation and it turns out he had been leaking, what then?



Indeed. But what now?


----------



## garb811

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Indeed. But what now?



Same thing that happens with any other member of the CAF who has a serious allegation made against them which doesn't end in a conviction for a criminal or service offence.  Conduct an AR to see if they are subject to any administrative measures.  That would, of course, include the determination of if the member should continue to serve, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations did not lead to charges and/or were not proven in court if charges did result.

Fortunately, these procedures are well defined and exercised on a regular basis within the CAF and I would expect they would apply, and be applied, to the VCDS no differently than they would to any other member.


----------



## Remius

garb811 said:
			
		

> Same thing that happens with any other member of the CAF who has a serious allegation made against them which doesn't end in a conviction for a criminal or service offence.  Conduct an AR to see if they are subject to any administrative measures.  That would, of course, include the determination of if the member should continue to serve, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations did not lead to charges and/or were not proven in court if charges did result.
> 
> Fortunately, these procedures are well defined and exercised on a regular basis within the CAF and I would expect they would apply, and be applied, to the VCDS no differently than they would to any other member.



Careful now...you sound like you make sense.


----------



## tomahawk6

Could the VCDS be forced to retire ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

All of our flag officers serve at the Queen's discretion and therefore, can be told at any point by the siting government that their services are no longer required.

It doesn't look good to do so for the government if there is an apparent underlying "reason". But, yes, they can be "released - services no longer required".


----------



## PuckChaser

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Could the VCDS be forced to retire ?



I hope so, right before the election. Then he'll be free to give media engagements.


----------



## Remius

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I hope so, right before the election. Then he'll be free to give media engagements.



Not unless he wants to bring a civil suit forward in which case he'd be wise to keep quiet until his day in court.


----------



## Good2Golf

garb811 said:
			
		

> Same thing that happens with any other member of the CAF who has a serious allegation made against them which doesn't end in a conviction for a criminal or service offence.  Conduct an AR to see if they are subject to any administrative measures.  That would, of course, include the determination of if the member should continue to serve, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations did not lead to charges and/or were not proven in court if charges did result.
> 
> Fortunately, these procedures are well defined and exercised on a regular basis within the CAF and I would expect they would apply, and be applied, to the VCDS no differently than they would to any other member.



ARs conducted on a regular basis?

I think you’re being generous to the CAF _writ large_, there Garb.  Not that it shouldn’t be regular, but I would say “from time to
time, the Administrative Review process is used for the purposes for which it was intended.”  I think there in an institutional hesitance to use the administrative tools available at the CAF’s disposal. 

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Kat Stevens

garb811 said:
			
		

> Same thing that happens with any other member of the CAF who has a serious allegation made against them which doesn't end in a conviction for a criminal or service offence.  Conduct an AR to see if they are subject to any administrative measures.  That would, of course, include the determination of if the member should continue to serve, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations did not lead to charges and/or were not proven in court if charges did result.
> 
> Fortunately, these procedures are well defined and exercised on a regular basis within the CAF and I would expect they would apply, and be applied, to the VCDS no differently than they would to any other member.



This is why I miss the army. Accused, charged, tried and cleared. But wait!  There's more! We've got yet another way to stick a big greasy fist up your ass, you unproven evildoer, you.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> All of our flag officers serve at the Queen's  *the CDS's *discretion and therefore, can be told at any point by the siting government *CDS* that their services are no longer required.



Fixed that for you


----------



## Cloud Cover

Remius said:
			
		

> Not unless he wants to bring a civil suit forward in which case he'd be wise to keep quiet until his day in court.


I’m sure the statement of claim is already drafted and ready to go. And that statement of claim will be public and could very well contain facts not yet publicly disclosed....


----------



## FJAG

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Quote from: Oldgateboatdriver on Today at 10:03:20
> All of our flag officers serve at the Queen's the CDS's discretion and therefore, can be told at any point by the siting government CDS that their services are no longer required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you
Click to expand...


Except the JAG who, like the CDS himself, is appointed by the Governor in Council thereby separating her from the military chain of command.


----------



## dapaterson

QR&O 15.01 states:

The authority to approve a release is:

the Governor General, in the case of an officer other than an officer cadet; or
the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate, in the case of an officer cadet or non-commissioned member.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> QR&O 15.01 states:
> 
> The authority to approve a release is:
> 
> the Governor General, in the case of an officer other than an officer cadet; or
> the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate, in the case of an officer cadet or non-commissioned member.



I did not know that.  Thank you for providing the definitive answer.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good, good! Let the pedantry consume you!


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Good, good! Let the pedantry consume you!



That really didn't have the "oomph" I expected.


----------



## garb811

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ARs conducted on a regular basis?
> 
> I think you’re being generous to the CAF _writ large_, there Garb.  Not that it shouldn’t be regular, but I would say “from time to
> time, the Administrative Review process is used for the purposes for which it was intended.”  I think there in an institutional hesitance to use the administrative tools available at the CAF’s disposal.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards,
> G2G


While I agree that is probably true at most units, it certainly is not the case at DMCA.  We are constantly releasing the sex, drugs and rock and roll files to them via DAIP for ARs.


----------



## FSTO

Retired Admirals Buck and Garnett tell the government to poop or get off the pot regarding Admiral Norman.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-commanders-urging-authorities-to-charge-or-exonerate-vice-admiral-mark-norman/article37664421/


ROBERT FIFE  AND STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED 12 HOURS AGO
UPDATED JANUARY 18, 2018
Two former Royal Canadian Navy commanders are calling on federal authorities to either charge or exonerate Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has been under a year-long criminal investigation for allegedly leaking cabinet documents.

Retired vice-admirals Gary Garnett and Ronald Buck say Vice-Adm. Norman has been subjected to a "travesty of justice" and they are urging the RCMP and Public Prosecution Service of Canada to wrap up the investigation.

They suggested in a letter to The Globe and Mail that the Liberal government is determined to charge their colleague, despite a lack of evidence.

"The RCMP and prosecutors continue to investigate Admiral Norman, likely, because the Government does not like the answer – he did the right thing and broke no laws," the two retired vice-admirals wrote in a letter to The Globe on Thursday.

Vice-Adm. Norman was removed from his duties as vice-chief of the defence staff in mid-January, 2017, after his boss, General Jonathan Vance, learned his second-in-command was under RCMP investigation.

Mr. Garnett recalled that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last April that he supported this decision and that the Liberal leader also predicted the case would end up in the courts.

"Does that not indicate there is a bit of a commitment here," Mr. Garnett asked in an interview. "So why are they pursuing this case?"

The Prime Minister's Office said it does not get involved in police investigations.

RCMP alleged in court documents made public last year that Vice-Adm. Norman leaked cabinet secrets to an executive with a Quebec-based shipyard and advised the businessman how to use the media to press the Trudeau government to approve a $667-million naval supply-ship contract. The allegations against the naval officer in RCMP affidavits have not been tested in court.

Mr. Buck said he doesn't understand why the investigation has taken so long when "there are probably just a little more than a handful of players" for the RCMP to interview as part of its criminal investigation.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


"The investigation would seem to be taking an inordinate amount of time to come to a resolution," Mr. Buck said in an interview. "Meanwhile, the individual and his family are hanging out there in the breeze."

Defence analyst David Perry said foreign allies of Canada are "astounded that someone so senior in the military establishment could be left in limbo for so long."

"We're talking about the second-most senior serving military officer. I find it incredible it can go on this long without any kind of resolution," said Mr. Perry, with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

An RCMP spokeswoman said on Thursday night the investigation into Vice-Adm. Norman and the ship contract remains ongoing. The RCMP has a history of lengthy investigations that result in no charges. The Mounties ended a three-year probe of Senator Pamela Wallin's expenses in May, 2016, without laying charges.

In the case of Vice-Adm. Norman, court documents filed by the Mounties have included e-mails he sent to Spencer Fraser, chief executive of Federal Fleet Services, the company in charge of refitting a cargo ship to serve as a naval supply vessel at the Chantier Davie Canada Inc. shipyard in Lévis, Que.

Vice-Adm. Norman was the commander of the navy when the former Harper government awarded the leasing contract, without competition, to Davie in 2015 in a move that was criticized as vote pandering in Quebec.

Soon after taking power in November, 2015, the Trudeau Liberals put the supply-ship project on hold after receiving a letter of complaint from Irving Shipbuilding, which already had a multibillion-dollar contract to build a fleet of warships for the navy.

Vice-Adm. Norman sought to press the Liberals to stick with the Davie contract.

Mr. Garnet and Mr. Buck said there is no evidence in court documents to show their friend leaked cabinet documents. All he did, they argue, was support the ship contract previously agreed to by the former Conservative government in what he believed was in the best interest of the navy.

"In reality, his only offence appears to be having been caught in the crossfire during the transition of one government to the next," they wrote.

The heavily redacted court affidavits provide little idea of what the RCMP allege are Vice-Adm. Norman's motives.

However, Vice-Adm. Norman said publicly in 2016 that delays in shipbuilding programs had hurt the navy. "It's important to keep in mind that [the delays were] completely avoidable," he said.

In 2015, Irving Shipbuilding chief executive James Irving had tried to persuade the Liberals to kill the sole-source contract with Davie, saying his firm had offered a lower-cost option. Another shipbuilder, Vancouver-based Seaspan, also called for an open competition and said it could convert a civilian cargo ship into a military supply ship at a significantly lower cost.

E-mail correspondence with Mr. Fraser, obtained by the RCMP, suggests Vice-Adm. Norman was critical of the four top executives at Irving Shipbuilding, a major player in Canada. In one e-mail, the admiral referred to them as the "four horsemen of the apocalypse," a derogatory reference to malignant forces in the Bible: war, pestilence, famine and death. After the e-mail was made public, Irving said the characterization of its executives offended the company.

"Ethically, some of his e-mail wording raises eyebrows," Mr. Garnett acknowledged, but said it was not criminal.

Marie Heinen, lawyer for Vice-Adm. Norman, has previously said her client is a victim of internecine warfare within the Department of National Defence and was "caught in the bureaucratic crossfire." In August, Ms. Henein said in a statement to The Globe that the RCMP should close its investigation.


----------



## NavyShooter

I will suggest that the four horsemen of Irving are more likely:
-incompetence
-greed
-double charging for materials
-thievery


----------



## SeaKingTacco

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I will suggest that the four horsemen of Irving are more likely:
> -incompetence
> -greed
> -double charging for materials
> -thievery



Now, now- be nice!


----------



## NavyShooter

Having brought ships through their yard for 'refits' it's more about the 'fits' 


I can give specific examples of what I consider to be wilful deliberate sabotage carried out on our ships while in ISI hands.


I did so to an Irving Staffer who offered me a job.


I rather bluntly stated that I have too much personal integrity to allow my name to be on the same business card as the word "IRVING"


I proceeded to give examples I've seen with my own eyes.  I think I opened his eyes.


The fact that the RCN has to strip out 100% of the fitted fire-fighting gear (hoses, nozzles, hydrants, etc) before the ships go into the yard because historically, when they went in with that gear, the ships came out with the hose ends cut off and stolen for the sake of the scrap brass, fire extinguishers used by ISI staff for fire picket on welding jobs, etc.  


Not to mention having to specifically install padlocks on the mess decks (sleeping compartments) so that ISI staff couldn't use them to take a nap during the work-day.


Yup.  Four horsemen indeed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I will suggest that the four horsemen of Irving are more likely:
> -incompetence
> -greed
> -double charging for materials
> -thievery



And, of course, 'Soldiering' http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/scientific/


----------



## FSTO

CTV News Power Play commenting on the oddness of the Admiral Norman affair.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin
Go to minute 46:04

CTV, Globe and Mail and the National Post all have had stories on this issue. CBC has been very quiet. Why would that be?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:
			
		

> CTV News Power Play commenting on the oddness of the Admiral Norman affair.
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin
> Go to minute 46:04
> 
> CTV, Globe and Mail and the National Post all have had stories on this issue. CBC has been very quiet. Why would that be?



Because the CBC is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal Party of Canada?  ;D


----------



## Remius

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Because the CBC is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal Party of Canada?  ;D





			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> CTV News Power Play commenting on the oddness of the Admiral Norman affair.
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin
> Go to minute 46:04
> 
> CTV, Globe and Mail and the National Post all have had stories on this issue. CBC has been very quiet. Why would that be?



CBC ran a story Jan 9th.  Maybe it’s quiet because you don’t listen or watch CBC?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I read CBC (amongst other news sources).

It was a joke.


----------



## FSTO

Remius said:
			
		

> CBC ran a story Jan 9th.  Maybe it’s quiet because you don’t listen or watch CBC?



I read and listen to CBC all the time. 
SKT is right, their story was pretty weak.


----------



## Remius

FSTO said:
			
		

> I read and listen to CBC all the time.
> SKT is right, their story was pretty weak.



Why was it weak?

I'm not actually arguing one way or another.  I'm just curious as to why you think it was weak?  A quick google search shows that aside from Robert Fife, that PP commentary and the CBC article not much else has been said or reported at all about it.  Other than the unacceptable length it is currently taking what more is there to say? 

You first posted a that CBC was keeping the story alive then state later that they seem to be to only one quiet about it.


----------



## FSTO

Remius said:
			
		

> Why was it weak?
> 
> I'm not actually arguing one way or another.  I'm just curious as to why you think it was weak?  A quick google search shows that aside from Robert Fife, that PP commentary and the CBC article not much else has been said or reported at all about it.  Other than the unacceptable length it is currently taking what more is there to say?
> 
> You first posted a that CBC was keeping the story alive then state later that they seem to be to only one quiet about it.



Guilty as charged, Mea culpa, etc etc


The current government should be roasted over this but it won't. I wonder if Admiral Norman was a woman or a person of colour that there would be more noise?


----------



## Remius

FSTO said:
			
		

> Guilty as charged, Mea culpa, etc etc
> 
> 
> The current government should be roasted over this but it won't. I wonder if Admiral Norman was a woman or a person of colour that there would be more noise?



Ok, thanks.  I was just trying to get context. 

Agreed.  But I think it will take a decision to drop charges or a not guilty finding to start the fire.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Remius said:
			
		

> A quick google search shows that aside from Robert Fife, that PP commentary and the CBC article not much else has been said or reported at all about it.  Other than the unacceptable length it is currently taking what more is there to say?



Actually, the National Post and all its various associated newspapers ran a two full page article only two week-ends ago that recapped the whole story timeline from the beginning, reviewed the "evidence" released as part of the release of the affidavits in support of the search warrants, exposed how these warrants were exercised apparently abusively by the RCMP, such as seizing the Admiral's wife's material and personal items, such as family pictures that can't possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the alleged crime, how the RCMP is still holding to those irrelevant items even though they have been ordered by the court to return them, who the players were in all these things (including a certain ex-CBC journalist who somehow "broke the story" in public and somehow ended up on the political staff of the Minister).

So there is a lot to say here, because the whole thing stinks of political interference and scheming.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Remius said:
			
		

> Ok, thanks.  I was just trying to get context.
> 
> Agreed.  But I think it will take a decision to drop charges or a not guilty finding to start the fire.



You cannot drop charges that have not been laid yet. And mark my words, none will. The file is allegedly in the hands of the prosecutors now to review and decide whether to lay charges or not. They won't: Any prosecutor worth its salt knows damn well that there is no evidence whatsoever on one of the essential element of the offence: personal gain. The Admiral has gained nothing and has nothing to gain from the alleged actions, if they even took place.

And the fact that no charges are being laid is part of the Admiral's legal quandary. Until they are, he has no access to any of the evidence. Once they are, then he would have to be given everything that has been accumulated by the RCMP to make his defence, including any exculpatory evidence. In the present case, that means that all the evidence relating to the civil servant who allegedly also had access to the info and could have leaked it  but was never suspended or investigated would come out, raising even more question on the political side of things, not to mention that the whole matter of why, how, and to which extent, the deliberations of the Privy Council (the Cabinet) and any or all documents prepared for it are, or ought to be, considered secret and therefore protected under the Criminal Code would then come out before the Courts. Trust me, the government does not want to open that can of worms which is very politically charged (because if they were found to be so covered, any "leaks" by members of the government to journalists would be equally criminal and anyone, including the members of the opposition, could file a complaint with the RCMP, who would have to investigate). 

Now, the Admiral is currently under the effect of an administrative decision of the CDS that may itself have some holes in it. But what to do? The normal way would be to file a redress of grievance, but who would hear it? The CDS who made the original decision? Or do you go to his superior, which happens to be the Governor-General! I don't think she would agree to hear such a thing or that her office is set up for that. So civilian review? That would be my choice: bring the whole matter of the appropriateness of the CDS' decision to the federal Court acting in administrative review of the CDS' action. But first hurdle: establishing that such a hearing is even possible - i.e. that it is permitted in law under the circumstances.

Difficult situation in all cases, but of course, it would not look good on the Government to try and argue before a court that  the most senior members of the CAF are not allowed the same legal protection as all other members of the CAF where administrative impropriety occurs. But arguing that is not beneath our governments, unfortunately.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Charges for what, exactly. That's the thing that really seems rotten. I smell a commission of inquiry coming. Agreed Norman needs to get into court on some procedural grounds (civil, criminal or administrative)  asap before documents get shredded, hard drives wiped and memories get re-wired.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the politicians and government have worked themselves into a corner and struggling to find a way out. In classic form, they hope to grind him down and get him to sign some sort of payment and non-disclosure deal.


----------



## Journeyman

Colin P said:
			
		

> .....they hope to grind him down and get him to sign some sort of payment and non-disclosure deal.


Accompanied by some staffer remembering suddenly that the removal was contrary to the advice given by the Deputy-Minister or some such, and the CDS is the evil one who now needs to be fired for embarrassing the government raining on the sunny ways..... with the VCDS payoff linked to an equivalently reduced Defence budget.

      :Tin-Foil-Hat:

op:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yeah! I would be getting the popcorn out too, if Mark didn't deserve a better treatment. It's not a game to those innocent victims, even high up, who get caught in these political games aimed at getting and maintaining politicians in power, even at the expense of individual's lives and reputations.


----------



## MarkOttawa

"House of Cards" on the Ottawa River, anyone?
https://www.netflix.com/title/70178217







"You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment."
https://www.netflix.com/title/70200744






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

If the CDS believes one of his troops, who happens to be directly under him,  is not being traded fairly, what should he do?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Rifleman: The problem here is that it is the CDS himself who mistreated his own troop who happens to be directly under him.  

The even more concerning aspect is that he seems to have done so for no other purpose than to placate his political master's political agenda, not for any purpose related to the good of the service he heads.

... But that's just my humble opinion.


I wonder what would happen if he just admitted that he was wrong, or acted in haste, and simply reversed his own administrative decision ,,, leading to the reinstatement of Admiral Norman in his job of VCDS.   Hmmmmm! ???


----------



## Old Sweat

I wonder if the other option that was put in front of the CDS was a RCMP raid on the admiral's home, with him carted away in irons with all the public humiliation than entailed? And of course, the media tipped off in advance with live coverage and trial by media and pundits, and perhaps the cancellation of the project.

Just speculating.


----------



## Rifleman62

The other option would be, as it seems to what we know, a bigger embarrassment to Trudeau et al. To be embarrassed, first you must feel that you have done something wrong, in this case, to a senior officer with considerable years of honourable service. Trouble is the guy making the decision was a part time drama teacher/snowboarder and has no concept of anything.

Oldgateboatdriver - Of course. My question was posed simplistically. 

I have asked this question before: When are some of these senior officers/CWO's going to resign in protest because the service they love is being destructed and their troops will face enemies with equipment that is in the LPC's interest not theirs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect that he is holding out for his day in court to clear his name, something they hoped he would not do. because they likely don't have the same moral standards. Either way I suspect this is going to court, either civil or criminal.


----------



## YZT580

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Rifleman:
> I wonder what would happen if he just admitted that he was wrong, or acted in haste, and simply reversed his own administrative decision ,,, leading to the reinstatement of Admiral Norman in his job of VCDS.   Hmmmmm! ???



Somehow I doubt that a hearty welcome back, let's let bygones be bygones just won't cut it in this case.  While I don't believe that the VCDS is of a vindictive nature, he cares too much for his beloved navy to allow this type of insult to his uniform to go unanswered.


----------



## Rifleman62

I believe the government has refused any legal assistance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I wonder if the other option that was put in front of the CDS was a RCMP raid on the admiral's home, with him carted away in irons with all the public humiliation than entailed? And of course, the media tipped off in advance with live coverage and trial by media and pundits, and perhaps the cancellation of the project.
> 
> Just speculating.



Well, speculate no more, Old Sweat. We don't live in a communist or ex-communist country  ;D. The police, RCMP or not, cannot just come into someone's house and cart them away in irons unless they already have an arrest warrant or are doing so while catching them in the actual act of committing a crime. They can't just do it because they "suspect" someone or are investigating the person. To do that, they would have to have had the actual charge already laid. OK, I'm exaggerating: if they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the person has committed the criminal act, they can carry out the arrest - but in this last case, they'd better be ready to argue, right away and in front of court that they already have enough evidence to warrant the matter be sent to trial - otherwise they are in big big big trouble. No such evidence here.




			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I believe the government has refused any legal assistance.


Why would the government require any legal assistance ???


----------



## MARS

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why would the government require any legal assistance ???



The government refused the Admiral's request for legal assistance, or so goes the reporting in the MSM


----------



## Cloud Cover

The government has refused to help pay for his legal representation, something I gather that they have done in certain cases before. And he has retained a very good lawyer. 
This man has Charter rights, he has civil rights and a right to due process. Just because he put the bag on XX years ago, does not mean he surrendered those rights.


----------



## Old Sweat

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, speculate no more, Old Sweat. We don't live in a communist or ex-communist country  ;D. The police, RCMP or not, cannot just come into someone's house and cart them away in irons unless they already have an arrest warrant or are doing so while catching them in the actual act of committing a crime. They can't just do it because they "suspect" someone or are investigating the person. To do that, they would have to have had the actual charge already laid.
> Why would the government require any legal assistance ???



The point I was trying to make is that if the police had information that he had broken the law, they could have obtained a warrant. Perhaps the CDS was able to offer an option to save a little bit of face for the VCDS, although showing mercy is not considered the LPC's strong suit.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MARS: I was joking! I know he has been refused access to the public servant legal protection program.

Old Sweat: Again here: if they had the evidence required to obtain an arrest warrant, it means they would have been in position to charge him right away with an offence. You don't get arrest warrants just so you can investigate a matter. Further investigation is possible after a charge is laid, but you cannot arrest someone unless you are in position to charge them with a specific crime, and to a level that will withstand the court's scrutiny when you bring them before the court for release awaiting trial.

it's those pesky little rights we have in Canada of  being presumed innocent and of habeas Corpus.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I have asked this question before: When are some of these senior officers/CWO's going to resign in protest because the service they love is being destructed and their troops will face enemies with equipment that is in the LPC's interest not theirs.



And just piss away the years they spent building up a pension for a symbolic stand that would be forgotten by the next sound bite?  Would you ask every Cpl. to do that?

They're not like Ministers who " resign" but then just go back sitting as a well paid flopper in the House again.


----------



## dapaterson

What were the CDS' options?  "Certainly, the second most important officer in the CAF is accused of improperly sharing information, but we can just overlook that, right?"

While the UK embraced that approach with Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt, it was perhaps not as successful as one might have liked.  And with Canada's other recent imbroglio involving a naval officer, official secrets, and embracing too much the kindergarten exhortation of sharing everything you have, Gen Vance had few (if any) other options.


(The bureaucratic declaration that "We think you're guilty, so we won't pay a sous in lawyer's fees", on the other hand, is ripe for overturning.  I suspect counsel for the RAdm is looking forward to that being argued in court... and, after all, it's all additional billable hours.)


----------



## Halifax Tar

Whenever/if the truth ever sees the light of day it will be well worth the read.  

To others asking why other senior officers and CWOs aren’t voting with their feet on this subject one has to look no further than at the term “institutional leadership” that has permeated more and more briefs I have been subjected too.  That catch phrase should sum this up nicely.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I have asked this question before: When are some of these senior officers/CWO's going to resign in protest because the service they love is being destructed and their troops will face enemies with equipment that is in the LPC's interest not theirs.



Hmm.  

Those would be the same senior officers and CWOs who navigated us through the turbulent CPC waters of over-promising on defence, and then slow rolling the entire process through a complicit Public Service to ensure that CAF would turn back enough money to balance the budget, each and every year?  The same ones who learned from that lesson and hence crafted a Defence Policy that is output based, requires the funding to meet it, and will be difficult for government of any stripe to walk away from?  

Are those the people you mean?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Far from me to enter the discussion on if/and/when/why General officers should resign in protest, but I must take exception to this statement of PPCLI Guy:



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The same ones who [...] crafted a Defence Policy that is output based, requires the funding to meet it, and will be difficult for government of any stripe to walk away from.



The most recent Defence policy is not output based, except for the lowest priority - UN operations - and even then is so unclear as to not make it possible to know if the XXX people here and YYY people there are from the land/air or sea or support trades, or whatever.

Similarly, while it costed out the main purchases it wishes to make in the next electoral cycles (none during THIS cycle), it creates no mechanism whatsoever that would "require" this funding or guarantees it in any way form or shape. I am not even sure such mechanism is possible in a Westminster democracy.

Finally, any government of any stripe, including even this one, could walk away from this Defence Policy tomorrow morning without incurring any backlash whatsoever, just has as been done with the last five such Policies. There is nothing anyone can do about it: the government spends and crafts each annual budget whichever way it wants and there is no political lobby or will in Canada to stand for anything on defence and hold governments accountable for breaking their own defence policies.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Far from me to enter the discussion on if/and/when/why General officers should resign in protest, but I must take exception to this statement of PPCLI Guy:
> 
> 
> The most recent Defence policy is not output based, except for the lowest priority - UN operations - and even then is so unclear as to not make it possible to know if the XXX people here and YYY people there are from the land/air or sea or support trades, or whatever.



I'm not sure we read the same document.  Specifically, pg 81 lists the 10 (or 12, depending on how you slice it) missions that the CAF must be able to conduct concurrently and includes specific statements of size.  We have never had that before, and it is perhaps the key element of SSE.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

We are straying from the actual topic, but, to be sure, this is the list you are talking about:

_*CONCURRENT OPERATIONS

At any given time, the Government of Canada can call upon the Canadian Armed Forces to undertake missions for the protection of Canada and Canadians and the maintenance of international peace and stability. It will often call upon the Canadian Armed Forces to deploy on multiple operations at the same time. This policy ensures the Canadian Armed Forces will be prepared to simultaneously:

• defend Canada, including responding concurrently to multiple domestic emergencies in support of civilian authorities;
• meet its NORAD obligations, with new capacity in some areas;
• meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty; and
• contribute to international peace and stability through:
o two sustained deployments of ~500-1500 personnel in two different theatres of operation, including one as a lead nation;
o one time-limited deployment of
~500-1500 personnel (6-9 months duration);
o two sustained deployments of ~100-500 personnel;
o two time-limited deployments (6-9 months) of ~100-500 personnel;
o one Disaster Assistance Response
Team (DART) deployment, with scaleable additional support; and
o one Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, with scaleable additional support.*_

Well, I am sorry to say that, the first three items (defence of Canada, NORAD and NATO) are the most important ones in order of importance and have absolutely no specific statements of size, and they have all been stated in past policies, almost exactly in the same terms. Even better, the NATO commitment is, in my estimation, a cope out when compared to past commitments: It commits the CAF only to obligations under Article 5, which is the one that applies AFTER an attack on any one of the members and has no specifics to its obligation - other than by then, we are all at war. For reference, I am including the text of Article five at the bottom.

As I said before, the contribution to International peace and stability is the only one with specific numbers but not description that would permit understanding what they refer to [for instance, are the two sustained deployments of between 100-500 pers covered by the fact that the Navy maintains one frigate deployed with the permanent NATO group and another one in the Gulf on anti-piracy ops? We don't know.], and it should be the lowest priority of all since good basic defence policy is to take care of oneself first, then assist others. But even then, since they are supposedly to be simultaneous, just this lowest priority require enough personnel to have DART, an Evacuation of Civilian force (of what size, we don't know, nor how many evacuees) and anywhere between 1900 (all the lowest figures) and 6500 (all the highest figure) members out somewhere, while still having enough people to, all at the same time, (1) defend Canada, (2) deal with multiple domestic emergencies, (3) fulfill all our NORAD obligations, plus some non described new ones and (5) fulfill our NATO obligations under article 5 [meaning we are at war and act accordingly to support our allies being attacked].

You say this is all specifically addressed for size in there? I didn't see it anywhere.


North Atlantic Treaty:

_*Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .*_


----------



## MarkOttawa

The fundamental reality now is that no defence policy statements mean anything to the politicians in our governments if they find that they are not affordable (or carry real fatality risks) compared to other things that they think might help with their election or re-election.  Defence spending gets few votes other than in selected ridings and certainly is not a serious election winner.

Sad, cynical, realistic and Canadian am I.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Maybe that's the whole point of this debacle. You want to step out of line, see what happened to VCDS Norman


----------



## dapaterson

Again:

What is the appropriate CDS response when the RCMP inform him that his second in command may be leaking cabinet confidences to third parties?


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Again:
> 
> What is the appropriate CDS response when the RCMP inform him that his second in command may be leaking cabinet confidences to third parties?



Well after a year of zero charges and no evidence being presented, I would have reinstated him and forced the RCMP to do something.


----------



## garb811

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well after a year of zero charges and no evidence being presented, I would have reinstated him and forced the RCMP to do something.


How would that have "forced" the RCMP to do anything?  The RCMP could care less whether he is sitting at home with full pay and benefits, or if he is at the office working to earn them.  

Don't confuse an administrative process with a criminal one.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Doesn't seem like there's much process happening in either direction.


----------



## FSTO

garb811 said:
			
		

> How would that have "forced" the RCMP to do anything?  The RCMP could care less whether he is sitting at home with full pay and benefits, or if he is at the office working to earn them.
> 
> Don't confuse an administrative process with a criminal one.


So where is the evidence that the admiral would be subjected to admin action? Did he get an IC? RW? Anything? Are the MP’s involved? Where is the paperwork? 
The Proud Boys action was more egregious than Adm Norman and it was handled administratively in lightening speed compared to this event.


----------



## garb811

FSTO said:
			
		

> So where is the evidence that the admiral would be subjected to admin action? Did he get an IC? RW? Anything? Are the MP’s involved? Where is the paperwork?



I don't have the Military Administrative Law Manual at home but there is a section that expands on the following QR&O should you wish to read it:



> Section 4 - Authority to Relieve a Member from the Performance of Military Duty
> 19.75 - RELIEF FROM PERFORMANCE OF MILITARY DUTY
> 
> (1) This article does not apply to an officer or non-commissioned member to whom article 101.09 (Relief from Performance of Military Duty – Pre and Post Trial) applies, nor to a military judge, the Provost Marshal, the Director of Military Prosecutions or the Director of Defence Counsel Services.
> 
> (2) For the purpose of this article, the Chief of the Defence Staff and an officer commanding a command are the authorities who may relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty.
> 
> (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), only the Chief of the Defence Staff may relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty, if that member is on active service by reason of an emergency.
> 
> (4) An authority may relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty if, in a situation other than one provided for under paragraph 101.09(3), the authority considers that it is necessary to relieve the member from the performance of military duty to separate the member from their unit.
> 
> (5) The authority who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty shall order that the member return to duty when the circumstances giving rise to the decision to relieve the member from the performance of military duty are no longer present.
> 
> (6) Prior to determining whether to relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty, the authority shall provide to the member
> 
> the reason why the decision to relieve the member from the performance of military duty is being considered; and
> a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
> 
> (7) The authority who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty shall, within 24 hours of relieving the member from the performance of military duty, provide the member with written reasons for the decision.
> 
> (8) An officer commanding a command who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty or orders that the member return to duty, shall make a report in writing to the Chief of the Defence Staff setting out the reasons for the decision.
> 
> (9) An officer or non-commissioned member shall cease to be suspended from duty on the coming into force of this article.
> 
> (M) [5 June 2008 – (1); 1 June 2014 – (1) and (4)]
> NOTES
> 
> (A) Relief from the performance of military duty is not to be used as a form of discipline or as a sanction. Action to relieve a member should only be considered after concluding that other administrative means are inadequate in the circumstances. In determining whether to relieve a member, an authority must balance the public interest including the effect on operational effectiveness and morale, with the interests of the member. A commanding officer must monitor each case to ensure that appropriate action is taken if there are changes in the circumstances on which the decision to relieve a member was based.
> 
> (B) Although a member is relieved from the performance of military duty, they are required to obey all lawful commands, including an order to attend before a service tribunal or a board of inquiry.
> 
> (C) As an example of the application of this article, a commander who has been removed from command for leadership deficiencies and whose presence at any unit would be disruptive to operational effectiveness, could be relieved from the performance of military duty.
> 
> (C) [9 January 2001]


The CDS met the administrative requirements for this when he provided the VCDS the letter.  



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> The Proud Boys action was more egregious than Adm Norman and it was handled administratively in lightening speed compared to this event.


Hardly.  The allegation that he leaked Cabinet Confidences is a much, much bigger deal.  If one of those goes astray in the mail, even if unopened, it's investigated as a Security Breach, or at least it used to be.  And, of course, the fact there was no criminal investigation tied into the Proud Boys issue meant there was no need to hold any admin investigation in abeyance pending the outcome of that. 

I get it, some people on here like him, obviously know him personally.  Think that he would never do what he is being investigated for.  

You may be right, and I really hope you are.  But at the end of the day, I can give you a laundry list of others, including senior officers, whose superiors, friends, peers and subordinates would have said the same thing about them.  Right up until they were convicted, and some even after that.


----------



## suffolkowner

garb811 said:
			
		

> I don't have the Military Administrative Law Manual at home but there is a section that expands on the following QR&O should you wish to read it:
> The CDS met the administrative requirements for this when he provided the VCDS the letter.
> Hardly.  The allegation that he leaked Cabinet Confidences is a much, much bigger deal.  If one of those goes astray in the mail, even if unopened, it's investigated as a Security Breach, or at least it used to be.  And, of course, the fact there was no criminal investigation tied into the Proud Boys issue meant there was no need to hold any admin investigation in abeyance pending the outcome of that.
> 
> I get it, some people on here like him, obviously know him personally.  Think that he would never do what he is being investigated for.
> 
> You may be right, and I really hope you are.  But at the end of the day, I can give you a laundry list of others, including senior officers, whose superiors, friends, peers and subordinates would have said the same thing about them.  Right up until they were convicted, and some even after that.



You would think that enough time has passed to gather evidence of wrongdoing by now


----------



## garb811

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> You would think that enough time has passed to gather evidence of wrongdoing by now


Who, RCMP?  If you believe the press, they've handed it off to the Crown and it looks like they've asked for supplemental interviews as there are reports that people are being re-interviewed.  There is nothing unusual or nefarious about that btw.


----------



## dapaterson

What's this following process and confirming information before laying charges (or not)?


----------



## ballz

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> You would think that enough time has passed to gather evidence of wrongdoing by now



They already have evidence of wrongdoing.... what has been already made public is evidence, questionable professionalism at best from the communications I recall reading*. Enough evidence to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt is another thing..... or at least enough evidence that a judge doesn't throw the case out which would pretty much show that it was a witch hunt.

*Going to go back and take a second read over of them now since this has faded from my memory. My perspective may feel different one way or another.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Whenever/if the truth ever sees the light of day it will be well worth the read.



Indeed.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure we read the same document.  Specifically, pg 81 lists the 10 (or 12, depending on how you slice it) missions that the CAF must be able to conduct concurrently and includes specific statements of size.  We have never had that before, and it is perhaps the key element of SSE.



I see the new Defence Policy as being status quo in nature.  I'm with OGDB in that the numbers in the policy are essentially meaningless because they aren't tied to any sort of actual tangible asset.  

Contrast this with the French:

- ability to deploy a joint reaction force of 2,300 on short notice - French refer to this in GUÉPARD as an Airborne Battlegroup.  This was exercised in Mali.

- ability to deploy up to a 15,000 person division in a single overseas deployment.

- maintain 24/7 strategic deterrent i.e. Nuclear Response

- ability to deploy a naval carrier task group.  Their White Paper asserted that sustaining this would require collaboration with the UK bringing Lancaster House treaties in to practice.  This was most recently exercised against ISIS following the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

The new Defence Policy is lengthy but there is very little ambition in it.  Especially considering just a few years ago i.e. 2010 the CAF conducted three major operations OP PODIUM, OP ATHENA and OP HESTIA simultaneously. 



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> They already have evidence of wrongdoing.... what has been already made public is evidence, questionable professionalism at best from the communications I recall reading*. Enough evidence to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt is another thing..... or at least enough evidence that a judge doesn't throw the case out which would pretty much show that it was a witch hunt.
> 
> *Going to go back and take a second read over of them now since this has faded from my memory. My perspective may feel different one way or another.
> 
> Indeed.



Yah, some of the leaked correspondence made the VAdm look like a bit of a jerk tbh.  Especially the emails where he is openly chastisizing some of the senior bureaucrats and political bosses to who are essentially corporate shills.


----------



## FSTO

garb811 said:
			
		

> I don't have the Military Administrative Law Manual at home but there is a section that expands on the following QR&O should you wish to read it:
> The CDS met the administrative requirements for this when he provided the VCDS the letter.
> Hardly.  *The allegation that he leaked Cabinet Confidences is a much, much bigger deal.*  If one of those goes astray in the mail, even if unopened, it's investigated as a Security Breach, or at least it used to be.  And, of course, the fact there was no criminal investigation tied into the Proud Boys issue meant there was no need to hold any admin investigation in abeyance pending the outcome of that.
> 
> I get it, some people on here like him, obviously know him personally.  Think that he would never do what he is being investigated for.
> 
> You may be right, and I really hope you are.  But at the end of the day, I can give you a laundry list of others, including senior officers, whose superiors, friends, peers and subordinates would have said the same thing about them.  Right up until they were convicted, and some even after that.



That same cabinet that leaks federal budgets, critical national trade details, federal provincial funding agreements. That same cabinet? Its been proven time and time again that cabinet secrecy is about as solid as swiss cheese. IMO the reason there has been no charges laid is that the cabinet realizes it will be roasted by any judge worth their salt if it ever gets that far.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

From Yes Minister: "Sir Humphrey: The ship of state, Bernard, is the only ship that leaks from the top".



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> The CDS met the administrative requirements for this when he provided the VCDS the letter.



The letter referred to in the administrative rule you quote is not the wide distribution one whereby CDS advised everyone of what he did and was made public. The letter at issue has been seen by nobody but Adm Norman and his lawyer. It is therefore not possible to come to the fully formed conclusion that the administrative requirements have been met.

To positively conclude, one would have had to be privy to all that occurred in the CDS office from the moment the RCMP informed him of their investigation and the moment he actually informed the VCDS of his decision. On would have to have seen all the documents the CDS reviewed, the information he sought from various sources, the moment he informed the VCDS before making a final decision, how much time and real opportunity he gave to the Adm. to actually provide explanations of his behaviour - if any - before making his decision. And one would have had to be in the mind of the CDS to figure out what other administrative measures he considered and rejected as inadequate and how he balanced the public interest, operational effectiveness, morale and the Admiral's own interests in all this.

Note here everyone, the mention of public interest - not the political interest of the party in power. To draw once again from the font of knowledge that is Yes Minister, in one episode, Hacker makes a politically damaging statement in a BBC interview and with the help of Humprey, tries to convince the BBC to  refrain from airing it. Humphrey points out that one valid reason is showing the BBC that it is against public interest to air the piece: "Hacker: Well, I was elected to represent the public, and it is in my interest that it not air - so it is in the public interest. Humphrey: Well, that's novel argument - we haven't tried that one with them yet".   



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> I don't have the Military Administrative Law Manual at home



Administrative law applicable to the military is the same administrative law as applicable to all aspects of government. Unlike disciplinary law, which has military form, Administrative law does not concern itself with the actual administrative rules, which can vary from department to department and from the military down to a municipal government. Administrative law is that branch of judicial law which aims at keeping the feet of public servants, officials and elected, to the fire of the rules they themselves have adopted to guide their conduct vis-a-vis the citizenry. It has also been compared to legal guerrilla warfare between the courts and the executive, as the later - when it controls the legislative - constantly tries new ways to write rules that will "protect" its administrative decision from being reviewed by the courts, and the courts constantly give those rule due consideration but clearly indicate that there is always a point where they will intervene to protect citizens from dishonest or clearly unfair application of the rules, even when "protected" from court review.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> The allegation that he leaked Cabinet Confidences is a much, much bigger deal.



No it's not a bigger deal: The Proud Boys incident was fully seen by the public and a public relations incident for the CAF that was widespread knowledge in Canada as result of the MSM diffusing it over and over again. There was an immediate negative consequence for the CAF. In the case of the "cabinet leak", while the nature of the Cabinet discussion made its way into the papers, it was not presented in any way so as to pin the blame for it on the CAF at all. If the CDS had not done anything, it would have remained an unknown, at least until the VCDS' home was raided, but even then not public knowledge of the nature of the facts. But in my mind, even then, the public could not care less. Look: does the public care that the other potential leaker identified - a civil servant protected by Union rules - is still working as if nothing had happened and doesn't even appear to be investigated any further. No action anywhere by the CDS and this matter would have died in the public in two days max.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> If one of those goes astray in the mail, even if unopened, it's investigated as a Security Breach, or at least it used to be.



I don't believe this to be correct. First of all "Cabinet confidences" don't travel by mail - we are not talking about "classified documents" here - they are composed of the actual discussions behind closed doors and written advice to the various ministers from their civil servants. This advice is never mailed - it's handed directly to the ministers in big binders where it is assembled.

Second of all, the said "confidence" are not national secrets and are not investigated (in the extremely extremely rare case they ever are- which is infinitesimal compared to the number of leaks - to the point where it is the actual investigation in this case that is abnormal) as Security Breaches, which they are not. They are, in the rare cases it happens investigated as breaches of employment contracts, so that the person responsible can be fired.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

I encourage the evolution/debate of this thread--it's very interesting. However, tone is starting to go south, I'm stepping in before things go downward further.

*Keep it civil and don't make it personal.*

Staff


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Acknowledged, BTN.

Post modified accordingly.

Apologies to all.


----------



## brihard

I'll offer a few thoughts, without commenting inappropriately or speculatively on the specifics of this case...

The RCMP unit investigating this, Sensitive and International Investigations, focuses almost exclusively on high profile in cases with considerable sensitivity and import. Their investigations are long, slow, and generally pretty meticulous. Many of their investigations are briefed on a frequent basis directly at the level of the RCMP commissioner.

The government doesn't get to simply 'make' the RCMP or crown do anything regarding an investigation. That would be inappropriate and quite possibly illegal depending on circumstances. There is a separation between the government and the justice system for a lot of good reasons. Avoiding political interference in awkward, sensitive, or embarrassing files is just one.

The role of the RCMP in this is to determine facts, follow up on evidence and leads, and to determine if they feel there are grounds to lay charges under the Criminal Code or other federal statutes. If they feel that they have sufficient grounds for such charges, they will then refer the matter to crown so that crown can review, request further follow ups or clarification, and generally speaking get the disclosure ready so that it can be provided promptly to defense in the case of charges.

If and when charges are laid, a clock starts. Trial has to occur relatively promptly or the case gets thrown out as a charter breach. 18 months for provincial court, 30 months for superior court. It may sound like a lot of time, but it's not. This is part of why crown wants to dot all 'i's and cross all 't's, and have disclosure ready to hand to defense.

Police will refer potential charges when they feel they have them. Crown will then further filter, and will generally toss anything that they don't think hits 'beyond reasonable doubt', because that is what must be proven in court. This is the gap often encountered in law enforcement and prosecution between 'what we know' versus 'what we can prove'. I have no personal knowledge of 'know/prove' in the Norman file, these are just general explanations.

There is on the public record a lengthy Information to Obtain a search warrant that was filed by RCMP in order to get a search warrant against Adm. Norman. This ITO is a sworn document that outlines much of the case to that point in time. To grant a warrant, a judge or justice must be convinced based on that sworn information that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has taken place, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there are things, data, documents etc that will afford evidence of that offense, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that those things, data, documents etc are to be found in the place(s) or thing(s) to be searched. An ITO does not prove anything, but it gives a very good idea of what police know at a point in time. An ITO must have full, fair, and frank disclosure of what is known at that point in time that is both inculpatory and exculpatory vis a vis the suspect. The contents of the normal ITO have been covered by multiple media outlets. The ITO alleges offences under S.122 (breach of trust) of the Criminal Code, as well as offences under 4(1)(a) and 4(4)(b) of the Security of Information Act, and the ITO requests a search of Norman's home to attempt to lcoate such evidence.

In January 2017, Adm. Norman's house was searched. Subsequently to that and presumably further investigation, in the summer of 2017, RCMP referred the file to crown to determine if charges would be laid. 

So- conclude from all that what you will. A few other thoughts: 

Criminal and other federal charges are not the only potential consequence of the sorts of things that are alleged. In order to be employable, unquestionably any senior military member must maintain a security clearance. Allegations of breach of trust and mishandling or outright leaking information are of concern to departmental security, who will do their thing quite independently of any political or media hoopla. They don't care about all that- they just determine if a person, given everything known or reasonably believed/suspected, should be cleared to handle and access classified or designated information. There isn't really a burden of proof or due process necessary in this, at least until the point where a person files a grievance in the case of loss of security clearance. The loss of a security clearance in and of itself would be more than sufficient to relieve an affected individual of their duties. It is possible that this is a factor in Adm. Norman's situation. I neither know nor will I speculate whether that is in fact the case.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Administrative law applicable to the military is the same administrative law as applicable to all aspects of government. Unlike disciplinary law, which has military form, Administrative law does not concern itself with the actual administrative rules, which can vary from department to department and from the military down to a municipal government. Administrative law is that branch of judicial law which aims at keeping the feet of public servants, officials and elected, to the fire of the rules they themselves have adopted to guide their conduct vis-a-vis the citizenry. It has also been compared to legal guerrilla warfare between the courts and the executive, as the later - when it controls the legislative - constantly tries new ways to write rules that will "protect" its administrative decision from being reviewed by the courts, and the courts constantly give those rule due consideration but clearly indicate that there is always a point where they will intervene to protect citizens from dishonest or clearly unfair application of the rules, even when "protected" from court review.



Almost ff topic: here but in general:



> Administrative law is an expansive and complex subject area that focuses on the “the statutes, principles and rules that govern the operations of government. It is concerned with ensuring that government decision-makers act with authority in a valid manner when making decisions that affect people’s interests. Within the context of Canadian society, a government is precluded from acting without being properly authorized by the Constitution, statutes or the Crown Prerogative.



Military Administrative Law is that part of Admin Law that concerns and impacts on the military. It goes well beyond such matters as "judicial" law and concerns a wide body of matters such as Boards of Inquiry and Summary Investigations; public and non public property; access to information; elections in a military context; promotions; occupational transfers etc. Basically anything and everything that we do that flows from a statute or regulation or subordinate processes (which is just about everything).

The "judicial" context of administrative law involves the fact that decision makers acting within administrative matters must exercise procedural fairness and that decisions made or actions taken are subject to judicial review by appropriate civilian courts. 

 :cheers:

Sorry for being nitpicky.


----------



## garb811

FSTO said:
			
		

> That same cabinet that leaks federal budgets, critical national trade details, federal provincial funding agreements. That same cabinet? Its been proven time and time again that cabinet secrecy is about as solid as swiss cheese.



Is that what we want our General/Flag officers to aspire to?  Stooping to the level of a politician?  Perhaps might be time for a few people to refresh themselves on the *Statement of Defence Ethics*.  

A few that jump out at me (edited for brevity and emphasis)...



> *Ethical Principles and Expected Behaviours*
> ...
> 
> *3. Obey and Support Lawful Authority*
> 
> At all times and in all places, DND employees and CAF members shall uphold Canada’s parliamentary democracy and its institutions by:
> 
> - Respecting the rule of law.
> - Carrying out their duty and their duties in accordance with legislation, policies and directives in a non-partisan and objective manner.
> 
> *Specific Values and Expected Behaviours*
> 
> *1. Integrity*
> 
> DND employees and CAF members shall serve the public interest by:
> 
> - Acting at all times with integrity, and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
> ...
> 
> *2. Loyalty*
> 
> DND employees and CAF members shall always demonstrate respect for Canada, its people, its parliamentary democracy, DND and the CAF by:
> 
> - Loyally carrying out the lawful decisions of their leaders and supporting Ministers in their accountability to Parliament and Canadians.
> - Appropriately safeguarding information and disclosing it only after proper approval and through officially authorised means.
> 
> ...


Last I checked, the VCDS was still a member of the CAF and bound by these principals, values and expected behaviours just as much as anyone else.



> IMO the reason there has been no charges laid is that the cabinet realizes it will be roasted by any judge worth their salt if it ever gets that far.


I've been dealing with the justice system, both military and civilian, for 32 years.  One of the first things I learned was to never assume the outcome of anything.


----------



## garb811

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> From Yes Minister: "Sir Humphrey: The ship of state, Bernard, is the only ship that leaks from the top".
> 
> The letter referred to in the administrative rule you quote is not the wide distribution one whereby CDS advised everyone of what he did and was made public. The letter at issue has been seen by nobody but Adm Norman and his lawyer. It is therefore not possible to come to the fully formed conclusion that the administrative requirements have been met.
> 
> To positively conclude, one would have had to be privy to all that occurred in the CDS office from the moment the RCMP informed him of their investigation and the moment he actually informed the VCDS of his decision. On would have to have seen all the documents the CDS reviewed, the information he sought from various sources, the moment he informed the VCDS before making a final decision, how much time and real opportunity he gave to the Adm. to actually provide explanations of his behaviour - if any - before making his decision. And one would have had to be in the mind of the CDS to figure out what other administrative measures he considered and rejected as inadequate and how he balanced the public interest, operational effectiveness, morale and the Admiral's own interests in all this.


It is probable that nobody on this board was present during that conversation.  But is it is reasonable to conclude that the CDS went off the rails and arbitrarily suspended him without following the policy or, is it more reasonable to presume he followed the policy to the letter given who it affected and the consequences of that action.  

It has been reported that the CDS consulted JAG prior to making a decision, that he had been briefed in on the allegations by RCMP on 9 Jan and although he informed VAdm Norman he was relieving him of his military duties later that day, did not make anything official and public until 13 Jan giving VAdm Norman ample time to make representation if he had desired...and for all we know, he might have.

The CDS is also on the public record as saying, and remember his is coming from a guy who had people die under his command in Afghanistan, 





> “That was one of the hardest days of my career,” Vance told reporters following a speech to a defence conference.
> “I’ve known Admiral Norman my entire life. To have my vice-chief leave because I had to do it — I had to do it — but to have him leave was a bad day for me and a bad day for all of us,” he said.
> “But sometimes the right thing to do, hurts. In this case, it did. It was the right thing to do and the man is owed the decency of silence until you know the facts,” Vance said.



None of this screams to me a CDS who went rogue and arbitrarily fired his #2.  Or even of a CDS who was feeling the heat from his political masters to react in a certain way. If anything it indicates to me that if he felt he had any other option what so ever, he would have taken it.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Note here everyone, the mention of public interest - not the political interest of the party in power. To draw once again from the font of knowledge that is Yes Minister, in one episode, Hacker makes a politically damaging statement in a BBC interview and with the help of Humprey, tries to convince the BBC to  refrain from airing it. Humphrey points out that one valid reason is showing the BBC that it is against public interest to air the piece: "Hacker: Well, I was elected to represent the public, and it is in my interest that it not air - so it is in the public interest. Humphrey: Well, that's novel argument - we haven't tried that one with them yet".


I see actions that are in the RCNs interest.  I see actions that are very much in the interests of Davie Shipbuilding.  And I also see actions which are very much counter to the Governments (no matter which party is in power) and CAF's interests writ large.  But most of all I see a relationship between VAdm Norman and the head of the project that was clearly much, much closer than what is now trying to be portrayed as a normal exchange between the Comd RCN and any other member of the business community.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Administrative law applicable to the military is the same administrative law as applicable to all aspects of government. Unlike disciplinary law, which has military form, Administrative law does not concern itself with the actual administrative rules, which can vary from department to department and from the military down to a municipal government. Administrative law is that branch of judicial law which aims at keeping the feet of public servants, officials and elected, to the fire of the rules they themselves have adopted to guide their conduct vis-a-vis the citizenry. It has also been compared to legal guerrilla warfare between the courts and the executive, as the later - when it controls the legislative - constantly tries new ways to write rules that will "protect" its administrative decision from being reviewed by the courts, and the courts constantly give those rule due consideration but clearly indicate that there is always a point where they will intervene to protect citizens from dishonest or clearly unfair application of the rules, even when "protected" from court review.


Uhhh...thanks for the lecture.  I think?  You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know though.

I was referring to a specific military manual published by the JAG that has been around since at least 2008, in its current form anyway.  I consult it often when I am conducting administrative processes that I want a bit more guidance or clarity on than can be gleaned from the NDA, QR&Os, DAODs or whatever.  Much the same as there is a Leave Manual which does that for the leave policy, the CFTDIs which do that for TD, CFIRP for moves...  Still don't believe me, it's on the JAG DWAN site, look under the link for "Administrative Law", the link for the manual is all the way at the bottom of the page below the wall of lawyerly text.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No it's not a bigger deal: The Proud Boys incident was fully seen by the public and a public relations incident for the CAF that was widespread knowledge in Canada as result of the MSM diffusing it over and over again. There was an immediate negative consequence for the CAF. In the case of the "cabinet leak", while the nature of the Cabinet discussion made its way into the papers, it was not presented in any way so as to pin the blame for it on the CAF at all. If the CDS had not done anything, it would have remained an unknown, at least until the VCDS' home was raided, but even then not public knowledge of the nature of the facts. But in my mind, even then, the public could not care less. Look: does the public care that the other potential leaker identified - a civil servant protected by Union rules - is still working as if nothing had happened and doesn't even appear to be investigated any further. No action anywhere by the CDS and this matter would have died in the public in two days max.


I really don't agree with that.  Proud Boys were the equivalent of frat boys being idiots.  This was the #2 of the CAF being accused of Offences pursuant to the Criminal Code and the Security of Information Act.  If the CDS had done nothing, when it eventually came out, and it would have, we would be out not only the VCDS but also the CDS and the MSM would have had an even bigger field day then they had.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't believe this to be correct. First of all "Cabinet confidences" don't travel by mail - we are not talking about "classified documents" here - they are composed of the actual discussions behind closed doors and written advice to the various ministers from their civil servants. This advice is never mailed - it's handed directly to the ministers in big binders where it is assembled.
> 
> Second of all, the said "confidence" are not national secrets and are not investigated (in the extremely extremely rare case they ever are- which is infinitesimal compared to the number of leaks - to the point where it is the actual investigation in this case that is abnormal) as Security Breaches, which they are not. They are, in the rare cases it happens investigated as breaches of employment contracts, so that the person responsible can be fired.


To be pedantic, no, not the mail.  But there was, and probably still is, a courier service dedicated to moving cabinet documents (which are still cabinet confidences) within NDHQ, between NDHQ and the PCO, other Departments etc.  They even have/had a special mail room/central registry proximate to the Minister's office which was responsible for coordinating the whole show.  In spite of the special handling and precautions such as requiring positive control, things still went astray.  Earlier in my career I was posted to Ottawa and the MP had a dedicated Security Investigation cell which did these investigations, among a few other things. No doubt things have changed a bit due to email but at the end of the day, stuff still has to move in documentary form and it isn't all hand carried by the Minister because the amount of cabinet documents was pretty surprising.

While you are right that they aren't national secrets in the sense that we traditionally use in the Designation and Classification process, they are treated under their own rules which require the a/m processes to be followed, including security investigations when the process breaks.


----------



## FSTO

garb811 said:
			
		

> I see actions that are in the RCNs interest.  I see actions that are very much in the interests of Davie Shipbuilding.  And I also see actions which are very much counter to the Governments (no matter which party is in power) and CAF's interests writ large.  But most of all I see a relationship between VAdm Norman and the head of the project that was clearly much, much closer than what is now trying to be portrayed as a normal exchange between the Comd RCN and any other member of the business community.



You present valid counterpoints to OGBD except for this one.

Is not the interests of the RCN always in concert with the CAF as a whole? The lack of an AOR is a massive hole in the tactical and strategic capabilities of Canada. Can you imagine an army battle group being deployed without a logistic chain? Or a squadron of fighters deploying without tanker support? Well that is what the RCN has had to deal with since the demise of PRO/PRE and we are still looking at 4 to 5 years at least until steel is cut for PRO II. VAdm Norman saw a clear and present capability gap and was able to convince the CDS and the government of the day that we needed to look at alternate methods to close that gap. Much like the C17 and Chinook purchases, certain members of the bureaucracy had their noses out of joint but the project had government approval. That the new government was thinking of cancelling this project for pure partisan reasons is the crime, not that the Vice Admiral took second hand information (Was he at the Cabinet Meeting? I don't think so) and told important people that the Liberals were thinking of doing the unthinkable.


----------



## Rifleman62

I say again, the Defence of Canada, a governments' prime obligation, is in the best interests of the LPC, not Canada's citizens.

BMD anyone?


----------



## ModlrMike

Perhaps one hears snippets of information, and has the required experience to read the political winds? Perhaps it's more assessing the whole situation and arriving at the inevitable conclusion that lead VAdm Norman to action?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good morning garb811.

My comments are in yellow below:



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> It is probable that nobody on this board was present during that conversation.  But is it is reasonable to conclude that the CDS went off the rails and arbitrarily suspended him without following the policy or, is it more reasonable to presume he followed the policy to the letter given who it affected and the consequences of that action.
> 
> I agree that it is reasonable to think/believe that he followed, not just the letter, but also the intent, of the rules. No one knows for sure but him, unless it goes before a court. However, I was not disputing that. My point at the time was aimed at your personal statement which positively concluded that because he gave the Admiral a letter everything was properly done according to the QR&O you quoted. I was merely pointing out that unambiguous statement could not be offered short of what I indicated. But again, you are right that it is reasonable to believe he did act correctly.
> 
> It has been reported that the CDS consulted JAG prior to making a decision, that he had been briefed in on the allegations by RCMP on 9 Jan and although he informed VAdm Norman he was relieving him of his military duties later that day, did not make anything official and public until 13 Jan giving VAdm Norman ample time to make representation if he had desired...and for all we know, he might have.
> 
> Here again, you are speculating. The time lag between informing the Admiral and the official announcement in no way implies ample time for representation.
> 
> The CDS is also on the public record as saying, and remember his is coming from a guy who had people die under his command in Afghanistan. None of this screams to me a CDS who went rogue and arbitrarily fired his #2.  Or even of a CDS who was feeling the heat from his political masters to react in a certain way. If anything it indicates to me that if he felt he had any other option what so ever, he would have taken it.
> 
> Again here, speculations. The "difficulty" of making the decision does not in any way relate to the appropriateness of the process, nor to any presence/lack of political pressure. For instance *and please, I am just spitballing here as an illustration and by no way impugn the CDS's honour - its just for example for the sake of showing how you can spin any fact when you DON'T KNOW:* Gen. Vance was a very recent Conservative appointee, the difficulty he talks about may just have been as much political pressure leading to have to chose his own career over his friendship. Again this is just an example and I have absolutely no reason to believe this any more or less than anything else.
> 
> I see actions that are in the RCNs interest.  I see actions that are very much in the interests of Davie Shipbuilding.  And I also see actions which are very much counter to the Governments (no matter which party is in power) and CAF's interests writ large.  But most of all I see a relationship between VAdm Norman and the head of the project that was clearly much, much closer than what is now trying to be portrayed as a normal exchange between the Comd RCN and any other member of the business community.
> 
> As FSTO alluded to, it is a very narrow vision of "public" interest to assume that just because one specific action benefits a single branch of the Service, it is that branch's interest that is solely at stake. Would you feel the same if, say all the Cormorants were grounded due to a defect and Bell/Textron offered a fix to be quickly applied, and the head of the RCAF pushed real hard for it, even liaising with Bell, to get the birds flying much faster than under standard procurement? Would you consider that in the RCAF interest, or does the provision of SAR to Canadians not be a valid public interest?
> 
> On the second point, it is important to remember here, again, that no, the interest of the government of the day is NOT equal to "public" interest. Your conclusion that you see the actions as counter to the government and CAF interest is interesting since a court of law, that unsealed most of the affidavits of the RCMP, has basically concluded the opposite.
> 
> Finally, I have been privy in my other life to communications between industry and top military brass, and I can tell you there is not much out of norm in the Admiral's correspondence. The Air Force generals are particularly adept at this  ).
> 
> Uhhh...thanks for the lecture.  I think?  You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know though.
> 
> I was referring to a specific military manual published by the JAG that has been around since at least 2008, in its current form anyway.  I consult it often when I am conducting administrative processes that I want a bit more guidance or clarity on than can be gleaned from the NDA, QR&Os, DAODs or whatever.  Much the same as there is a Leave Manual which does that for the leave policy, the CFTDIs which do that for TD, CFIRP for moves...  Still don't believe me, it's on the JAG DWAN site, look under the link for "Administrative Law", the link for the manual is all the way at the bottom of the page below the wall of lawyerly text.
> 
> Fair enough: That did not exist in my days. But I see it is more like a JAG guide to how to actually go about applying the administrative rules of the CAF to stay within the law, not a law book on how administrative law works. Good on whichever JAG decided to publish such a book, it was sorely needed.
> 
> I really don't agree with that.  Proud Boys were the equivalent of frat boys being idiots.  This was the #2 of the CAF being accused of Offences pursuant to the Criminal Code and the Security of Information Act.  If the CDS had done nothing, when it eventually came out, and it would have, we would be out not only the VCDS but also the CDS and the MSM would have had an even bigger field day then they had.
> 
> Three things here: First, let's agree to disagree; second, is to wonder why - and at whose intimation - was a criminal investigation ever started? As more than just I have indicated above, Cabinets confidences are leaked as if from a sieve at all times and somehow there never were any criminal investigations. This is a precedent and you can be absolutely certain that the RCMP did NOT start this on its own: politicians laid an information, which by itself probably somewhat directed the RCMP in the direction they wanted it to go (just as was done before with the "Senate" scandal - same overly incensed (IMHO) RCMP team, BTW). But here's the thing: Now that the "precedent" that RCMP investigates Cabinet leaks as criminal act is set, whenever such leak occurs, and is reported in the papers as such, how can the RCMP refuse to investigate on their own unless the politician file a complaint and continue to claim this is not a political process/witch hunt? Thirdly, there has been no MSM field day whatsoever over this matter, other than a few specialized journalists trying to keep the issue alive, while the population in general couldn't care less.
> 
> To be pedantic, no, not the mail.  But there was, and probably still is, a courier service dedicated to moving cabinet documents (which are still cabinet confidences) within NDHQ, between NDHQ and the PCO, other Departments etc.  They even have/had a special mail room/central registry proximate to the Minister's office which was responsible for coordinating the whole show.  In spite of the special handling and precautions such as requiring positive control, things still went astray.  Earlier in my career I was posted to Ottawa and the MP had a dedicated Security Investigation cell which did these investigations, among a few other things. No doubt things have changed a bit due to email but at the end of the day, stuff still has to move in documentary form and it isn't all hand carried by the Minister because the amount of cabinet documents was pretty surprising.
> 
> OK, so this is not "Cabinet confidences". This is tracking internally to DND/CAF HQ sealed document that may or may not be classified or protected, no one knows because they are sealed. On this, DND is special and I am pretty certain that no other department has a RCMP cell to internally carry out investigations of documents that go missing internally. Nevertheless, the documents internally directed to an office charged with assembling the briefs to the minister for Cabinet meetings does not make the documents "Cabinet confidences". They become such only when the DM has decided that the document is to be included in the brief and is actually put in the said briefing binder. We have to be careful here: any of these documents may posses some for m of "protection" from being considered public from other source (a classified document for instance) wether it ends up or not in the briefing binder, just like some documents may be public otherwise and don't cease to be public just because they are included in the binders (for instance, a University professor published research paper used as supporting documentation will remain publicly available) - at that point, it is only the fact that it was submitted to Cabinet that becomes covered by the protection.
> 
> And finally, It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that just because there are more binders than the Minister can personally carry means that they are not "given by hand to the minister". I mean, come on, man!
> 
> While you are right that they aren't national secrets in the sense that we traditionally use in the Designation and Classification process, they are treated under their own rules which require the a/m processes to be followed, including security investigations when the process breaks.




This is nice let's keep this going: Should we split to a "Cabinet confidence or not" or "How DND treats Cabinet confidence" thread?


----------



## garb811

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I agree that it is reasonable to think/believe that he followed, not just the letter, but also the intent, of the rules. No one knows for sure but him, unless it goes before a court. However, I was not disputing that. My point at the time was aimed at your personal statement which positively concluded that because he gave the Admiral a letter everything was properly done according to the QR&O you quoted. I was merely pointing out that unambiguous statement could not be offered short of what I indicated. But again, you are right that it is reasonable to believe he did act correctly.
> 
> 
> Here again, you are speculating. The time lag between informing the Admiral and the official announcement in no way implies ample time for representation.
> 
> Again here, speculations. The "difficulty" of making the decision does not in any way relate to the appropriateness of the process, nor to any presence/lack of political pressure. For instance and please, I am just spitballing here as an illustration and by no way impugn the CDS's honour - its just for example for the sake of showing how you can spin any fact when you DON'T KNOW: Gen. Vance was a very recent Conservative appointee, the difficulty he talks about may just have been as much political pressure leading to have to chose his own career over his friendship. Again this is just an example and I have absolutely no reason to believe this any more or less than anything else.


I’m a MP, my gig is “reasonable and probable”.  I leave, “beyond a reasonable doubt” to the lawyers and judges.   [



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As FSTO alluded to, it is a very narrow vision of "public" interest to assume that just because one specific action benefits a single branch of the Service, it is that branch's interest that is solely at stake. Would you feel the same if, say all the Cormorants were grounded due to a defect and Bell/Textron offered a fix to be quickly applied, and the head of the RCAF pushed real hard for it, even liaising with Bell, to get the birds flying much faster than under standard procurement? Would you consider that in the RCAF interest, or does the provision of SAR to Canadians not be a valid public interest?
> 
> On the second point, it is important to remember here, again, that no, the interest of the government of the day is NOT equal to "public" interest. Your conclusion that you see the actions as counter to the government and CAF interest is interesting since a court of law, that unsealed most of the affidavits of the RCMP, has basically concluded the opposite.
> 
> Finally, I have been privy in my other life to communications between industry and top military brass, and I can tell you there is not much out of norm in the Admiral's correspondence. The Air Force generals are particularly adept at this  ).



Not disputing for a second that the lack of AOR capability is a huge deal, but right now, the CAF is lacking, or about to lose, a lot of capabilities that are a huge deal.

Before commenting further, if you haven't read it, the redacted Information to Obtain is available here: Information to Obtain a Search Warrant and Sealing Order.  I will point out that the issues brought up in the ITO have not been tested in court but are documentary evidence, being derived from email sent, or received.

It’s pretty disheartening, and a huge ethical and moral lapse on the part of our senior leadership, if it is de facto knowledge and accepted that “everyone” is behaving like the VCDS did here.  Tipping off a senior manager of a private company about when the management team of a competitor was going to be in Ottawa and visiting CAF/DND, divulging to the management of a private company where the MND is, what he was doing and who he did or didn’t meet, referring to the leadership of a company with which the Government had entered into a multi-billion dollar contract, which the entire fate of the RCNs future combat capability is riding, not just an interim AOR, to the same senior member of the competition…  Somehow I doubt the VCDS was giving the same consideration to ISI or Seaspan senior folks about their competition he was so chummy with, particularly since 3 of them are part of the Riders of the Apocalypse.  Throw in Spencer Fraser’s RCN experience, first thing I’m wondering is, classmate, coursemate or shipmate, what exactly got him the special treatment that the CRCN is willing to risk the relationship with ISI for?  Wouldn't the entire AOPS and CSC programs be the bigger relationship the CRCN should be trying to maintain instead of playing favourites, and bad mouthing the competition, with Davie?  Note that I'm not saying he shouldn't be communicating with the company, but he should be doing it ethically and professionally and with the same consideration he is giving each and every other company.  Is it normal for a Flag Officer to query someone they are doing business with that their daughter will be in contact regarding a fundraiser?

The reason I’m looking at it as being bad news for the CAF and Government writ large is: 

1) how much confidence does the Government have that confidential discussions they have with senior military leaders will be kept internal to the consultation process.  How much do they trust that if a senior member of the CAF accompanies them that their business and movements won’t be leaked out when it is advantageous to the “company or party in favour”.  What is the impact of the Govt deciding the risks of a leak, or the probability that the counsel they are receiving is unmotivated by vindictiveness or favouritism?  Do they suddenly start making decisions without consulting senior military leaders?  How does that serve the CAF, the Govt, the Canadian public?  What would the reaction of the VCDS have been if a member of his staff, who had access to his confidential discussions and itinerary, was leaking that info to ISI because they thought ISI could do a better deal for the RCN compared to what the Conservatives had signed Davie up for?  

2) At this point, we have a few huge procurement fiascos on the books.  I will use the Future Fighter for my example.  We all know the F-35 (aka F-52) is the prefered option for the win.  In the meantime though, the Gov’t has gone out of its way to try to have an open competition.  Since the RCAF is on record as saying the F-35 is what they want and need, does that mean when Dassault is pitching the Rafaele, when Saab is pitching the Grippen, if Boeing decides enough time has passed for the Bombardier wound to heal, that they need to be worried about the same shenanigans are going to go on?  That someone at Lockhead Martin...say, Ret’d LGen Charles Bouchard who is the “...for Lockheed Martin Canada”, can expect the same favours from the Commander of the RCAF, because it is quite probable they at least know of each other, have run into each other, if not actually served together, while the rest get shut out of any inside info because they don’t have a retired Canadian General Officer on the payroll and their aircraft aren't what the RCAF wants?

Now, maybe this is the way it works and if it is, I’m saddened, but wouldn’t be surprised and it would be a huge reason to implement a blanket prohibition on post-retirement employment with related defence contractors after a certain rank level as opposed to the pointless 1 year rule currently in place.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Three things here: First, let's agree to disagree; second, is to wonder why - and at whose intimation - was a criminal investigation ever started? As more than just I have indicated above, Cabinets confidences are leaked as if from a sieve at all times and somehow there never were any criminal investigations. This is a precedent and you can be absolutely certain that the RCMP did NOT start this on its own: politicians laid an information, which by itself probably somewhat directed the RCMP in the direction they wanted it to go (just as was done before with the "Senate" scandal - same overly incensed (IMHO) RCMP team, BTW). But here's the thing: Now that the "precedent" that RCMP investigates Cabinet leaks as criminal act is set, whenever such leak occurs, and is reported in the papers as such, how can the RCMP refuse to investigate on their own unless the politician file a complaint and continue to claim this is not a political process/witch hunt? Thirdly, there has been no MSM field day whatsoever over this matter, other than a few specialized journalists trying to keep the issue alive, while the population in general couldn't care less.


Who launched the complaint?  In the ITO it states this part of the overall investigation was a follow on from an internal investigation in the Privy Council Office.  I do note; however, that everyone is pointing fingers at the Liberals when Murray Brewster reported the overall investigation was initiated by the Conservatives, "Multiple sources tell CBC News the hunt for informants began under the former Conservative government, but gained a renewed intensity in November 2015 under the newly elected Liberals following at least three sensitive breaches that were splashed across the media." (full article).  So I suppose the ultimate complainant here is PM Harper.  When it kicked off, I'm pretty sure they had no idea that one of the trails was going to lead to the VCDS though.  

The fact “Cabinet Confidences” leak from Cabinet is irrelevant.  It is their information, if the Cabinet decides to leak something deliberately as a trial balloon, that’s their prerogative, much the same as I can take my PROTECTED B PER and pin it in the bulletin board in the lobby with impunity but nobody else can.  It is also irrelevant if other leaks aren’t investigated, and there isn’t a precedent set that all Cabinet Confidence leaks must now be investigated.  Just because a shopkeeper doesn’t report someone for shoplifting doesn’t mean that they can’t report anyone else and by the same token, just because they report someone doesn’t mean they are now obligated to report every incident of shoplifting in their store.

And from my perspective, given the normal coverage anything defence related gets in Canada, yeah, field day.  Every major, and quite a few not so major, news organizations covered this when it broke, went to court to get the ITO and Search Warrant unsealed, continue to follow-up...



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> OK, so this is not "Cabinet confidences". This is tracking internally to DND/CAF HQ sealed document that may or may not be classified or protected, no one knows because they are sealed. On this, DND is special and I am pretty certain that no other department has a RCMP cell to internally carry out investigations of documents that go missing internally. Nevertheless, the documents internally directed to an office charged with assembling the briefs to the minister for Cabinet meetings does not make the documents "Cabinet confidences". They become such only when the DM has decided that the document is to be included in the brief and is actually put in the said briefing binder. We have to be careful here: any of these documents may posses some for m of "protection" from being considered public from other source (a classified document for instance) wether it ends up or not in the briefing binder, just like some documents may be public otherwise and don't cease to be public just because they are included in the binders (for instance, a University professor published research paper used as supporting documentation will remain publicly available) - at that point, it is only the fact that it was submitted to Cabinet that becomes covered by the protection.


You are taking a much, much too narrow view of what is considered a Cabinet Confidence.  Cabinet Confidences are defined as:



> Confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (Cabinet confidences)
> 
> 3. Types of documents
> Cabinet confidences are defined in the Act as information contained in six types of documents described in paragraphs 70(1)(a) through 70(1)(f) of the Act. The six types of documents do not constitute an exhaustive list but rather provide a series of examples of records that are considered Cabinet confidences. The six types of records are described below.
> 
> (a) Memoranda
> (b) Discussion papers
> (c) Agenda and records of Cabinet deliberations or decisions
> (d) Records of communications between ministers
> (e) Records to brief ministers
> (f) Draft legislation
> 
> Click the link for the full passage.


It's not just internal to DND, it is across all of Government, all Departments.  These don’t just float around non-descript, they are clearly marked on the envelope, file folder etc etc in the same fashion we use security markings on classified or designated material.  You get one of these, intentionally or not, there is no mistaking what it is.

I don’t have a clue how other departments do things but they are required to investigate it.  Just like within CAF/DND MP do not do all security investigations, RCMP are not required to do all security investigations for the rest of Govt.  I would expect the applicable Departmental Security Officer has staff assigned to this, I know a few ex-MP and MPO who are doing this kind of thing.  Since we are a convenient resource for DND and do security investigations anyway, this is our bag with DND/CAF.

Reference you saying, “_ Nevertheless, the documents internally directed to an office charged with assembling the briefs to the minister for Cabinet meetings does not make the documents "Cabinet confidences". They become such only when the DM has decided that the document is to be included in the brief and is actually put in the said briefing binder._”  That’s like making the argument that information only becomes TOP SECRET when you actually type that classification onto the document.  Until then, it isn’t classified at all and fine to send via email through a private server that just happens to be located in your house, that also holds all of your personal email...



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This is nice let's keep this going: Should we split to a "Cabinet confidence or not" or "How DND tre[ats Cabinet confidence" thread?


I think it's ok to leave in here for right now...j

_Edit:  Typo_


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'd suggest the proof of what gave him the push to seek Davies out is at present doing sea trials and gives us back some sea legs.  (something neither ISI or Season were going to deliver until God knows when) That, and the new broom was about to fuck us, as the Chretien new broom did to helos, 25 years ago.

For the good of the service, not for personal gain.

Our procurement system is so convoluted, ass backwards, micro mismanaged by PSPC, under staffed and overwhelmed it's no wonder to me that someone would be tempted to do an end run in order to accomplish something. (Allegedly)


----------



## garb811

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'd suggest the proof of what gave him the push to seek Davies out is at present doing sea trials and gives us back some sea legs.  (something neither ISI or Season were going to deliver until God knows when) That, and the new broom was about to frig us, as the Chretien new broom did to helos, 25 years ago.
> 
> For the good of the service, not for personal gain.
> 
> Our procurement system is so convoluted, *** backwards, micro mismanaged by PSPC, under staffed and overwhelmed it's no wonder to me that someone would be tempted to do an end run in order to accomplish something.


So, if I, a MP, "know" a sailor is selling coke, because three of his shipmates tells me he is, but I can't get the evidence to prove it, I can just pull him over and plant a couple dime bags in his car for me to "find" in plain view?  That'd be ok, right?  I mean, a coke dealer is out of the fleet and it isn't for my personal gain...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can't say I am impressed with the level of commitment to security of documents intended for Cabinet taken by senior management. They will toss security out the door to meet timelines.


----------



## jollyjacktar

garb811 said:
			
		

> So, if I, a MP, "know" a sailor is selling coke, because three of his shipmates tells me he is, but I can't get the evidence to prove it, I can just pull him over and plant a couple dime bags in his car for me to "find" in plain view?  That'd be ok, right?  I mean, a coke dealer is out of the fleet and it isn't for my personal gain...



You asked what motivated him.  That was my suggestion.  The ends justified the means.  Maybe he knew the risks and was willing to pay the price if it went South.

As for your scenario, that would be up to you now, wouldn't it?  Would the ends justify the means?  Officer's discretion and all....

For me, at the end of the day, we've got a Tanker we really could not be without.  I'm happy about something concrete being accomplished, especially if it annoyed those who would have shanked us in the showers.


----------



## Cloud Cover

garb811 said:
			
		

> So, if I, a MP, "know" a sailor is selling coke, because three of his shipmates tells me he is, but I can't get the evidence to prove it, I can just pull him over and plant a couple dime bags in his car for me to "find" in plain view?  That'd be ok, right?  I mean, a coke dealer is out of the fleet and it isn't for my personal gain...


....  assuming you are implying that knowledge is like cocaine ( which it might as well be when hundreds of millions of dollars are exchanged). For this purpose, we have to stick to the formal basis of the investigation. The redacted version of the ITO for example, in 1.c. clearly indicates that unlawful posession of an actual document of a nature such as described in the SOIA occurred, never mind all the cabinet confidence convention, which is just political claptrap waiting affirmation of previous judicial notice. This might appear to be very binary, but the element of intent then makes it somewhat nebulous. The question is not so simple as whether possession was allowed or it was it was not. The blurry issue is whether in his role at the material time, did the person who may eventually be formally accused in a charge, have the lawful authority and individual administrative discretion to discreetly allow or grant possession, share information in confidence etc, regardless of what the actual benefit or harm was (or could be...) I genuinely and with admitted naïveté, do not believe for public policy reasons, that senior commissioned officers have any discretion to discuss any of these things privately with third parties without express ministerial direction. It does not rise to the level of solicitor and client privilege, but it seems just one shade of grey below.

We really do not know if the Harper government was changing its intentions (and it would have been within their sole prerogative to do so before October, 2015 and same vis the incoming government thereafter) but for one person to ostensibly decide to attempt to accomplish the interim AOR aspirations of the RCN allegedly by fiat through apparent use of inside information is troubling.

All that aside, the big problem for the current and any future government is setting such a high level precedent.  Enforcement of the criminalization of exploiting insider information for departmental objectives will force ministers to direct senior staff to shut up or put up with the consequences, because it cannot be both. Can you imagine climate scientists or social engineering interests finding themselves beholden to such rigour for the sake of government prerogative. I think not. 

Project Resolve stands as an example of Canadian dedicated citizen and business initiative in the face of inexcusable government inertia, and nothing, not even a prosecution if one ever arises, can erase that outcome.


----------



## FSTO

Garb811

If this whole affair blows up the entire Government of Canada procurement process then I would gladly light the fuse. The underhanded efforts of the Liberal Party and ISL to scuttle iAOR under the guise of "Cabinet Secrecy" are more egregious than the Admirals actions. The cabinet's actions had nothing to do with proper procurement and everything to do with Scott Brison being pressured by his benefactors in ISL to stop a competitor from completing a project vital to the national interests.

As far as I know the current rules in place for military procurement were not written in stone and handed to Moses. They can and should be thrown out and totally rewritten because heaven knows the current rules do not work at all.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Although I disagree with much of Garb811's analysis, I need to come to his defence on the issue of cabinet confidences. The whole nature of cabinet government and the capability of officials, including admirals and generals, to "speak truth to power" rests on the fact that the advice and counsel given to cabinet ~ which may be, often is in my (quite limited) experience), contradictory ~ is SECRET, more than just SECRET, it's confidentiality is paramount and sacrosanct. Cabinet makes its decisions for a whole host of reasons: some excellent, some so-so and some terrible. Most decisions are made for a messy mix of policy, economic, partisan political and even personal reasons. The whole cabinet is then bound by the decision ~ if an individual minister cannot abide a decision then (s)he must leave the cabinet ... but still not speak out in a way that would violate the confidentiality of the cabinet process. So, cabinet confidentiality is very important to the machinery of government and to the very nature of our, Westminster style, of *responsible*, parliamentary democracy.

It doesn't matter why Scott Brison called in the Mounties ... he had a right, even a duty to do so IF he felt that cabinet confidentiality had been breached.

It also doesn't matter if ministers and the PCO make selective leaks ~ we can hold them accountable every four years or so. Two wrongs don't make a right, as my old granny used to remind me as she took the long wooden spoon to my bottom.

I said before that _I suspect_, as a layman, that the Crown might have difficulty proving some (many? most?) charges in a criminal court where the burden of proof is high.

I don't know VAdm Norman (I think I may have met him once or twice, he didn't make much of an impression) but I have heard, from people I trust, that he is an upright but highly opinionated man. Perhaps his sense of duty to the Navy got in the way of prudence ... I simply don't know. Given that there was an official, high level, police investigation I'm not sure how much choice the CDS had in what he chose to do. In my "perfect world" Minister Brison would have called VAdm Norman in for a chat, tore a strip off him, listened to Norman's excuses or reasons, take your pick, and asked him to resign because he had lost the confidence of the government. 

I think that VAdm Norman's (very able) lawyer is keeping this on the media's front burners as she tries to force the Crown's hand. I suspect it is not top of mind for more than a tiny handful of Canadians but, since it _*might*_ embarrass the government it is important.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> I can't say I am impressed with the level of commitment to security of documents intended for Cabinet taken by senior management. They will toss security out the door to meet timelines.



Concur, and I believe reinforces Garb811's earlier point, which I took to be flavoured along the lines of "Two wrongs don't make a right."  Entirely Cabinet's prerogative if they as a whole, or sub-elements within, wish to have information they have deemed to be within their confidence become known.  I have not been a fan of that approach, because I do believe it weakens the concept of CC, but...that doesn't (or shouldn't) matter to others in the Government structure who have been appropriately assigned responsibility to handle CC material in the conduct of their duties - you treat it appropriately (SECRET LIMDIS, need to know, etc.)  Is the Government (Privy Council) being (to a degree) disingenuous when it complains about 'trustability' of the Departments in handling CC material inconsistently if it itself deliberately releases such material through various means?  It doesn't really matter if it is or not, as far as the Departments are concerned - treat the material accordingly, full stop.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

A retired member of the Royal Regiment has started a GoFundMe page to help cover VAdm Norman's legal bills.

https://www.gofundme.com/51lc5d4


----------



## NavyShooter

I'd chip in the price of a can of beer to hel......er....um....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LOL, speaking of Cabinet secrecy  :rofl:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australia-probe-sale-secret-papers-filing-cabinets-1.4511718


----------



## Rifleman62

Extract from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-town-hall-edmonton-1.4515822
_
Prime minister's cross-country tour wraps up with one final town hall in Nanaimo, B.C., Friday_ - 1 Feb 18

One questioner asked why the federal government was continuing its "witch hunt" against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who is alleged to have leaked cabinet secrets to an executive at Chantier-Davie, a shipbuilding company based in Levis, Que.

Trudeau said that the issue of leaking cabinet secrets was a rare one, and without referring specifically to Norman's case, said it had to be taken seriously. 

"Secrecy of confidential processes, of bidding of procurement in government is extremely important. There are often millions and billions of dollars at stake and cabinet secrecy and confidentiality is not something we can ever take lightly."

Speaking about Norman directly, Trudeau said that he would not say much about specifics, except to note that he took the advice of the chief of defence staff.

"I trust our public service, in their capacity to make determinations about what actually need to happen in cases like this, and I don't think that political interference in the rigorous decision-making process that went [into] choosing to moving on a case like this would have made anything better in this particular case."


----------



## SeaKingTacco

riiight.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Extract from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-town-hall-edmonton-1.4515822
> _"I trust our public service, in their capacity to make determinations about what actually need to happen in cases like this, and I don't think that political interference in the rigorous decision-making process that went [into] choosing to moving on a case like this would have made anything better in this particular case."
> _



Is he referring to us as the Public Service ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

He is. And correctly so, HT.

By definition, the public service includes both the civil service and the uniformed services, such as the military and police. We all serve the public.

It is just an unfortunate fact of life that, in Canada, the Unions of civil servants have decided to brand themselves as "public" servants, and as result the creeping terminology in general use went that way over time, losing the distinction that ought to rightly exist.

But yes, we, uniformed people are here to serve the public, and thus, are public servants - I would almost say in the "noblest" sense, but that would be arrogant, wouldn't-it?  ;D.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> He is. And correctly so, HT.
> 
> By definition, the public service includes both the civil service and the uniformed services, such as the military and police. We all serve the public.



As well as the 'public' with our nation's enemies. Our service provision to them is similar to Phoenix


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> He is. And correctly so, HT.
> 
> By definition, the public service includes both the civil service and the uniformed services, such as the military and police. We all serve the public.
> 
> It is just an unfortunate fact of life that, in Canada, the Unions of civil servants have decided to brand themselves as "public" servants, and as result the creeping terminology in general use went that way over time, losing the distinction that ought to rightly exist.
> 
> But yes, we, uniformed people are here to serve the public, and thus, are public servants - I would almost say in the "noblest" sense, but that would be arrogant, wouldn't-it?  ;D.



Sad state of affairs as my grandmother used to say.  Did we not a recent CDS to proclaimed that we "are not members of the public service" ?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/review-a-soldier-first-by-rick-hillier/article1348130/



> And Hillier did that as soon as he took the job. Canada was in Afghanistan fighting "detestable murderers and scumbags," he said, and the Canadian Forces weren't the public service. Our job is to kill people, he proclaimed. There was some tut-tutting from a few delicate souls, but Hillier's unscripted remarks began the process of changing the mindset of the forces to a war-fighting culture and to make his soldiers - and soon the public - proud once more.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You are confusing what Hillier would have said in his book and what the reviewer (in this car Jack Granatstein) said in his review of the book.

There is no direct quote from Hillier at stake in the extract of the review you quote.

Nevertheless, there is a reference to a specific "the" public service, which sadly in Canada (as I said) is confused for the civil service. The reference is here to be understood as that the military is not made up of civil servants, which is true, but not that we are not public servants, which in every country in the world uniformed personnel are considered to be.

There will always be some confusion in Canada in view of the vocabulary the civil service and its unions has decided to pervert in their favour (public sounds better than civil) and we have to try and distinguish through context the meaning that a speaker or writer wishes to convey.

I was just willing to give Trudeau the benefit of the doubt that he actually meant to use the words in their normal universal meaning.  ;D  Come on! You know I am not one to exactly jump to the defence of PM JT, so in this case I think we should give him a break.


----------



## FSTO

PM doubling down on VAdm Norman going to court?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-norman-secrets-case-1.4516573


----------



## jollyjacktar

It should be interesting if it does.  I hope the Admiral mops the floor with them.


----------



## Kirkhill

Trudeau may not be wrong.

Case 1:  RCMP lays charges.  Case goes to court.

Case 2: RCMP doesn't lay charges.  VAdm Norman takes his case to civil court.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

In your first alternative, Chris, if the PM can already say what he is saying in a matter of fact tone, then that is political interference - because the PM or ANY cabinet member should never be aware of the particulars or the status of any ongoing investigation of any police force or of the review of cases for the purpose of deciding to lay charges or not at the Crown's Attorney's office (whatever they call them these day).

In the second alternative, it would mean that they have already decided to fight him in court over compensation all the way until a final judgement against the government becomes fully executory, meaning very senior public servants in Canada are given less consideration than condemned terrorist in the eyes of the government. to quote a certain president: Sad!


----------



## brihard

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Trudeau may not be wrong.
> 
> Case 1:  RCMP lays charges.  Case goes to court.
> 
> Case 2: RCMP doesn't lay charges.  VAdm Norman takes his case to civil court.



Ding ding ding.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In your first alternative, Chris, if the PM can already say what he is saying in a matter of fact tone, then that is political interference - because the PM or ANY cabinet member should never be aware of the particulars or the status of any ongoing investigation of any police force or of the review of cases for the purpose of deciding to lay charges or not at the Crown's Attorney's office (whatever they call them these day).
> 
> In the second alternative, it would mean that they have already decided to fight him in court over compensation all the way until a final judgement against the government becomes fully executory, meaning very senior public servants in Canada are given less consideration than condemned terrorist in the eyes of the government. to quote a certain president: Sad!



Perhaps the PM is thinking "eye for an eye"...be part of a leak of Cabinet Confidence, don't be surprised if "Judicial Confidence" also becomes known?

On the second point, the Government is quite unapologetic in taking Veterans to Court, why stop at retired members?

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## ModlrMike

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps the PM is thinking "eye for an eye"...be part of a leak of Cabinet Confidence, don't be surprised if "Judicial Confidence" also becomes known?
> 
> On the second point, the Government is quite unapologetic in taking Veterans to Court, why stop at retired serving members?
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



FTFY


----------



## Kat Stevens

Funny how the PM has all this faith in system, until it comes to a white Saskatchewan farmer shooting a FN trespasser. Then we “need to do better”.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Funny how the PM has all this faith in system, until it comes to a white Saskatchewan farmer shooting a FN trespasser. Then we “need to do better”.



Solid point you have there...


----------



## JesseWZ

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In your first alternative, Chris, if the PM can already say what he is saying in a matter of fact tone, then that is political interference - because the PM or ANY cabinet member should never be aware of the particulars or the status of any ongoing investigation of any police force or of the review of cases for the purpose of deciding to lay charges or not at the Crown's Attorney's office (whatever they call them these day).



That's not _entirely true._ There are certain offences in the Criminal Code and other Federal Statues which require the Attorney General of Canada's consent _in writing_ to proceed with prosecution. The Attorney General (Minister of Justice) is an elected official, but also responsible for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) through its director. They are probably dialed in to many different cases, particularly if they are on track to head to the SCC. The separation of powers is between the Executive and the Judiciary, not the Prosecution Service. That being said, it could be a PR nightmare for a government to be micro-managing the decisions of the PPS for a political gain...


----------



## Privateer

Globe and Mail: "Vice-Admiral Mark Norman charged with breach of trust by RCMP"

link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-lay-breach-of-trust-charge-against-vice-admiral-mark-norman/article38260930/

Excerpt:


> The RCMP have laid a charge of breach of trust against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the former second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces, The Globe and Mail has learned.
> 
> The charge was filed in an Ottawa court Friday, said a source with direct knowledge of the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
> 
> An RCMP investigation of Vice-Adm. Norman was related to the alleged leak of secret federal documents.
> 
> Supporters of Vice-Adm. Norman repeatedly called for the RCMP to drop their investigation, saying the officer always acted in Canada's national interest.
> 
> The Globe has reached out to his lawyer, Marie Henein. She said a response would be coming "at the appropriate time." ...


----------



## McG

There are now charges:
http://www.rcmp.gc.ca/en/news/2018/rcmp-lays-breach-trust-charge-criminal-investigation


----------



## FSTO

Took them long enough.

Now will this go to trial? Or will there be a settlement?

Who wants to go to court more? Who doesn't want to go to court at all.

Inquiring minds need to know!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

This is not a civil case, FSTO. There are no "settlement", only plea bargains on punishment if you agree to plead guilty to either the charge or lesser one are possible and even then, the judge has the right to say no and give higher punishment - though it is rare.

In the present case, I suspect that there is no way in hell Mark will ever acknowledge guilt. I could be wrong, but that would not be the man I have known.

I still think that the RCMP has no evidence whatsoever that the admiral benefited from his actions, if any, in any way. Mark (no pun intended) my words: This will turn out for the Libs into an embarrassment similar to the Duffy trial for the conservatives.


----------



## Privateer

Although in a case such as this, I could imagine the possibility of a deal struck that would, for example, save face for the government and result in (somewhat) acceptable terms of departure for the Admiral, and include a stay or withdrawal of the charge.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No, Privateer.

Once the charges have been laid by the RCMP, they belong to the Public Prosecutor's Office and anything that would involve the person's career in the government would breach the rule that the Office must be beyond any political interference.

Therefore, striking acceptable terms of departure in exchange for dropping the charge would not only be outside the powers of the prosecutor, but would immediately show the settlement to be political in nature (which the press would interpret as "the government has no case but used its power to prosecute for the sole political aim of arm wrestling a deal with the admiral and putting fear in the next person who would "leak" anything") and therefore, improper use of political power.


----------



## Remius

This part was interesting:

"the RCMP sought evidence through a number of judicial authorizations and a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Request from U.S. authorities"

I wonder if that's what took so long.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Let the games begin.


----------



## brihard

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I still think that the RCMP has no evidence whatsoever that the admiral benefited from his actions, if any, in any way. Mark (no pun intended) my words: This will turn out for the Libs into an embarrassment similar to the Duffy trial for the conservatives.



Personal gain is not an element of the offense. It’s not necessary to prove he benefitted. While that would potentially be an aggravating factor in sentencing, it needn’t be established to convict.

The laying of the charge means the police have reasonable and probably grounds to believe the accused is guilty of an offense, and it can be reasonably inferred that the crown feels they have a reasonable prospect of conviction, and that pursuing the matter is in the public interest. And now it’s in the hands of the court.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, you are right, Brihard. I hadn't noticed that they specified that the proceeding is under article 122 of the Criminal Code. That article states:

_Breach of trust by public officer

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person._

This is interesting because the RCMP is not talking about breach of the Security of Information Act anymore, yet that was the act under which they tried to obtain the original search warrant (I leave it to his lawyer to decide how to use that fact of using improper search warrant).

But in any event, they clearly are not saying anymore that he revealed any secret information. As to what the breach is - two things here: First, article 122 is in section of the criminal code titled "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice" and if you look at it, it has to do with things like fraud against the crown, bribery of officials and corruption of officials, not with the confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations or decision making process. Second, the "breach of trust" referred to in article 122 itself does not equate, for the public servant, to simply doing something that makes the government lose its trust in the public servant, as in a normal employment relationship, but rather an actual existence of a trust relationship as a result of the clear written law that makes that public servant a "trustee" as defined at article 2 of the Criminal Code, which is then wilfully breached (making it criminal breach of trust). I am very far from convinced that, if no breach of the Security of Information Act can be proven (i.e., the Cabinet confidences are not covered) that there is then an actual "trust" created for that information in the Criminal Code sense. 

Anyway, we'll have to see.


----------



## garb811

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...
> This is interesting because the RCMP is not talking about breach of the Security of Information Act anymore, yet that was the act under which they tried to obtain the original search warrant (I leave it to his lawyer to decide how to use that fact of using improper search warrant).
> ...


The ITO stated the investigator had reasonable grounds to believe three offences had been commited:

a. Breach of Trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the _Criminal Code_;
b. Wrongful communication of information contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the _Security of Information Act_; and
c.  Allowing possession of document contrary to section 4(4)(b) of the _Security of Information Act_.

The investigator additionally noted he was aware of a ruling by a Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario that declared those sections of the Security of Information Act unconstitutional in order to bring it to the attention of the court for consideration prior to the Search Warrant being granted.

No bad faith or issue with the Search Warrant being improper (on those grounds anyway).


----------



## Kat Stevens

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, you are right, Brihard. I hadn't noticed that they specified that the proceeding is under article 122 of the Criminal Code. That article states:
> 
> _Breach of trust by public officer
> 
> 122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person._
> 
> This is interesting because the RCMP is not talking about breach of the Security of Information Act anymore, yet that was the act under which they tried to obtain the original search warrant (I leave it to his lawyer to decide how to use that fact of using improper search warrant).
> 
> But in any event, they clearly are not saying anymore that he revealed any secret information. As to what the breach is - two things here: First, article 122 is in section of the criminal code titled "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice" and if you look at it, it has to do with things like fraud against the crown, bribery of officials and corruption of officials, not with the confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations or decision making process. Second, the "breach of trust" referred to in article 122 itself does not equate, for the public servant, to simply doing something that makes the government lose its trust in the public servant, as in a normal employment relationship, but rather an actual existence of a trust relationship as a result of the clear written law that makes that public servant a "trustee" as defined at article 2 of the Criminal Code, which is then wilfully breached (making it criminal breach of trust). I am very far from convinced that, if no breach of the Security of Information Act can be proven (i.e., the Cabinet confidences are not covered) that there is then an actual "trust" created for that information in the Criminal Code sense.
> 
> Anyway, we'll have to see.



Based on this, there's a bloody good chance of a major cleanout of both parliament and the senate.


----------



## brihard

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, you are right, Brihard. I hadn't noticed that they specified that the proceeding is under article 122 of the Criminal Code. That article states:
> 
> _Breach of trust by public officer
> 
> 122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person._
> 
> This is interesting because the RCMP is not talking about breach of the Security of Information Act anymore, yet that was the act under which they tried to obtain the original search warrant (I leave it to his lawyer to decide how to use that fact of using improper search warrant).
> 
> But in any event, they clearly are not saying anymore that he revealed any secret information. As to what the breach is - two things here: First, article 122 is in section of the criminal code titled "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice" and if you look at it, it has to do with things like fraud against the crown, bribery of officials and corruption of officials, not with the confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations or decision making process. Second, the "breach of trust" referred to in article 122 itself does not equate, for the public servant, to simply doing something that makes the government lose its trust in the public servant, as in a normal employment relationship, but rather an actual existence of a trust relationship as a result of the clear written law that makes that public servant a "trustee" as defined at article 2 of the Criminal Code, which is then wilfully breached (making it criminal breach of trust). I am very far from convinced that, if no breach of the Security of Information Act can be proven (i.e., the Cabinet confidences are not covered) that there is then an actual "trust" created for that information in the Criminal Code sense.
> 
> Anyway, we'll have to see.



From what I can find open source on CANLII, the search warrant ITO in fact did refer to S.122 CC as well as two SOIA offenses, so you’re wrong on that part.

Pulling back from this case in specific to search warrants generally, you’re also off base in suggesting that not laying a charge alleged in an ITO renders a subsequently granted search warrant ‘improper’. The threshold for a search warrant is much lower than a charge, lower still than a conviction. A search warrant is an investigative tool used to determine what the facts are. To grant one a JP needs to be satisfied that there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe, in short, that what is asked for in the search warrant will furnish evidence of named offenses. It is not unusual for the execution of a search warrant to close some doors and open others. The test of a warrant’s validity is based on whether it was reasonable based on what was known at the time it was granted, subject to full, fair, and frank disclosure in an ITO. I’ve written a handful of ITOs for search warrants or production orders for drug production, drug trafficking, sexual assault, child porn, fraud, and attempted murder files. One of them satisfied me that an offense had not taken place; that did not render my ITO or production order invalid as a result. Rather it allowed me to conclude an investigation and inform someone they were no longer under suspicion of an offense. In other cases they advanced the investigations, sometimes leading in a somewhat different direction or revealing additional offenses.


----------



## Lumber

Statement Regarding Vice Admiral Mark Norman

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/statement-regarding-vice-admiral-mark-norman-676402123.html


----------



## Lumber

What do the rules say about posting online (Facebook, Twitter) about your support for a senior leader charged with a crime? Would it be considered against regulations, or just inappropriate, to claim the RCMP and/or PMO are, say, wrong, borderline corrupt or at least  inept?


----------



## FJAG

Lumber said:
			
		

> What do the rules say about posting online (Facebook, Twitter) about your support for a senior leader charged with a crime? Would it be considered against regulations, or just inappropriate, to claim the RCMP and/or PMO are, say, wrong, borderline corrupt or at least  inept?



I personally don't care about the regulations. He's got my support. I won't go so far as to call the PMO corrupt but it strikes me that the Liberals, who seemed to yap all the time about transparency while they were in opposition, have carried secret backroom deals and disdain for the Canadian Forces to a new all-time low.

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, Lumber, I am not bound by any rules anymore, so I'll say it out loud:

The RCMP and the PMO are wrong, borderline corrupt and inept, not to mention they truly don't give a damn about this country, but only about being in power for their own personal gain, or in the case of the PM himself, only in it for his own narcissistic self-image as living up to his image of his father [cue Freud here].

But that's just my personal opinion.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I hope he comes out on top of this and boot fucks whomever is behind it.


----------



## Eaglelord17

FJAG said:
			
		

> I personally don't care about the regulations. He's got my support. I won't go so far as to call the PMO corrupt but it strikes me that the Liberals, who seemed to yap all the time about transparency while they were in opposition, have carried secret backroom deals and disdain for the Canadian Forces to a new all-time low.
> 
> :cheers:



When one of your first moves in government is to remove two transparency bills, one for Native spending, the other for Union spending, it speaks a fair bit about their motives.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Lumber said:
			
		

> What do the rules say about posting online (Facebook, Twitter) about your support for a senior leader charged with a crime? Would it be considered against regulations, or just inappropriate, to claim the RCMP and/or PMO are, say, wrong, borderline corrupt or at least  inept?



There have been high placed emails on the DWAN telling everyone in uniform to stay away from making any public comment on this case.


----------



## Nuggs

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There have been high placed emails on the DWAN telling everyone in uniform to stay away from making any public comment on this case.


It was interesting looking through the GoFundMe donation list

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Nuggs said:
			
		

> It was interesting looking through the GoFundMe donation list
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



 :nod:


----------



## Strike

I would stay away from making specific comments against any government entity specifically.  But I can't see anyone getting nabbed for sharing articles and wishing him the best.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Stuart Thompson takes aim at the meaning of the charge laid against the Admiral in today's gazette.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-breach-of-trust-charge-against-mark-norman/wcm/f3aae1b3-c64a-4453-9cdd-f9c0806a9989

Again, I have a hard time believing that the Crown is in a position to make its proof to the extent required by the Supreme Court, particularly the need to prove he was acting for a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose. Reading this, I am even more convinced that the charge has been laid as a result of some form of government political interference. I still think this will blow up in their face.


----------



## ModlrMike

There are those involved in this issue for whom "dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose" certainly applies, but VAdm Norman is not one of them.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Stuart Thompson takes aim at the meaning of the charge laid against the Admiral in today's gazette.
> 
> http://montrealgazette.com/news/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-breach-of-trust-charge-against-mark-norman/wcm/f3aae1b3-c64a-4453-9cdd-f9c0806a9989
> 
> Again, I have a hard time believing that the Crown is in a position to make its proof to the extent required by the Supreme Court, particularly the need to prove he was acting for a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose. Reading this, I am even more convinced that the charge has been laid as a result of some form of government political interference. I still think this will blow up in their face.



Nailed it.

 :cheers:


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Stuart Thompson takes aim at the meaning of the charge laid against the Admiral in today's gazette.
> 
> http://montrealgazette.com/news/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-breach-of-trust-charge-against-mark-norman/wcm/f3aae1b3-c64a-4453-9cdd-f9c0806a9989
> 
> Again, I have a hard time believing that the Crown is in a position to make its proof to the extent required by the Supreme Court, particularly the need to prove he was acting for a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose. Reading this, I am even more convinced that the charge has been laid as a result of some form of government political interference. I still think this will blow up in their face.



Is this a case of hubris (already an issue in Trudeau's PMO) making a bad decision worse? Is there nobody of influence within the government that is telling them to cut their losses before the court case brings the sorry affair to light?

As much as I will enjoy the likes of Irvings, Scott Brison and JT being made fools of, I deplore the amount of time and money that will be wasted to make me happy!


----------



## PuckChaser

This could be significantly worse than the Duffy trial, and likely will be popping up right at election time.


----------



## dapaterson

Irrelevant.  This is the Federal equivalent of a SLAPP - "We won't cover your legal bills, and we'll hang you out to dry in public".  Senior bureaucrats, horsemen and military personnel understand how the game is played.  Innocent or guilty, he's been stripped of influence, stripped of the ability to get things done, and parked on a shelf as an example "pour encourager les autres".

With another year or so before the trial, and four years after that of appeals up to and including the supreme court, I'm certain that the Crown will spare no expense, since they have unlimited resources to persecute the RAdm.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=dapaterson] 

With another year or so before the trial, and four years after that of appeals up to and including the supreme court, I'm certain that the Crown will spare no expense, since they have unlimited resources to persecute the RAdm.
[/quote]

It's a SLAPP for sure. Ammo for the Conservatives at election time perhaps? To go along with their "more than we can afford to give" stance.

His GoFundMe raised $82'000 in a month, I have a feeling he'll get significant help from CAF members and civilians alike.


----------



## Blackadder1916

dapaterson said:
			
		

> . . .  I'm certain that the Crown will spare no expense, since they have unlimited resources to persecute the RAdm.



While It is likely that one dream of the Crown is that, if things go their way, a reduction in rank will follow (probably more than one step down to RAdm), however let's not jump the gun on the future retired title of Vice Admiral Norman.


----------



## dapaterson

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> While It is likely that one dream of the Crown is that, if things go their way, a reduction in rank will follow (probably more than one step down to RAdm), however let's not jump the gun on the future retired title of Vice Admiral Norman.



Nice catch.  Mea culpa on that.


...clearly I need to increase my minimum caffeine load before posting...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Or, when speaking generally and exact rank or seniority is irrelevant to the point being made, you can simply call any level of general rank by the broad moniker "general" and any flag officer by the moniker "admiral".

Works of me, and for the public at large.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Or, when speaking generally and exact rank or seniority is irrelevant to the point being made, you can simply call any level of general rank by the broad moniker "general" and any flag officer by the moniker "admiral".
> 
> Works of me, and for the public at large.



SIDEBAR

Would one also refer to a Commodore that way?  For the junior services, a Brigadier General is a General, but the Senior Service has numerous quiffs...


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> SIDEBAR
> 
> Would one also refer to a Commodore that way?  For the junior services, a Brigadier General is a General, but the Senior Service has numerous quiffs...



No, no.  You call him "64"..


----------



## Remius

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, no.  You call him "64"..



Vic 20...


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Atari?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> SIDEBAR
> 
> Would one also refer to a Commodore that way?  For the junior services, a Brigadier General is a General, but the Senior Service has numerous quiffs...



Obviously we have a quiff, DP.

Commodores, only referred to as commodores, are not considered flag officers. They only have a broad pennant.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Vice Admiral Norman to make his first court appearance Tuesday, 10 Apr 2018, in an Ottawa courthouse.



https://globalnews.ca/news/4132239/mark-norman-case-shipbuilding-davie/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just don't get your hopes too high.

This is just the first appearance where two things can happen: (1) The Admiral will enter a plea of not guilty or, (2) no plea will be entered as the Admiral elects trial before a jury - in which case the matter will be referred to a Superior court for a later date, when the plea will be entered.

In either case, the Admiral, does not have to be present, if he so wishes, as he has legal representation to speak on his behalf. For such politically charged case, not being present would not be unusual.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Either way, Vultures of all stripes and sizes will be out in force, no doubt.


----------



## Ping Monkey

First court appearance this morning.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/admiral-keen-to-deal-with-criminal-charge-get-back-to-serving-the-people-1.3878777


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In either case, the Admiral, does not have to be present, if he so wishes, as he has legal representation to speak on his behalf. For such politically charged case, not being present would not be unusual.



Well the Admiral did appear and his presence (I would have worn the sword as well if I was him) was a very visible display of a shot across the governments bow


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well the Admiral did appear and his presence (I would have worn the sword as well if I was him) was a very visible display of a shot across the governments bow



Weapons are not permitted in court; the optics of surrendering his sword would not have been good.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Weapons are not permitted in court; the optics of surrendering his sword would not have been good.



Thanks for the correction. :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well the Admiral did appear and his presence (I would have worn the sword as well if I was him) was a very visible display of a shot across the governments bow



Good on him. I also like the combination of cockiness and moral high ground found in his statement about getting back to work for Canada. 

BZ.


----------



## ModlrMike

I can't help but note that the Chantier Davie shipyard sits in the riding of Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Levis... a riding currently held by Steve Blaney of the Conservatives. There couldn't possibly be a political dimension to this whole fiasco could there?


----------



## YZT580

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I can't help but note that the Chantier Davie shipyard sits in the riding of Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Levis... a riding currently held by Steve Blaney of the Conservatives. There couldn't possibly be a political dimension to this whole fiasco could there?


There is always a political dimension.  But wouldn't you think that for a ruling party, currently down in the polls, encouraging voters to switch allegiance in the next vote would be more beneficial than punishing them for their past selection?  The libs currently have the east coast under wraps; it is in Quebec and Ontario that they need to cement relationships and even by implication going after Davies is not the way to win popularity


----------



## jollyjacktar

Looking at his photograph today in his uniform, I couldn't help but notice he has the wrong type of SSI on.  Doesn't he have any wingers who could have got him the correct one, as he obviously wants to be properly on display today.  Don't Admirals have any friends or is it a shark tank at his level?


----------



## Occam

What's wrong with his SSI?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Cloth is out and metal is in on CFs.  Has been for some time now.


----------



## Occam

Interesting, I hadn't heard.  Did they switch dolphins and dive insignia to metal as well, or are they playing fast and loose again?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Just the SSI. (As far as l know)  The cloth badge is to be worn on the NCD.  And to be fair to the man, his uniform is correct for when he was last in the office.


----------



## Occam

Thanks for the info!

</tangent> We now return you to your not so hastily scheduled politically motivated lynching...

Inside voice!  Inside voice, dammit!


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> Thanks for the correction. :facepalm:



I suspect his lawyer has a number of other advisers lined up to walk through things like that.  It's what you say, how you look, how you present yourself that has an important impact on perceptions; this is a battle being fought on multiple planes.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Looking at his photograph today in his uniform, I couldn't help but notice he has the wrong type of SSI on.  Doesn't he have any wingers who could have got him the correct one, as he obviously wants to be properly on display today.  Don't Admirals have any friends or is it a shark tank at his level?



Also no name tag.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Missed that.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, he is wearing a number 1A: No name tags unless specified by the commander.

As for the metal vs. cloth SSI: How would  he have known to change and got a proper one? He has been told to stay home, even though still in the service, for the last year and a half.

And really, except for a few obtuse ones of us, how many Canadians would know any of the difference? Or care?

They see him in full uniform with medals - that's what counts to them: He is making the statement "I am a top defence "soldier" of Canada, you try to impeach my honour at your own risk when it comes to putting Canada first".


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, he is wearing a number 1A: No name tags unless specified by the commander.
> 
> As for the metal vs. cloth SSI: How would  he have known to change and got a proper one? He has been told to stay home, even though still in the service, for the last year and a half.
> 
> And really, except for a few obtuse ones of us, how many Canadians would know any of the difference? Or care?
> 
> They see him in full uniform with medals - that's what counts to them: He is making the statement "I am a top defence "soldier" of Canada, you try to impeach my honour at your own risk when it comes to putting Canada first".



Which l said to be fair, he was dressed correctly for his last assignment.  But again l ask, don't officers at this level look after each other at all, or is it every officer for himself? As l am not of that world, l don't know.  

I would like to think that were he a Chief, one of his wingers would have looked out for him.


----------



## McG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ... l ask, don't officers at this level look after each other at all, or is it every officer for himself? As l am not of that world, l don't know.


As an alternate theory to him being abandoned by his peer group: Given his current state, he has no need to wear his uniform on any given day of the week. When most people put on a suit for their day in court, would anybody have known he was going to show up in uniform? Assuming he did speak a peer about the court date, given the gravity of the situation and implications for the individual and for how government works, (and despite our seemingly endless tinkering with them) where in conversational priority do you see fitting “what’s changed in buttons and bows since Jan 2017”? If nobody knew he was going to wear his uniform, what is the motivation to say “I’d better go check on the status of his uniform just in case he spontaneously appears in public with it this month”. I would be surprised even at the CWO/CPO1 level if somebody were worrying about this without prompting from the member ... and this member has bigger things to worry about.


----------



## captloadie

Why is he wearing his uniform at all? If I have a Sgt busted for a DUI, and he shows up in court in full uniform, someone will likely have a chat with him very soon afterwards. 

Now, maybe the courts are a little different here in Ontario. In Alberta, we were forbidden by the court from wearing a uniform inside the courtroom.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MCG said:
			
		

> As an alternate theory to him being abandoned by his peer group: Given his current state, he has no need to wear his uniform on any given day of the week. When most people put on a suit for their day in court, would anybody have known he was going to show up in uniform? Assuming he did speak a peer about the court date, given the gravity of the situation and implications for the individual and for how government works, (and despite our seemingly endless tinkering with them) where in conversational priority do you see fitting “what’s changed in buttons and bows since Jan 2017”? If nobody knew he was going to wear his uniform, what is the motivation to say “I’d better go check on the status of his uniform just in case he spontaneously appears in public with it this month”. I would be surprised even at the CWO/CPO1 level if somebody were worrying about this without prompting from the member ... and this member has bigger things to worry about.



I've seen it and done it myself wrt buttons and bows.  Mess mates look after mess mates.  

My question was not a theory but simply a question.  The Weirdroom is not my area and the social actions therein are unknown to me as an outsider.  Still curious if it's all for one and one for all, or not.

I do agree, he had much on his plate to be sure.  But as someone else pointed out, his actions today were measured and deliberate display to send a message.


----------



## FSTO

captloadie said:
			
		

> Why is he wearing his uniform at all? If I have a Sgt busted for a DUI, and he shows up in court in full uniform, someone will likely have a chat with him very soon afterwards.
> 
> Now, maybe the courts are a little different here in Ontario. In Alberta, we were forbidden by the court from wearing a uniform inside the courtroom.



This is not a run of the mill DUI. It was a senior officer charged with an offence that allegedly happened while he was the senior officer of the RCN. His honour is at stake and I'm glad he showed up booted and spurred ready to go to the wall for his honour.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Which l said to be fair, he was dressed correctly for his last assignment.  But again l ask, don't officers at this level look after each other at all, or is it every officer for himself? As l am not of that world, l don't know.
> 
> I would like to think that were he a Chief, one of his wingers would have looked out for him.



We of the Wardroom do look out for each other or at least I try to. I've seen enough cluster***k disasters in the officer corps that I try my best to ensure people look professional when they are stepping out.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> We of the Wardroom do look out for each other or at least I try to. I've seen enough cluster***k disasters in the officer corps that I try my best to ensure people look professional when they are stepping out.



That is good to hear that in your world, mess mates look after each other.

As a young guy l had a taste of your world while doing phase training in Gagetown as a Reserve Artillery OCdt.  The fellows l was with were mostly RMC and were not looking after each other, the atmosphere was poisonous.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That is good to hear that in your world, mess mates look after each other.
> 
> As a young guy l had a taste of your world while doing phase training in Gagetown as a Reserve Artillery OCdt.  The fellows l were mostly RMC and were not looking after each other, the atmosphere was poisonous.



The ring knockers are a different breed for sure!  ;D


----------



## Lumber

FSTO said:
			
		

> The ring knockers are a different breed for sure!  ;D



We may take Sunday's toast a bit too literally...


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That is good to hear that in your world, mess mates look after each other.
> 
> As a young guy l had a taste of your world while doing phase training in Gagetown as a Reserve Artillery OCdt.  The fellows l was with were mostly RMC and were not looking after each other, the atmosphere was poisonous.



The lucky Cbt Arms RESO OCdts managed to go to Gagetown outside of the summer course schedule so they could work with the DEO mob. The rest of us suffered through the extra character building experience


----------



## SeaKingTacco

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That is good to hear that in your world, mess mates look after each other.
> 
> As a young guy l had a taste of your world while doing phase training in Gagetown as a Reserve Artillery OCdt.  The fellows l was with were mostly RMC and were not looking after each other, the atmosphere was poisonous.



That is weird. I was once an OCTP Artillery Officer who did the summer phase 2 course with the RMC crowd. My experience could not have been more different- we were all united in our hatred of the course staff!


----------



## PPCLI Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That is good to hear that in your world, mess mates look after each other.



I can only imagine that it must be different for GOFOs.  

I have detected an increasing trend of infantilizing our senior people.  I have seen up close how demanding their schedules can be, compounded by the sheer scope and scale of the issues we expect them to contend with (mostly because we do not delegate low enough, and believe that every issue must be touched by every GO).  As such, there is certainly value to providing the necessary support to manage all of that, but it sometimes appears that we have gone a step too far, and essentially made them increasingly reliant on the support network...and when that goes away, the adjustment must be difficult

Just a thought


----------



## Pusser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Also no name tag.



No longer needs one.  Everybody in the whole country knows his name!


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, he is wearing a number 1A: No name tags unless specified by the commander.
> 
> As for the metal vs. cloth SSI: How would  he have known to change and got a proper one? He has been told to stay home, even though still in the service, for the last year and a half.
> 
> And really, except for a few obtuse ones of us, how many Canadians would know any of the difference? Or care?
> 
> They see him in full uniform with medals - that's what counts to them: He is making the statement "I am a top defence "soldier" of Canada, you try to impeach my honour at your own risk when it comes to putting Canada first".



The regulation concerning not wearing nametags with N1 orders of dress was rescinded a long, long, long time ago.  Nametags are now required with all orders of dress, except ceremonial orders (which the Navy does not have) and Mess Dress.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> No longer needs one.  Everybody in the whole country knows his name!



 :rofl: Very true.  You win this one kind sir! lol


----------



## jollyjacktar

At a sub section meeting we were told the following, which came from the top.  For all uniformed personnel, we are *not* to comment on this subject in social media.  Civilians within the department are encouraged to refrain from commenting as well.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> At a sub section meeting we were told the following, which came from the top.  For all uniformed personnel, we are *not* to comment on this subject in social media.  Civilians within the department are encouraged to refrain from commenting as well.



I'm surprised it took this long for that directive to be made. Maybe a NAVGEN is in order?


----------



## CountDC

maybe he chose to go with the cloth as it stands out more.....


----------



## Cloud Cover

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> At a sub section meeting we were told the following, which came from the top.  For all uniformed personnel, we are *not* to comment on this subject in social media.  Civilians within the department are encouraged to refrain from commenting as well.



I'm sorry, but are they suggesting you _could_ comment if, for example, you were dressed like Yoassarian at his medal ceremony?


----------



## jollyjacktar

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but are they suggesting you _could_ comment if, for example, you were dressed like Yoassarian at his medal ceremony?



 :rofl:  That might be a nice Catch 22.


----------



## PuckChaser

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm surprised it took this long for that directive to be made. Maybe a NAVGEN is in order?


Be an interesting message. "Support and trust your chain of command, but don't do it for this guy."


----------



## FSTO

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Be an interesting message. "Support and trust your chain of command, but don't do it for this guy."


Mixed Messaging R Us


----------



## jollyjacktar

He is heading back to court and a legal defence fund has raised money on his behalf.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-court-costs-1.4662223


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> He is heading back to court and a legal defence fund has raised money on his behalf.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-court-costs-1.4662223



Against my better judgement I went to the comment section.  :facepalm:

I think that this is all on Scott Brison (MP for Kings-Hants NS). Project Resolve embarrassed him in front of his Irving benefactors.


----------



## ModlrMike

FSTO said:
			
		

> Against my better judgement I went to the comment section.  :facepalm:
> 
> I think that this is all on Scott Brison (MP for Kings-Hants NS). Project Resolve embarrassed him in front of his Irving benefactors.



Ask yourself who holds the riding where Davie is located versus where Irving is located. I think the answer speaks for itself.


----------



## observor 69

One remark in the comments caught my eye:
"Henein will chew these fools up if they are stupid enough to allow it to go to trial."

One can only hope.


----------



## c_canuk

FSTO said:
			
		

> Against my better judgement I went to the comment section.  :facepalm:



You weren't kidding...


----------



## FSTO

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Ask yourself who holds the riding where Davie is located versus where Irving is located. I think the answer speaks for itself.



That's what boils my butt about all of this. Its never ever about capability, its always about pork barrel politics.


----------



## ModlrMike

It's also about Irving's perspective that they're the only company that can, and should build ships in Canada.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's also about Irving's perspective that they're the only company that can, and should build ships in Canada.



An argument I could buy if and only if Irving itself stopped building and buying ships for their own fleet abroad - which is not the case: For themselves, they go for cheaper overseas builds. If you own a shipyard and don't even bother building your own ships, why should the taxpayer build at your place?

The fact is Irving never bought the Halifax shipyard with the expectation that it would be building ships after completion of the MCDV's. They bought it to have a refit yard for their own ships - no more. The small contract they got for the Coast Guard's mid-shore patrol vessels - built under the old yard's set up - was not exactly a glowing success.

And now they lucked out and have stumbled into the biggest shipbuilding contract in Canadian history, likely only because at the time, Davie was out of contention (just coming out of bankruptcy protection and as a result, applying at the last minute only for the "non-combatants" program).


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's also about Irving's perspective that they're the only company that can, and should build ships in Canada.



Sounds like “we’re entitled to our entitlements” crew.


----------



## 211RadOp

The latest in the story.  According to the article and CANFORGENs, he will be put into a supernumerary position within the CDS's org.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/27/suspended-vice-admiral-mark-norman-to-be-removed-as-militarys-second-in-command.html


----------



## Blackadder1916

Admiral Norman finally has a court date.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-military-corruption-court-1.4807987


> Mark Norman's military corruption trial will play out during the 2019 election campaign
> Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Sep 03, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 6 hours ago
> 
> It will be next summer before Vice-Admiral Mark Norman goes to trial on a single charge of breach of trust — putting a politically-charged corruption case right in the middle of the next federal election campaign.
> 
> A trial date of Aug. 19, 2019 was set as the military's former second-on-command elected Tuesday to be tried in provincial court, a hearing that is expected to take seven weeks.
> 
> His lawyer, Marie Henein, denied she wanted the case heard during a politically sensitive time and said the long run-up is needed because of a fight with the government over disclosure of documents.
> 
> She said she has asked the Crown to waive cabinet secrecy on all documents related to the case — a request to which the government has not responded.
> 
> "It's quite an extraordinary prosecution where, really, the complainants decide what we get to look at, what's important and what's not," she said following Tuesday's court appearance.
> 
> "We've asked for a full waiver of cabinet confidence so that we can defend this case, so that we can see the full story, and that waiver is still not forthcoming."
> 
> Henein also served notice in court Tuesday that she will be bring forward a motion early next year to have the charges against Norman stayed.
> 
> The clock is ticking. The Supreme Court of Canada's landmark Jordan decision requires that an accused face trial in a provincial court within 18 months of being charged.
> 
> The judge hearing the Norman case on Tuesday asked Henein if she would be flexible about the deadline. Henein said she was not prepared to waive anything as long as issues of disclosure by the Crown remain in play.
> 
> Norman was charged last spring after the RCMP accused him of leaking cabinet secrets to a Quebec shipyard in relation to a contract to lease a supply ship to the navy.
> 
> The charges relate to his time as commander of the navy. He was, at the time of being charged, the vice chief of the defence staff.
> 
> Norman was removed from the post this summer, but remains suspended with pay. His job is now being filled by the former commander of the Canadian Army, Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk.
> 
> On Tuesday, Norman thanked his supporters, some of whom sat through the court proceedings.
> 
> "This has been a really difficult time and it's going to continue to be a real challenge and I just want everybody to know how much that support means to me," he said.
> 
> A Go-Fund-Me page has been set up to defray his legal costs, which the federal government has refused to pay. It has a set goal of $200,000, of which $140,450 had been raised by Tuesday.


----------



## brihard

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Admiral Norman finally has a court date.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-military-corruption-court-1.4807987



Based on an August 19th trial start, with seven weeks scheduled for trial, it's very possible that there will not yet be a verdict by the election. It doesn't specify if this will be a jury or a judge only trial, though I wouldn't be surprised to see this go jury for strategic reasons.


----------



## PuckChaser

All the dirty details will get out though, without the pesky facts of a verdict. I think politically, the Liberals are going to feel karma from the Mike Duffy debacle.


----------



## brihard

I'm betting crown pushes for a publication ban.


----------



## sidemount

I think there is also the possibility of the charges being dropped so that the liberals dont have to disclose their dirty secrets.

One can hope anyway.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That would suck, dropping charges leaves a taint, whereas being exonerated in the court room means he can don his uniform and go back to work. If they drop charges, I hope he can find reasons to sue for defamation of character .


----------



## brihard

Colin P said:
			
		

> That would suck, dropping charges leaves a taint, whereas being exonerated in the court room means he can don his uniform and go back to work. If they drop charges, I hope he can find reasons to sue for defamation of character .



Either way his security clearance is probably toast. The threshold for revoking clearance for leaking information is considerably lower than the threshold for criminal conviction. I guess it will hinge on whether the trial focuses on 'did he leak the documents?' or 'did him leaking these documents constitute a criminal offense of breach of trust?'.

I could be wrong of course, but from the outside looking in that seems like a significant factor.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Brihard said:
			
		

> Based on an August 19th trial start, with seven weeks scheduled for trial, it's very possible that there will not yet be a verdict by the election. It doesn't specify if this will be a jury or a judge only trial, though I wouldn't be surprised to see this go jury for strategic reasons.



I could be wrong as I have not looked at these type of things for a while, but the news state that the trial is scheduled in the Provincial court of Ontario, not the Ontario Supreme court. Jury trials are held in the Supreme court, normally - not in the Provincial one - where trials before a judge alone are usually held. So this would be a trial before a judge only ... but also a trial before judge appointed to the bench by the Ontario provincial government instead of a judge holding appointment from the Federal government.


----------



## brihard

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I could be wrong as I have not looked at these type of things for a while, but the news state that the trial is scheduled in the Provincial court of Ontario, not the Ontario Supreme court. Jury trials are held in the Supreme court, normally - not in the Provincial one - where trials before a judge alone are usually held. So this would be a trial before a judge only ... but also a trial before judge appointed to the bench by the Ontario provincial government instead of a judge holding appointment from the Federal government.



I believe you're right, I didn't think of it from that angle. That would seem to increase the likelihood that the judge will ponder for some time before delivering a verdict. This case will, after all, be precedent setting and would have a high likelihood of appeal one way or another.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Colin P said:
			
		

> . . . whereas being exonerated in the court room means he can don his uniform and go back to work. . . .



You may be overly optimistic.  While being found "not guilty" in a court will remove him from jeopardy, he will never be "exonerated" in the eyes of this current government and at his rank level any job that he could do in uniform will be solely at the pleasure of the political masters.  He may be more welcome if a different party came to power - in fact such an appointment would be a visible "feck you" but such is the pettiness of politicians of any stripe.  I suspect that his naval career is at an end; he may given some government service role in the future but, given his age, that may not be in uniform.  The many months since he was removed from duty and the next year until completion of the legal process will give him ample time to prepare for the next chapter of his life.  It would not surprise me to see a book by him on the shelves shortly after the end of his trial.  He has many worthwhile things to say publicly.  He may end up being the Landymore for his generation of sailors.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> You may be overly optimistic.  While being found "not guilty" in a court will remove him from jeopardy, he will never be "exonerated" in the eyes of this current government and at his rank level any job that he could do in uniform will be solely at the pleasure of the political masters.  He may be more welcome if a different party came to power - in fact such an appointment would be a visible "feck you" but such is the pettiness of politicians of any stripe.  I suspect that his naval career is at an end; he may given some government service role in the future but, given his age, that may not be in uniform.  The many months since he was removed from duty and the next year until completion of the legal process will give him ample time to prepare for the next chapter of his life.  It would not surprise me to see a book by him on the shelves shortly after the end of his trial.  He has many worthwhile things to say publicly.  He may end up being the Landymore for his generation of sailors.



I like your reference.  And I think you may be on to something.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> You may be overly optimistic.  While being found "not guilty" in a court will remove him from jeopardy, he will never be "exonerated" in the eyes of this current government and at his rank level any job that he could do in uniform will be solely at the pleasure of the political masters.  He may be more welcome if a different party came to power - in fact such an appointment would be a visible "feck you" but such is the pettiness of politicians of any stripe.  I suspect that his naval career is at an end; he may given some government service role in the future but, given his age, that may not be in uniform.  The many months since he was removed from duty and the next year until completion of the legal process will give him ample time to prepare for the next chapter of his life.  It would not surprise me to see a book by him on the shelves shortly after the end of his trial.  He has many worthwhile things to say publicly.  He may end up being the Landymore for his generation of sailors.



I wonder, does he have to remain FORCE test current?


----------



## Ostrozac

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I wonder, does he have to remain FORCE test current?



In Ottawa, you usually book a FORCE test by DWAN; the member in question no longer has DWAN access (his blackberry is currently in an evidence locker and he has been 'invited' not to physically come to work), besides, his old office is in use by the current VCDS.

I do suspect that he is still a member of the Navy Officer's Mess, as NPF will still want their pound of flesh. It might be the only CF/DND-associated building that he can't be ordered away from, because ordering someone away to stay away from their mess simply isn't done.


----------



## Pelorus

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I wonder, does he have to remain FORCE test current?



Given that he's essentially removed from all of the day-to-day aspects of his military career, I have to assume that he's expired.  That being said, who's going to put him on remedial measures for it?  Anyone with the power to do so is surely clever enough to see how that would play out once it inevitably made it to the press.


----------



## OldSolduer

This should be interesting. Methinks the PM et al may be guilty of trying to rig the process.


----------



## Remius

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> This should be interesting. Methinks the PM et al may be guilty of trying to rig the process.



As we've seen with things like sexual harassment, the rules don't apply to Justin trudeau.


----------



## sidemount

The rules never seem to apply to those making them

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## Retired AF Guy

sidemount said:
			
		

> The rules never seem to apply to those making them
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk



Its being like that for millennium.


----------



## sidemount

And will never change

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## X Royal

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I could be wrong as I have not looked at these type of things for a while, but the news state that the trial is scheduled in the Provincial court of Ontario, not the Ontario Supreme court. Jury trials are held in the Supreme court, normally - not in the Provincial one - where trials before a judge alone are usually held. So this would be a trial before a judge only ... but also a trial before judge appointed to the bench by the Ontario provincial government instead of a judge holding appointment from the Federal government.


Sure you don't mean the Ontario Superior Court of Justice instead of the Ontario Supreme Court.
Two completely different courts.
I'm soon to report for jury duty and it's not for the Supreme Court but for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.


----------



## Privateer

Ontario has two provincial trial courts.  The "lower" level trial court is the Ontario Court of Justice. There are no jury trials in that court.  The "superior" level trial court is the Superior Court of Justice, which can have trials with or without juries.

The Ontario Court of Justice is sometimes referred to as "provincial court". The judges are appointed by the provincial government.  The equivalent court in BC is the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

The judges of the Superior Court of Justice are appointed by the federal government.  The equivalent courts in other provinces include the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta.


----------



## FJAG

X Royal said:
			
		

> Sure you don't mean the Ontario Superior Court of Justice instead of the Ontario Supreme Court.
> Two completely different courts.
> I'm soon to report for jury duty and it's not for the Supreme Court but for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.



There are basically three courts in Ontario: The Ontario Court of Justice (which is the lowest trial level court and  equivalent to the "Provincial Court" in the CCC and many provinces and whose judges are appointed by the provinces and where all trials are by judge alone); the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (which is the superior trial court [aka Queen's Bench in some provinces] whose judges are appointed by the Feds and where trials can be by judge alone or with a jury; and the Court of Appeal.

There are three types of offences: summary conviction offences (which are tried in the Ontario Court of Justice); indictable offences (where the accused may have an election how he is tried); and hybrid offences (where the crown may first elect as to whether to proceed by summary conviction or indictment and, if the crown elects indictment, the accused may again have an election)

My knowledge of what is happening in the Norman case is sketchy and based on filing in the blanks from newspaper reports but I understand that he's been charged with "breach of trust" which I take it is probably s122 of the CCC:



> 122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.



This is a straight indictable offence and (because the term of sentence is limited to five years) is probably one where Norman was able to elect his method of trial. The options under s 536(2) of the CCC are: trial by judge alone before a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice; trial by judge alone of the Superior Court of Justice with or without a preliminary inquiry; and trial by judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice with or without a preliminary inquiry. Note that if a preliminary inquiry is held it would be done before a judge alone of the Ontario Court of Justice to determine if there is sufficient evidence for the full trial to be heard. (Note also that the crown might still elect to have a preliminary inquiry where the accused elects not to.)

From what I can glean, Norman has elected to be tried by a judge alone in the Ontario Court of Justice which means that there will be no preliminary inquiry but it appears several pre-trial hearings have been set to deal with evidentiary matters. The start of the trial itself is set for Aug 19, 2019.

 :cheers:


----------



## Rifleman62

Post removed IAW site policy.

***Staff***


----------



## Halifax Tar

Post removed IAW site policy.

***Staff***

I am very much looking forward to seeing this all unfold.  I am wishing the VAdm all the best in his defence.


----------



## FSTO

Will a certain MP from a certain area of the country be able to hide behind the curtain of cabinet secrecy or will all the dirty dealings of this file be exposed.

I am not optimistic.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> Will a certain MP from a certain area of the country be able to hide behind the curtain of cabinet secrecy or will all the dirty dealings of this file be exposed.
> 
> I am not optimistic.



Reasons to not be optimistic - after all, leaks never happen in Ottawa.


----------



## FSTO

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vice-admiral-mark-norman-lawyers-treasury-board-scott-brison-1.4862085

Prosecutors allege vice-admiral, who faces breach of trust charge, disclosed classified info to shipyard execs

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Oct 13, 2018 4:35 PM ET | Last Updated: October 13


Lawyers defending Vice-Admiral Mark Norman have taken aim at one of the Liberal government's senior cabinet ministers in a court filing, alleging political interference in the program to deliver an interim supply ship to the navy.

The former second-in-command of the Canadian military faces one charge of breach of trust after being accused of leaking cabinet secrets to the Davie shipyard in ​Lévis, Que., which was proposing a $668 million lease arrangement with the federal government.

Treasury Board President Scott Brison will be the Crown's most important witnesses, and lawyers for Norman went to court Friday to force the government to disclose documents pertinent to his defence.

Prosecutors allege the former vice-chief of the defence staff, when he was head of the navy, disclosed classified information to shipyard executives, which eventually found its way to the media and was published by CBC News reporter James Cudmore, who was later hired as a policy adviser to the defence minister.

The motion seeking the documents was filed in an Ottawa court. A copy of that motion was obtained by CBC News.

The Liberal government, newly elected in November 2015, sought to delay the supply ship lease project, and Norman's lawyer Marie Henein wrote the defence believes "Brison was behind the effort to delay and potentially terminate the Davie agreement" and that he may have done so at the behest of corporate rival, Irving Shipbuilding, of Halifax.

"Minister Brison appears to be close to the Irvings," said the court filing. "He has frequently been lobbied by James Irving on behalf of the company."

Part of Brison's job as head of the Treasury Board is to examine and challenge government spending decisions.

A spokesperson for Brison would not comment on the court filing, but the minister has in the past denied any wrongdoing.

Similarly, a spokesperson for Irving Shipbuilding said Saturday that there was nothing improper in the company's communication with the Liberal government over the temporary supply ship program, in which it had also submitted a proposal.

"We expressed our concerns with the procurement process to the new government as part of an ongoing transparent dialogue," Sean Lewis said in an email. 

"Our outreach highlighted our concerns and requested that our proposal be fairly evaluated. Other shipbuilders who also participated in the process to provide a [supply ship] solution also expressed concern with the project and how the government made its decision."

Upcoming trial begins during election
The motion provides a taste of the political minefield that's ahead for Liberals next year when Norman's case goes to trial, likely during the next federal election campaign.

Henein is demanding government disclose all communication between Brison's office and the Irvings prior to a crucial cabinet committee meeting on Nov. 19, 2015.

It was at that meeting the Liberal government decided to risk a multi-million dollar penalty and put the supply ship program on hold.

News of the pause leaked to the media, which the RCMP allege was orchestrated by Norman. The government eventually proceeded with the program.

The Liberals, however, were embarrassed. They ordered an RCMP probe and Brison told investigators the leak prevented cabinet from doing its job.

How the cabinet decision leaked
Henein pushed back, in the court filing on Friday, revealing — for the first time —  that the federal police investigation had identified how some documents prepared for cabinet made their way into the hands of lobbyists.

"The RCMP's investigation discovered that a government employee, Matthew Matchett, gave a lobbyist then working for Davie the classified Memorandum to Cabinet ("MC") and slide deck relating to the Liberal Government's November 19, 2015 … Cabinet committee meeting," said the court documents.

There is no allegation that [Vice-Admiral] Norman provided documents protected by cabinet confidences to anybody.
- Court filing
The documents noted Matchett had not been charged, and that both a Davie executive and a lobbyist had been granted immunity from prosecution. 

"There is no allegation that [Vice-Admiral] Norman provided documents protected by cabinet confidences to anybody."

CBC News reached out on Saturday to Matchett but received no response.

Defence lawyer Marie Henein wrote that, contrary to the prosecution's claim, Norman was leaned on by the previous Conservative government to deliver the program. (CBC)
'No evidence of any personal benefit'
The documents also alleged an internal government investigation into how the cabinet decision leaked found that there were in fact six separate leaks and 73 people within the bureaucracy knew the outcome of the meeting.

The RCMP alleges in a search warrant, released publicly last year, that Norman leaked the information in order to ensure that the interim supply ship program went forward and that it was his preferred option.

In order to prove breach of trust, the Crown must demonstrate that the accused had something personal to gain.

Henein wrote that, contrary to the prosecution's claim, Norman was leaned on by the previous Conservative government to deliver the program.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper's government signed the initial contract with the shipyard, but it was left to the Justin Trudeau's Liberals to implement it.

There is no evidence of any personal benefit to [Vice-Admiral] Norman or of any other 'dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.'
- Court filing
"There is no evidence of any personal benefit to [Vice-Admiral] Norman or of any other 'dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose,'" said the filing.

"He worked to deliver what elected government wanted, what the Navy needed, and what was in the interest of all Canadians. He obtained absolutely no personal benefit."

Norman's defence alleges that senior defence and public works officials, who opposed the leased supply ship program, worked to kill it, contrary to the direction of the previous Conservative government.

Henein has asked the Crown to waive cabinet secrecy on all documents related to the case and thus far has been rebuffed.

"The Prime Minister through the Office of the Privy Council has refused to waive any Cabinet confidences except those required to prosecute [Vice-Admiral] Norman," she wrote.

"The [Privy Council Office] initiated the RCMP investigation, yet it controls the entire flow of information and has to date refused to provide any transparency."

The defence team also alleged the government retroactively invoked secrecy on documents investigators had deemed not confidential.

They pointed to a letter sent to Brison, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and former procurement minister Judy Foote by the Irvings, prior to the controversial cabinet meeting, as proof.

"Although the RCMP asserted that the Irving letter was not classified, the PCO now claims that the letter would in fact be a Cabinet confidence," said the court documents.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

This confirms view I have held for a long time: It is seriously time for Parliament (in the noblest sense) to update the access to information laws, and in particular, define "cabinet confidence" correctly and strictly as to limit these shenanigans. 

An actual everyday document does not and should never become a "cabinet confidence" merely because it is put in the pile of documents for review as needed by the cabinet. Those neutral documents or facts that exist regardless of whether thy end up before the cabinet remain public documents as far as I am concerned, regardless of the fact that they are attached to or referred to as exhibits in a memo to cabinet that is otherwise covered as it contains advice to the cabinet. In my view, if you elect (pun intended) to write to anyone in government about something not of a personal nature, you should have no expectations whatsoever that it is somehow protected from public disclosure.

And for me, the only things that should be covered by cabinet confidence are memos, compilations (tables), briefing notes and analysis specifically prepared for the Cabinet by civil servants for it to make its decisions - but never the supporting documentation that merely originates from day to day government business or are acquired from outside the government - and the actual discussions and their minuting occurring at the actual cabinet meeting.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

It would be nice, that when reporting on events like this, if the news agencies would actually post copies of relevant documents, not cherry picking bits and pieces.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

:goodpost: +1

Strongly agree, as they say in opinion surveys. 

And especially for news media on the internet. They continually claim that they are losing "readership", yet don't use their own advantages to combine with the internet's capability to do end runs on all those pseudo news sites that are no more than oped pieces of a blogger.

MSN's have the research capabilities and the journalists with expertise and contacts to get stories, access to the actors in government and documents that few of the other internet news blogs have. If they then merely "attached" any such info they get - in full - by links in their story, so people can read them for themselves, they would blast all the other internet media out of the water, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD - There would have been another 300 MPs coming your way today but I am only allowed to rate you once a day.

 :goodpost:


----------



## ballz

Nothing like having the full weight of the state coming after you and they hold all the evidence that could vindicate you.

I can't see how there can possibly be a fair trial if the defence can't get full access to the documents.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ottawa Centre insists party line must be followed otherwise purge trial.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ottawa Centre insists party line must be followed otherwise purge trial.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Say again. I have you 5 by 0. Over.


----------



## OldSolduer

ballz said:
			
		

> Nothing like having the full weight of the state coming after you and they hold all the evidence that could vindicate you.
> 
> I can't see how there can possibly be a fair trial if the defence can't get full access to the documents.



Good point and I would reckon his legal beagles would be pressing the court to order the GoC to turn over all relevant documents/evidence. 
Question - can the PM et al hide behind “cabinet confidentiality?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the relevant documents are central to the case, the government may have to release them or lose. One option would be that the documents are only shown to the judge and defense council and all arguments about them incamera.


----------



## ModlrMike

Colin P said:
			
		

> If the relevant documents are central to the case, the government may have to release them or lose. One option would be that the documents are only shown to the judge and defense council and all arguments about them incamera.



So... Star Chamber?


----------



## NavyShooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu5piMRY1fU


Cone of Silence...


----------



## dapaterson

For those interested, an official description of what constitute Cabinet Confidences can be found at: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/privacy/confidences-queen-privy-council-canada-cabinet-confidences.html


----------



## FSTO

'Who are they protecting?': Vice-Admiral Norman's trial erupts in Commons

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/admiral-norman-breach-trust-brison-1.4863886
Excerpt:
"Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen also put a senior Liberal cabinet on the hot seat, demanding to know whether Treasury Board President Scott Brison had authorization to lobby on behalf of Irving Shipbuilding in relation to a $668 million contract to provide the navy with a temporary supply ship."


----------



## Cloud Cover

Fooling around with Crown disclosure obligations is dangerous ground. This is quickly falling into Charter remedy territory.  Also, the date of the trial is too close to the beginning of the election cycle. If there is a full blown trial, and the court subsequently takes its time to write a decision, it could land on the doorstep of the election itself.  The Crown is also going to be looking at the requested documents and could advise the AG that there is now no reasonable prospect for conviction.


----------



## PuckChaser

There doesn't need to be a decision, just the unproven accusations. Look at the Duffy trial, nothing proven but the political mud was slung and stuck.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Duffy was dumb and playing a game with loose rules (along with others) I suspect not much is going to stick to Norman and he will come out of this looking like a Officer trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation.


----------



## ballz

I know one thing I'd be shitting bricks if Marie Henein was coming after me, that woman is a demon. She might soon be adding "completely ruined the careers of some very high-priced politicians and defeated a majority government" to her resume.


----------



## OldSolduer

ballz said:
			
		

> I know one thing I'd be ******** bricks if Marie Henein was coming after me, that woman is a demon. She might soon be adding "completely ruined the careers of some very high-priced politicians and defeated a majority government" to her resume.



She got Ghomeshi off. Brilliant I’d say.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The Liberals aren't dumb.  I doubt this will ever go to court.  And they in no way want this being hated out just before or during an election. 

The VAdm's tell all book after will be a best seller!  I cant wait for my copy.


----------



## ballz

At this point the Liberals will look pretty bad if it doesnt go to court. It will make it look like they were going to be embarrassed and tried to cover it up... would it not be political interference to somehow get this dropped? 

It's still probably better than letting the truth come out though.

This is a soup sandwich for them.


----------



## OldSolduer

The GoC won’t look good no matter how it ends.


----------



## YZT580

ballz said:
			
		

> would it not be political interference to somehow get this dropped?
> 
> It's still probably better than letting the truth come out though.



They don't have to interfere at all.  If they simply continue with the cabinet privilege the defence can request a mistrial (may not be the right term) because they do not have the information necessary to present a complete defence.  Case would then probably be thrown out.  The GoC would not appeal.


----------



## FSTO

Government attempts to deflect. 

John Ivison: Treasury Board official denies 'cozy relationship' between Brison and Irvings

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-treasury-board-official-denies-cozy-relationship-between-brison-and-irvings

This passage is quite humorous.
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.


----------



## ballz

YZT580 said:
			
		

> They don't have to interfere at all.  If they simply continue with the cabinet privilege the defence can request a mistrial (may not be the right term) because they do not have the information necessary to present a complete defence.  Case would then probably be thrown out.  The GoC would not appeal.



That doesn't exactly look a whole lot better....


----------



## YZT580

Perhaps not but it can be accomplished fairly quickly and so get the whole affair finished before the election cycle: out of sight, out of mind.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Then he can launch a civil action against them.


----------



## Halifax Tar

*Trudeau changes tune on Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, refuses to comment on documents*

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau angered Conservatives in Wednesday's question period by repeatedly refusing to explain why his government isn't releasing documents requested by the legal counsel of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Lawyers for Norman, who was charged in March with breach of trust for allegedly leaking government secrets to Quebec-based Davie Shipbuilding, said in a recent court filing that the government had "cherry-picked" what information to disclose.

More on link:
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trudeau-changes-tune-on-vice-admiral-mark-norman-refuses-to-comment-on-documents/ar-BBOwDuu?ocid=sf


----------



## blacktriangle

Will VAdm Norman's trial be open to the public?


----------



## hambley92

standingdown said:
			
		

> Will VAdm Norman's trial be open to the public?



Given that the government won't even release information to his lawyer, I can't imagine they would want the trial to be held publicly.


----------



## PuckChaser

LogOLife said:
			
		

> Given that the government won't even release information to his lawyer, I can't imagine they would want the trial to be held publicly.


They'd have to apply for a publication ban, which will look extremely poor based on their promise of "open and transparent goverment". The defense would love a public trial.


----------



## brihard

A publication ban does not exclude the public from attending proceedings. It just means you basically can't publish anything about it, which is interpreted quite broadly.


----------



## Infanteer

I think it's a fundamental right that a trial be open to the public.  We don't run things through the Star Chamber anymore.


----------



## blacktriangle

Excellent. Thanks for the input everyone.


----------



## Halifax Tar

*Judge to decide what documents should be kept secret in Mark Norman trial*

The lawyers noted Friday that Irving Shipbuilding is seeking standing at the hearing, meaning it will likely object to some of the disclosure



> The lawyers noted Friday that Irving Shipbuilding is seeking standing at the hearing, meaning it will likely object to some of the disclosure. Irving, one of Davie’s primary competitors, is at the centre of the Norman matter, having sent a letter to several Liberal cabinet ministers in the fall of 2015 urging them to cancel the deal with Davie in favour of striking a deal with them. Irving has consistently denied it was involved in any political meddling intended to undermine their competitors.



More on link:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/judge-to-decide-what-documents-should-be-kept-secret-in-mark-norman-trial?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR26x9m2r4xr_EcuElTzwkxTbnKpN1nNS-WtXEKYo8ZVhqmJqfrgDpSEZwE#Echobox=1541183938


----------



## Remius

More on that.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-shipbuilding-court-documents-1.4911137

Looks like the Crown lost its bid to keep the documents from going public.


----------



## Halifax Tar

We should start a poll on when these charges will be dropped.  

I predict spring/summer.  How about May 24.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We should start a poll on when these charges will be dropped.
> 
> I predict spring/summer.  How about May 24.



01 April.


----------



## PuckChaser

1 week after the Commons recesses for the summer, as the government will drop the writ for election 3-4 weeks after that so the Opposition has no chance to get soundbites in QP, and the Government doesn't have all that pesky conflict of interest talk around an election period.


----------



## ballz

Curious to know how this whole thing works from those in the know...

My understanding (which is not very much) is that it's the executive branch of the government that charges someone and, through the Crown attorney, provides prosecution correct? The judicial branch simply oversees the trial? 

So is there nothing stopping the PM from ordering, through the Attorney General, to have the charges dropped? Is there not something in our system to stop political interference in an ongoing trial?

Also, these charges are laid by the Provincial Attorney General and being prosecuted by a provincial Crown Attorney? So the Federal government should have zero ability to tell anybody to do anything here?


----------



## FJAG

ballz said:
			
		

> Curious to know how this whole thing works from those in the know...
> 
> My understanding (which is not very much) is that it's the executive branch of the government that charges someone and, through the Crown attorney, provides prosecution correct? The judicial branch simply oversees the trial?
> 
> So is there nothing stopping the PM from ordering, through the Attorney General, to have the charges dropped? Is there not something in our system to stop political interference in an ongoing trial?
> 
> Also, these charges are laid by the Provincial Attorney General and being prosecuted by a provincial Crown Attorney? So the Federal government should have zero ability to tell anybody to do anything here?



That's not correct. There is a principle called "prosecutorial independence". 

The web pages which explains all of that are here:

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/fpd/ch04.html

and here:

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p2/ch01.html

 :subbies:


----------



## Privateer

Slight tangent:  What coat is the Vice Admiral wearing in this photo from a recent news article?  I am not familiar with an (authorized) RCN greatcoat with shoulder boards.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Privateer said:
			
		

> Slight tangent:  What coat is the Vice Admiral wearing in this photo from a recent news article?  I am not familiar with an (authorized) RCN greatcoat with shoulder boards.



On a similar tangent: What caught my eye was not the raincoat, but the fur hat and whether fur hats are standard issue these days.


----------



## PuckChaser

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> On a similar tangent: What caught my eye was not the raincoat, but the fur hat and whether fur hats are standard issue these days.



Its the Yukon hat. Gotta use your Logistik points to buy one, and you can only ever have 1. CAF is looking at making it an initial issue item since everyone ordered them as soon as they were avail. Super comfy.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Privateer said:
			
		

> Slight tangent:  What coat is the Vice Admiral wearing in this photo from a recent news article?  I am not familiar with an (authorized) RCN greatcoat with shoulder boards.



I believe that is the trials great coat that the RCN trialed (Is trialing ?) to replace the gabardine.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I believe that is the trials great coat that the RCN trialed (Is trialing ?) to replace the gabardine.


Nice!
Anything to get rid of the ugly "flasher" coat. One of, no "The UGLIEST" piece of gear we are foisted with.


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> Nice!
> Anything to get rid of the ugly "flasher" coat. One of, no "The UGLIEST" piece of gear we are foisted with.



Somewhere, someone in ADM(Mat) is going to read this and say "Hold my beer..."


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I believe that is the trials great coat that the RCN trialed (Is trialing ?) to replace the gabardine.



Is there some kind of thrust to put shoulder boards on everything?  It's fine for the short sleeves, unless they have some combo slip on/board holder you end up with a duplicate officer/NCM coat for no really good reason (with unnecessary additional costs).


----------



## Stoker

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its the Yukon hat. Gotta use your Logistik points to buy one, and you can only ever have 1. CAF is looking at making it an initial issue item since everyone ordered them as soon as they were avail. Super comfy.



Nope you can have a replacement every 4 years.


----------



## PuckChaser

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Nope you can have a replacement every 4 years.


Good to know, when I ordered mine it was a one shot deal.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Somewhere, someone in ADM(Mat) is going to read this and say "Hold my beer..."


:rofl:


----------



## wannabe SF member

So, in a recent interview by VAdm, he was wearing a old school greatcoat complete with shoulder boards and golden buttons. Is there some secret Ottawa greatcoat revival project or is this VAdm Norman just deciding to say f*ck it and wearing something more stylish than the current bathrobe of a garbardine?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Gotta say, if its not it should be. The gabardine makes even the most distingished of soldiers look like a flasher on a TTC subway....


----------



## wannabe SF member

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Gotta say, if its not it should be. The gabardine makes even the most distingished of soldiers look like a flasher on a TTC subway....



A good compromise: If you want it, you can buy it. I know I would.

I'd also prefer to simply pay to have my DEU Tunic made by a master tailor rather than (in accordance with an authorized pattern) rather than to have to wear the shiny plastic fabric that Logistik unicorp foists upon us.


----------



## FSTO

More info on the Norman case

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/11/30/kenney-says-navys-needs-guided-700m-quebec-ship-deal-not-electoral-math/#.XAHE0ZNKjfa

OTTAWA — Former defence minister Jason Kenney is rejecting suggestions he pushed the Harper government to negotiate a $700-million deal with a Quebec shipyard because of electoral considerations.

The contract was to refit a commercial vessel into a navy supply ship. The current Alberta opposition leader says his only thought as the Conservatives were weighing the sole-sourced deal with Davie Shipbuilding in 2015 was the navy's urgent need — a point that he says he emphasized to his fellow Tory ministers.

"I was always clear with my colleagues in government that the only consideration should be meeting the navy's urgent operational requirements as quickly as possible," Kenney said in a statement Friday, "and that regional political considerations should not be a factor in the decision."

The comments are in response to a Canadian Press article this week that cited an RCMP interview with a federal civil servant who attended secret cabinet meetings about the controversial project under both the Harper and Trudeau governments.

A partial transcript of the Mounties' interview with Privy Council Office analyst Melissa Burke was filed in court by suspended Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyers and made public last week. Her comments have not been entered as formal exhibits or tested in court.

Suspended as the military's second-in-command in January 2017, Norman was charged this past March with one count of breach of trust for allegedly leaking cabinet secrets to Davie. He has denied any wrongdoing and vowed to fight the charge.

Burke told the Mounties in January 2016 that both the Conservatives and Liberals were highly conscious of Davie's location in Quebec — just across the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City — and worried about the impact not signing the deal would have on their respective political fortunes because of the money and jobs it involved.

Burke said in her police interview that Kenney underscored the importance of the deal to both the navy — which did not have any support ships at the time — as well as the Tories' electoral prospects during a cabinet meeting in April 2015.

Kenney, however, said while he would not reveal cabinet secrets, "I can confirm that I did not say the words cited in Ms. Burke's deposition."

The Conservatives decided in June 2015 to launch negotiations with Davie and changed federal procurement rules to allow a contract without a competition, but the deal was not finalized before the October 2015 election.

After the Liberals won, a new cabinet committee decided to ask the company to extend the deadline for signing the contract by 60 days. Eleven days later, the Liberals approved the deal, which Burke said came after Davie threatened to close its Quebec shipyard.

Davie's converted supply ship, the MV Asterix, was delivered earlier this year and is operating with the navy in the Pacific.

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press


----------



## Haggis

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> The gabardine makes even the most distingished of soldiers look like a flasher on a TTC subway....


Try wearing it with a kilt!


----------



## Cloud Cover

Haggis said:
			
		

> Try wearing it with a kilt!


The Admiral???


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Ok folks (although humourous), keep it on topic.

Staff


----------



## Rifleman62

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-the-shipshow-prosecution-that-mark-norman-is-facing?video_autoplay=true
*
Christie Blatchford: The shipshow prosecution that Mark Norman is facing* - 12 Dec 18
   _ The PCO is not only is the complainant, but also the key witness and the guardian of much of the information Norman needs to defend himself_

OTTAWA — For all that the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman bears a resemblance to the prosecution of Senator Mike Duffy — in that the RCMP is the investigator, that breach of trust was a central charge against Duffy and is in Norman’s case the only one, and that the whole kit and caboodle appears polluted with politics — there is one key point of departure and it makes all the difference.
The Conservative Senator, of course, was acquitted of a raft of criminal charges, but his voracious reputation for latching upon the public teat with alacrity and determination — the very quality that saw him fall from asset to embarrassment in the party’s view — was never dented.

Norman, on the other hand, is the former vice-chief of the defence staff and thus second-in-command of the Canadian Forces whose sin was to serve Canada in uniform for more than three decades. He practically drips with propriety (though the emails the police seized and which prosecutors have disclosed reveal he blessedly also has a sailor’s ability to swear, once referring to the mess at the heart of this case as a “f—ing gong show”) that I cannot help but think that the way I accidentally refer to him (Vice-Admirable) is highly fitting.

As for the shipshow itself, in 2014, when Canada lost both aging Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) vessels — these are basically at-sea gas stations for ships that can’t get to a port of call — there was an urgent need for a replacement. These had been ordered already by the-then government of Stephen Harper, but a fire on the second AOR left Canada with a larger gap than expected before replacements would be delivered (delivery of those ships, as seems the norm with many Canadian Forces equipment contracts, is delayed), and the government decided to go with a sole-source contract for a single ship with Chantier Davie and formally entered into a preliminary contract with the Quebec company.

Norman is accused of a single count of breach of trust for allegedly leaking cabinet confidences and other confidential information to a CBC journalist and to a representative of Davie who was also a friend, Spencer Fraser. Alas and alack, there was a change of government shortly after the contract was signed, and Justin Trudeau and the Liberals took power. The new government quickly convened an ad hoc committee to review the contract, and despite the recommendation from key ministers and the civil service that it proceed, committee co-chair Scott Brison, the president of Treasury Board then and now, started raising the possibility of delaying it.
Brison is the MP for Kings-Hants, in Nova Scotia, coincidentally home to Irving Shipbuilding, a key Davie competitor, which bitched to a number of ministers, including Brison, about the Davie contract.

According to defence documents, it is Brison’s statement to the RCMP that is the “central basis” for the allegation against Norman. On Nov. 19, 2015, two days after getting the Irving letter, the ad hoc committee met and decided to request a 60-day delay to reconsider the contract. It was that decision — and the $89-million penalty that would be incurred if the final contract wasn’t signed — that was reported in the media, allegedly leaked by Norman. Essentially, that reporting of the whopping penalty price sufficiently shamed the new government that it signed the contract; the ship was delivered on time.

But as it turns out, when the bureaucracy that supports the prime minister and cabinet, the powerful Privy Council Office (PCO), investigated, it found that guess what, at least 42 people knew about the committee discussion beforehand (six of the leaks related to the ad hoc committee itself) and 73 knew about the result — the proposed delay — and at least one of the alleged leakers has been identified by name in defence material recently filed in court.

In other words, it was SNAFU (Situation Normal All F—ed Up) for gossipy, perpetually leaking Ottawa, where information is better than currency, and a simple hello, as a wise man once told me, has a greasy transactional feel. But of huge concern to Norman’s lawyers — the formidable Marie Henein at the helm — is that it’s the same PCO which not only is the complainant in the case (the PCO referred the matter to the RCMP), but also the key witness and, as Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey heard Wednesday, the controller and guardian of much of the information Norman needs to defend himself.

Imagine if a complainant in a sexual assault trial, naturally the key witness, also got to determine the course of the prosecution and vet the documents and decide which are relevant and which are not. (For one thing, Jian Ghomeshi would have been convicted, had that happened in the last high-profile case Henein ran.) Now give that complainant/witness the shield of being able to claim cabinet confidence or secrecy, and you get a hint of what team Henein is facing here. It is always the prosecution that bears the burden of disclosing relevant documents, not the defence, yet here, Henein has laid out her defence in detail, for the world to see, while prosecutors have hemmed and hawed, dragged their collective feet, declined to meet the defence team, dilly-dallied, shucked and jived.

The parties are in court now on a defence application to get some of those records. Yet even Wednesday, despite the judge’s suggestion the lawyers (three from the defence, three federal prosecutors, three from the Department of Justice) meet over lunch, when she returned to court and cheerfully asked “Were you able to use the time?”, Henein stood up and said, “Nope.” “After Your Honour directed us to meet…we didn’t…” As Henein snapped furiously to prosecutor Barbara Mercier, just before the judge walked in, “The judge says go in and meet and you refuse to meet… This is intolerable.” The shipshow continues Thursday.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My disdain for DOJ grows another branch


----------



## FSTO

I saw the VAdm yesterday as he was heading to court in full regalia, too bad he wouldn't be allowed to carry a sword (in the scabbard of course!). Just about rolled down the window to shout a "GIVE EM HELL ADMIRAL!" but chickened out!


----------



## Rifleman62

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20181214/textview
*
Vice-admiral now fights for own memos* - 14 Dec 18 - NP Christie Blatchford

Now, the squad of prosecutors and justice lawyers lined up against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the former commander of the Canadian Navy, have said very little at this week’s proceeding here. In fairness, what the court is hearing is a defence application for production of third-party records Norman’s lawyers say they need to defend him on a single charge of breach of trust, which means it’s on the defence to do most of the talking. So it is within the realm of possibility that when one of the six government lawyers does stand up to say something substantial, he or she may be able to offer an explanation for some of the documents they don’t want Norman’s defence to have.

But it strains credulity to imagine one for why the government is actually fighting handing over to the defence Norman’s own Outlook calendar and the notes and communications with his former staff about the once-disputed interim Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (iAOR) ship that is at the centre of the charge against him. (The ship is no longer disputed, having been delivered, astonishingly in the world of military procurement, on time and on budget.) Without AORs, which are basically floating gas stations, a navy is reduced to the status of a coast guard, unable to meet its international obligations.

“The Department of Justice suggests if memos were sent to VAdm Norman, he should have them,” defence lawyer Christine Mainville told Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey Thursday. Then with magnificent snark, Mainville added, “They seem to forget they suspended him from his duties” (in January of 2017) and thus Norman has no access to his 2014-2015 archived emails and notes. As Perkins-McVey said in her mild way, “It’s hard to imagine his own communications wouldn’t have relevance.” Thus has a document fight been rendered a theatre of the absurd. How can anyone accused of a crime properly defend himself if he can’t have access to the very calendar which would tell him what appointments he had, who he saw, what people he met four years earlier?

It’s just one of the rich aspects of this curious case. Norman has been accused of leaking confidential information — the only one criminally charged — yet it appears that even beyond what is the norm for Ottawa, all around him, even before him, a great many others had comparable information and were also busily leaking it. Norman is charged with leaking information about the accursed AOR ship to a CBC reporter and to a former colleague in the navy who was now working for Chartier Davie, the Quebec company that built the ship and whose proposal had convinced the then-government of Stephen Harper to change the rules to allow the contract to be awarded on a sole source basis.

The RCMP investigation even identified and named the people involved who did give the reporter the actual Memorandum to Cabinet and, for good measure, the slide deck. The material came from a government analyst who handed it off to a big lobbyist (working for Davie), who then told the reporter he could swing by and pick up the brown envelope. It had naught to do with Mark Norman.

Yet, as the defence said in its application, the government analyst wasn’t charged, though recently, he was apparently suspended. The CBC reporter who got the documents and wrote the story was, the very week Norman was charged, hired by the Liberal government, first in the Department of National Defence, then later moved to the Ministry of Democratic Institutions. Yet prosecutors argue in their factum that “focusing on what others thought or did is a needless and irrelevant exercise.” In other words, the judge ought not to worry what the other kids did, just about what Norman allegedly did. So much for the old “no man is an island” wisdom; the state says Norman was that island. Why on earth would the government pick on him, this honourable fellow who isn’t alleged to have benefited personally in any way and who served the country for 35 years in uniform?

Well, say defence lawyers Mainville, Marie Henein and Maya Borooah, the answer is found in Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison, then and now president of the Treasury Board. One of the Harper government’s last acts, on the very day of the Oct. 19, 2015, election, was to sign a preliminary contract with Chartier Davie. It had an $89-million penalty clause if the contract wasn’t finalized. The new Trudeau government was sworn in, in early November 2015. One of its first acts was to swear in an ad hoc committee to review the Davie deal. The committee was slated to meet Nov. 19.

Two days before, Irving Shipbuilders sent a letter to a number of key ministers, including Brison, urging the government not to sign the contract with Davie, their competitor. At that meeting, it was Brison who pressed for a delay in signing the contract, ostensibly so the new government could do its due diligence. The defence says it was Brison, allegedly close to the powerful Irvings and whose Nova Scotia riding is next door to the main Irving shipyard, who was “behind the effort to delay and potentially terminate the Davie agreement.” Brison told the RCMP, this about Norman’s alleged conduct, that why, he had never seen such a leak of cabinet confidences in his 20 years in federal politics. As Mainville told the judge, perhaps “Minister Brison has forgotten the RCMP investigation into his own leaking,” back in 2006. Brison was never charged, and his explanation, Mainville said, “was that all he was doing was saying something everyone already knew about.” D’oh.

The case continues Friday.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> I saw the VAdm yesterday as he was heading to court in full regalia, too bad he wouldn't be allowed to carry a sword (in the scabbard of course!). Just about rolled down the window to shout a "GIVE EM HELL ADMIRAL!" but chickened out!



You should have! You have no idea how much that would have been appreciated, particularly by someone like Mark. When you are caught in something like this, it feels like you're on your own and no one cares for what happens to you. Would have been good for his morale.

When this is all over, I would not be surprised if he returned his job - having had his office reset exactly as it was - for one day then retire honourably, only to become the second admiral in the RCN for whom the signal BZ will fly from every port-outer yardarm.

Now, Christie Blatchford is a great (and respected) judicial reporter and people like her are important in our system of governance. One concept that is critical to our criminal law system is the concept that "justice must be done and seen to be done".

Now for the most part, this concept is used to justify that as a rule, trials should be opened to the public. But there is more to it than that. It also serves to show the public a conduct that is unacceptable in society and the retribution that comes with it. It serves to "enrage" the population- so to speak - who ought to come out of the process thinking "how dare you did this, now we'll punish you". In short the population must see the criminality of the acts of the accused.

And for me, this is the biggest hurdle for the Government in this case: The public just can't see any problem with the Admiral's deportment.  He did not gain anything personally; he didn't do anything that the public can see as a breach of trust to the nation (as opposed to one political party's - which is irrelevant as we don't serve parties) nor any deportment that is not common practice in Ottawa. All he ever did, if anything, is work to deliver something badly needed, and already contracted for, on budget and in time. In brief, there is nothing that the public can get enraged about.

This could become a lot of fun ... but not for the government which probably wishes now that they had not gone barker with frustration and started this process with a complaint when they were a "young" government.


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You should have! You have no idea how much that would have been appreciated, particularly by someone like Mark. When you are caught in something like this, it feels like you're on your own and no one cares for what happens to you. Would have been good for his morale.
> 
> When this is all over, I would not be surprised if he returned his job - having had his office reset exactly as it was - for one day then retire honourably, only to become the second admiral in the RCN for whom the signal BZ will fly from every port-outer yardarm.
> 
> Now, Christie Blatchford is a great (and respected) judicial reporter and people like her are important in our system of governance. One concept that is critical to our criminal law system is the concept that "justice must be done and seen to be done".
> 
> Now for the most part, this concept is used to justify that as a rule, trials should be opened to the public. But there is more to it than that. It also serves to show the public a conduct that is unacceptable in society and the retribution that comes with it. It serves to "enrage" the population- so to speak - who ought to come out of the process thinking "how dare you did this, now we'll punish you". In short the population must see the criminality of the acts of the accused.
> 
> And for me, this is the biggest hurdle for the Government in this case: The public just can't see any problem with the Admiral's deportment.  He did not gain anything personally; he didn't do anything that the public can see as a breach of trust to the nation (as opposed to one political party's - which is irrelevant as we don't serve parties) nor any deportment that is not common practice in Ottawa. All he ever did, if anything, is work to deliver something badly needed, and already contracted for, on budget and in time. In brief, there is nothing that the public can get enraged about.
> 
> This could become a lot of fun ... but not for the government which probably wishes now that they had not gone barker with frustration and started this process with a complaint when they were a "young" government.



Next chance I get, I'll give him a cheer!

In the fine tradition of Hose and Landymore, this Naval Officer decided that for the good of the service he needed to take action to ensure a vital capability was seen to fruition. That he is now in a public fight against his political masters to retain his honour is something that many in the chattering class cannot seem to wrap their heads around. The PM initially talked out of his arse about going to court and now his boy slick Scotty may be the one to eventually take the hit for the team instead of Vice Admiral Norman.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> I saw the VAdm yesterday as he was heading to court in full regalia, too bad he wouldn't be allowed to carry a sword (in the scabbard of course!). Just about rolled down the window to shout a "GIVE EM HELL ADMIRAL!" but chickened out!



Would I be in breach of some regulation if I did the same, seeing as I am still in uniform ?


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Would I be in breach of some regulation if I did the same, seeing as I am still in uniform ?



Failing all else couldn't you just come to attention, salute and yell out "Sir!"?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Failing all else couldn't you just come to attention, salute and yell out "Sir!"?



Excellent point!  Thank you.


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin P said:
			
		

> My disdain for DOJ grows another branch



The parallels with the Duffy case are kinda uncanny. I would say from the general public's point of view Vice-Admiral Norman has a better reputation than Senator Duffy's. I remember at the time of the Duffy case commenting on this site as to what his actual crime was as I just couldn't see it with my limited exposure to the "evidence". This case seems to be building up to exceed even the Duffy's trial for...?, incompetence,prejudice,political interference?

I know that some on this site have commented in the past that cases like this are beyond politics, however that is clearly not how it appears.

 What are the consequences for the crown etc. when they proceed with these cases. What is the public benefit? I am not suggesting that the crown only try cases that they believe they have a 90% chance of winning, but to try individuals that the trial judge determines should never have been charged in the first place and that another should have in his place? I think we should demand and expect a much higher standard than that. The Jian Ghomeshi trial was another high profile case that really brought to the forefront some questionable decisions and actions by the Crown. For many of these individuals the damage to their public image may be irreparable but at least they appear to have the ability to somewhat weather the storm financially. How many ordinary Canadians could say the same? From my limited exposure to the justice system through some of my employees experiences re. DUI's, bar fights etc.. it seems like a pattern that pervades the entire system from the most minor of charges to the most serious and newsworthy. Can the above all be reduced to don't get charged but if you do for heaven's sake at least be wealthy?

I could go on for ever but I hope some one can explain what actually is going on in our criminal justice system, in the meantime I have seen enough now that I will contribute to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence financially like many others if that option is still available


----------



## FJAG

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The parallels with the Duffy case are kinda uncanny. I would say from the general public's point of view Vice-Admiral Norman has a better reputation than Senator Duffy's. I remember at the time of the Duffy case commenting on this site as to what his actual crime was as I just couldn't see it with my limited exposure to the "evidence". This case seems to be building up to exceed even the Duffy's trial for...?, incompetence,prejudice,political interference?



On the Duffy related tangent "Ontario court dismisses Mike Duffy's $8M lawsuit against Senate"



> An Ontario Superior Court judge has dismissed Mike Duffy's $8 million lawsuit against the Senate of Canada, arguing the Red Chamber and its members are protected by parliamentary privilege — making them immune from this sort of judicial scrutiny.
> 
> The decision is a blow to Duffy — who still represents P.E.I. in the Senate — as he has sought some financial compensation for his bruising, years-long battle to clear his name following accusations of improper spending.
> . . .



See here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-duffy-court-dismisses-lawsuit-1.4947173

 :subbies:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The Jian Ghomeshi trial was another high profile case that really brought to the forefront some questionable decisions and actions by the Crown.



The problem with the Ghomeshi case had nothing to do with the Crown's presentation, it was the fact that the Crown's witness' either lied or withheld information from the police and the Crown.


----------



## suffolkowner

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The problem with the Ghomeshi case had nothing to do with the Crown's presentation, it was the fact that the Crown's witness' either lied or withheld information from the police and the Crown.



I get that the witnesses' were of questionable value in the end to the crown's case. Perhaps the crown could have done some witness prep in anticipation as the women in question brought up. Obviously Ghomeshi and Marie Henein played things close to the vest so that Ghomeshi could have his exoneration in court.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The witnesses were the victims, so they were the very crux of the Crowns case.   There are distant parallels. Back to Duffy, does this comment from the decision of the criminal trial ring familiar with Norman? “6. 'The political, covert, relentless, unfolding of events is mind-boggling and shocking. The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military commander proud. However, in the context of a democratic society, the plotting as revealed in the emails can only be described as unacceptable.'  
Perhaps the wrong person has been arrested and charged.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20181215/textview

*Norman’s lawyers seek Trudeau correspondence* - National Post- 15 Dec 18 - Brian Platt
    _Defence alleges possible political motivation_

OTTAWA • Crown prosecutors urged an Ottawa judge on Friday to keep the scope of the criminal case against Vice Admiral Mark Norman narrow — and thus avoid forcing the disclosure of reams of government documents ahead of the trial. Among the documents at stake are communications to and from the office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the subject of the investigation and prosecution of Norman. Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein alleges the case may have been politically motivated, and needs the documents to prove it.

Norman, once the second highest officer in Canada’s military, has been charged with leaking cabinet secrets over the course of a year to keep a $700-million navy procurement project with Davie Shipbuilding on track. Ahead of his trial, scheduled for next August, Justice Heather Perkins-McVey must decide how much government disclosure Norman needs in order to fully defend himself. For three days, Norman’s defence team has been making its case for why it needs access to documents held by the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, the Department of National Defence and other government departments.

Friday was the Crown’s first chance to make submissions, but first the court heard a barrage of allegations from Henein about the government’s involvement in the case. Henein filed an exhibit consisting of emails between a Crown prosecutor and legal counsel in the Privy Council Office, the government department that supports the Prime Minister. The emails show the Privy Council lawyer asking for updates on who has been identified as potential witnesses, what was discussed in judicial pre-trial meetings, and what the defence plans to argue in its pre-trial motions.
“What is at issue is we have reason to believe that the PCO is asking for a constant flow of information, and there are communications between the PCO and the PMO’s office about this case,” Henein told the court. She said “the nature and tone” of the emails are especially problematic given Trudeau has a history of commenting publicly on the case, such as when Trudeau told reporters — before Norman was charged — that the matter would likely end up before the courts.

Crown prosecutor Mark Covan said exchanging information was necessary due to the fact the Privy Council Office has responsibility for maintaining cabinet secrets, and had to make decisions on how secret documents requested by the defence team were going to be disclosed, if at all. Covan said the conversations were especially important because of how long it was taking for the government to disclose documents — the kind of delay that can jeopardize a trial. “We were doing what we felt was necessary to get a response,” Covan told the judge. “It took a long time, I don’t deny that ... but there’s not a hint of abuse of process here. This is the Crown fulfilling its obligations.”

The dispute over access to the Prime Minister’s Office communications is just one of many that Perkins-McVey will have to settle during the hearing, which is scheduled to run until Tuesday. She will need to decide how many of the defence’s document requests are “likely relevant” to the trial. Covan argued that many of the requests are unnecessary, and that Perkins-McVey should keep a very high threshold on what counts as likely relevant.

A key issue is whether the defence will be able to enter evidence about Norman’s motivations, which his lawyers argue was to carry out the wishes of the elected officials in the Harper government who wanted the ship. The defence has requested cabinet documents from the final year of the Harper government to support this argument. Covan argued Norman’s motivations are irrelevant, saying the only thing that matters is whether Norman broke the law by releasing confidential information to Davie and the media. “Even if Mr. Norman or other individuals thought that this ship was the absolute best thing for Canada, the absolute best thing for the navy, you can’t commit a crime to get that,” he said.

On Friday the Crown also filed as an exhibit its preliminary witness list, dated July 5, 2018. It includes cabinet ministers Scott Brison and Catherine McKenna; General Jonathan Vance, chief of defence staff; Spencer Fraser, the CEO of the Davie shipbuilding project; and former CBC reporter — and now Liberal political staffer — James Cudmore, who received some of the alleged leaks. The list could still change before the trial, scheduled to start Aug. 19, 2019. It is scheduled to run for seven to eight weeks, meaning it may take place during the next federal election campaign.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20181218/textview
*
Other leaks not comparable, Crown argues* - National Post - 18 Dec 18 - Brian Platt 
    _‘Apples and oranges’ in admiral’s case_

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s defence will have a chance to make more arguments to the judge over government disclosure on Tuesday.

OTTAWA • A Crown prosecutor told a judge on Monday that whatever leaks of cabinet information another public servant might have orchestrated, it shouldn’t be considered in the same league as what Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is alleged to have done.

Previous court filings have disclosed evidence that some of the cabinet information at the heart of the case against Norman appears to have been leaked by Matthew Matchett, who worked at the time for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, a federal agency.
“We submit that we’re talking about apples and oranges here,” Crown prosecutor Barbara Mercier told the judge. “Mr. Matchett was an analyst at ACOA. He wasn’t a commander in the navy.” Norman’s defence team has asked for document disclosure related to any investigation into Matchett’s activities. In court filings, they argue the information would help reveal “the standard of conduct in Ottawa, the differing treatment of leaks in Ottawa, and the motivation for charging VAdm Norman.”

But Mercier said that, even if Matchett had already leaked some of the same cabinet material that Norman is accused of leaking, it wouldn’t change the fact that its alleged release by Norman was illegal. “In our submission, it doesn’t take us anywhere,” Mercier told Justice Heather Perkins-McVey. Norman was the second highest officer in Canada’s military when he was suspended from duty in January 2017, and criminally charged with breach of trust a year later. The Crown alleges he systematically leaked cabinet information about a $700-million navy procurement project.

Court filings have shown that the RCMP investigation found evidence that Matchett had leaked cabinet documents about the same project to a lobbying firm. Matchett has not been charged, and the evidence has not been tested in court. The RCMP says the investigation into the leaks is still active, but has not said whether it is investigating Matchett specifically.

The ongoing court hearing has already heard new evidence about how Matchett’s case was treated by the government. The Crown disclosed for the first time on Friday that Matchett was suspended without pay from his job — which is now at Public Service and Procurement Canada — only on Oct. 17, 2018. That means the suspension came just days after Norman’s defence team had filed their notice of application, which publicly named Matchett as an alleged source of leaks based on information the RCMP investigation had uncovered. The Crown also disclosed last week that Matchett’s security clearance had been lifted June 22, 2017 — more than a year before he was suspended without pay. National Post and the Ottawa Citizen have made numerous attempts over several months to contact Matchett by email and phone, including on Monday, but he has not responded.

The five-day hearing, scheduled to end on Tuesday, is dealing with a wide range of requests the defence has made for government disclosure. The judge will have to decide which requested documents are likely relevant for Norman to defend himself, and will then have to consider whether those documents should be redacted for issues such as cabinet secrecy and solicitor client privilege.

The Crown wrapped up its submissions on Monday, and argued that some of the defence’s requests are overly broad or irrelevant.
“Clearly, it’s not the Crown’s desire to resist disclosure of information to Mr. Norman that he requires to defend himself of this charge,” she said. “But, your honour, we’re dealing with a veritable sea of government information.” Mercier told the judge that even if the defence’s requests were whittled down to 10,000 documents (the justice department’s initial estimate was they covered up to 135,000 documents), it may be too much material for the judge to read. “That’s not the issue,” Perkins-McVey immediately responded. “That’s for the court and court resources to determine. “That’s certainly not going to play any role of any kind in my determination of what’s going to be released.” The defence will have a chance to make more arguments to the judge on Tuesday.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Crown argues that motivation is unimportant, just whether the law was broken, seems to fly in the face of most common court cases, where motivation plays a big part. Also even if the judge agrees with it, he may find Norman "guilty" but reduces the penalty to zero due to such motivation.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Crown argues that motivation is unimportant, just whether the law was broken, seems to fly in the face of most common court cases, where motivation plays a big part. Also even if the judge agrees with it, he may find Norman "guilty" but reduces the penalty to zero due to such motivation.



The problem for a man like Norman, though, in that case is that even such a finding would be a problem.  It still would be a mark on his record and that would be penalty enough.


----------



## Rifleman62

Two articles in todays NP.

Adm Norman, who the Crown seems to always address as Mr. Norman, lawyer states the Crown's modus operandi is “obfuscation and gamesmanship”. Plus a one star who appears to be an active mbr of the Liberals plot against the Adm. If true, career before ethos and loyalty. Will be interesting what the CDS testifies to. 

Bet the Liberals will be caught in political cookie jar again at the end of this.

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20181219

*DND tried to hide documents: Witnesses* - NP - 19 Dec 18 - Brian Platt

Lawyers for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman excoriated Crown prosecutors and the government on Tuesday, introducing evidence they say shows the state has obstructed Norman’s ability to defend himself against a criminal charge of breach of trust. One witness called by the defence to testify at a court hearing on Tuesday alleged that the Department of National Defence used a practice that kept records relating to Norman, the former second-in-command of the Canadian Forces, from being revealed publicly. The witness, whose name is protected by a publication ban because of fears of professional reprisal for coming forward, testified that his superior told him Norman’s name was deliberately not used in internal files — meaning any search for records about Norman would come up empty.

The witness said he was processing an access-to information request in 2017 that returned no results. When he sought clarification, the witness testified, his superior smiled and told him: “Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name. Send back the nil return.” “He seemed proud to provide that response,” the witness said. The witness told court he has no relation to Norman, and came forward only because it’s “the right thing to do.” “It just doesn’t seem right, the way the whole situation kind of played out, when I was thinking back about it,” the witness said. “I just wanted to make it known, whether it’s relevant or not.” Justice Heather PerkinsMcVey described the testimony as “very disturbing.”

It came on the last day of a five-day hearing on Norman’s defence team’s request for documents they say are crucial to their ability to defend Norman, who’s accused of leaking cabinet secrets. His lawyer, Marie Henein, pointed out to the judge that some of her own disclosure requests to the Department of National Defence have come back empty. 

Earlier, Henein presented the court with an email from Stephen Harper in which the former prime minister clarified that he is willing to waive the right to cabinet secrecy over all documents related to the Norman case that were created during his time in government. The email was sent on Tuesday morning to the clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick. “In spite of the fact that I believe my view is clear, I continue to receive inquiries about my position regarding cabinet confidences pertaining to my government as relates to the case involving Admiral Norman,” Harper’s email said. “As I recently indicated publicly, I do not assert cabinet confidence for documents relevant to this proceeding.”

Henein offered the email to the court as evidence of Harper’s position on the question of access to confidential documents created under his administration, during which the government signed a deal to lease a navy supply ship from Quebec-based Davie Shipbuilding. After the Liberals defeated Harper’s Conservatives in the 2015 election, a committee of the new government’s cabinet decided to delay the deal. After word of the delay leaked to media, the Liberal government decided to continue with the project, but asked the RCMP to investigate the leak — an investigation that has resulted in the charge against Norman.

Henein said she has been trying since the summer to clarify whether the Crown ever asked for Harper’s waiver of cabinet secrecy, but hadn’t received an answer. She said she believes Harper’s reference to “inquiries” refers largely to her own defence team’s questions.
“The passive position taken by the Crown throughout this investigation and throughout this application, in my respectful submission, is profoundly concerning,” she said. She called it evidence of “obfuscation and gamesmanship” on the part of the Crown. “How extraordinary that Vice-Admiral Norman, after three years, three years of this investigation, that it is his counsel that has to try to unravel this, that has to try to bring the relevant information before this honourable court,” Henein told the court.

Meanwhile, Henein accused federal government lawyers of inappropriately intervening in the defence’s access to witnesses, and giving witnesses bad information. A witness called to the stand, former Privy Council Office analyst Melissa Burke, said justice department lawyers offered to sit in on her meeting with defence counsel. Burke declined and brought her own lawyer. Justice department lawyer Robert MacKinnon said their intention is to assist witnesses on what they’re allowed to discuss and what might violate cabinet secrecy.
But Henein also told the court the justice department lawyers do not appear to have made an effort to disclose additional records that Burke had found. The only reason the defence lawyers knew about it was that Burke voluntarily came forward to tell them. “Troubling,” said Justice Perkins-McVey. “Very troubling.”

Perkins-McVey will now start deliberating over which records requested by the defence are likely relevant to the case and should be handed over. However, Henein has requested additional days for the hearing — and is planning to issue witness subpoenas to General Jonathan Vance, chief of the defence staff; John Forster, former deputy minister at national defence; and the military official accused of saying Norman’s name was deliberately avoided in internal records.

The hearing is scheduled to return on Jan. 29, 2019, for three days.


----------



## Rifleman62

Article two. Readers have been requesting more coverage by Christie.

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20181219

*A sorry saga worthy of Shakespeare* - NP - 19 Dec 18 - Christie Blatchford
    _Mark Norman is in a war with few allies_

The lines from Shakespeare are an axiom of any military: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he that sheds his blood today with me shall be my brother.” The words speak to the profound bonds forged by those in uniform, especially at times of war, and to their love of and loyalty to one another.

Yet the only two people riding to the rescue of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, aside from his formidable team of lawyers led by Marie Henein, are two mid-level public servants who wanted to do the right thing and feared that Henein et al weren’t getting the information they needed to properly defend him. Collectively, they have also added flesh to the bones of the defence allegation that the Liberal government may be trying to bury relevant documents — and Norman with them.

He is charged with a single count of criminal breach of trust for allegedly leaking confidential information about the iAOR — the interim Auxiliary Oil Replenishment vessel — which Canada, under the former Stephen Harper government, decided it badly needed and which the new Liberal government, elected in the fall of 2015, was trying to stall. Norman allegedly leaked secret information to an acquaintance of the company, Chantier Davie, which was to supply the ship, and to a CBC reporter. The CBC reporter wrote about the endangered contract — and the $89-million penalty taxpayers would have paid had it not been signed — and the Liberals backed off.

Melissa Burke, a former analyst at the Privy Council Office (PCO), the bureaucracy that serves the prime minister, wrote Christine Mainville, one of the defence team, late last month. “I think these notes would be relevant to your defence,” Burke wrote. “I brought them to the attention of the government, and I understand that they will be provided to you. “But I wanted to make sure.” The notes disclose a meeting Burke had forgotten about, she said, a so-called “four corners” meeting among the PCO, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the Department of National Defence (DND) and Public Works. Such meetings are held among senior officials from all involved departments and political staff and are usually held before a matter goes to cabinet.

At this one, on March 24, 2015, Burke said, she made particular notes of “an exchange between the PMO and Vice-Admiral Norman as to what their (the Harper government’s) preferences are.” Burke immediately knew it was important and “literally physically flagged it” in her notes. The notes are among material whose relevance Justice Department lawyers are still, even now, disputing. They have never been disclosed to defence lawyers but could be if Ontario Court Judge Heather PerkinsMcVey decides they are relevant.

After Burke’s testimony, a Canadian Forces member now known only as Witness A told the judge Tuesday he came forward “because I think it’s the right thing to do.” Perkins-McVey imposed a publication ban on the man’s name and information that would tend to identify him. He said in an affidavit he feared “potential intimidation and reprisal actions” were he publicly known.

He told the judge that shortly after starting on a new job that gave him reason to be involved in Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) applications he was told to answer one particular request “nil response,” meaning no documents could be found. This was in relation to a 2017 ATIP request seeking records and notes relating to the Norman case. At one point, the man said, a smiling brigadier general told him of this ATIP request, “Aaah, (Witness A). Don’t worry; this isn’t our first rodeo. “We made sure we didn’t use his (Norman’s) name.”

Henein is now subpoenaing that brigadier-general, as well as Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance and former deputy DND minister John Forster after the judge scheduled three more days for the hearing in January. Witness A was accompanied by his own lawyer, Ian Carter, as was Ms. Burke accompanied by hers, AnneMarie McElroy.

It was in response to a Henein subpoena that Burke went through the notes she had made in her 2½ years at the PCO, where she was the note taker at Harper cabinet meetings. She had disclosed the fact that she had the notes in her interview with the RCMP in January of 2016, when the force was still investigating Norman. Yet astonishingly, in the almost intervening two years — until the end of October this year — neither the RCMP, Crown prosecutors nor lawyers from the Justice Department ever asked her to produce the notes. It appears that only after she was subpoenaed by the defence team that the RCMP belatedly asked about getting them.

This delay, coupled with the general level of stalling with which repeated defence requests for documents have been met (it often took three defence letters to even get a response from the prosecution team), led a furious Henein to remind the judge that in the recent prosecution of former Dalton McGuinty chief of staff David Livingston, it was Access to Information requests from parliamentarians, reporters and citizens that repeatedly purportedly turned up no documents. It was only when the code name for the Livingston project — to have government computers cleansed, apparently of embarrassing gas plant information — was discovered that the requests started to produce documents.

As another example of what Henein called obfuscation by the government, she produced an email dated Tuesday from former PM Harper to Michael Wernick, clerk of the PCO. As the Norman case got more headlines and the issue of whether the Justin Trudeau government would waive cabinet confidence and thus free civil servants to speak honestly, it became clear that most of the documents the defence is seeking date to the Harper era.
In apparent reply to all this, Harper even tweeted that he had never claimed cabinet confidence. Yet asked for that waiver — or any evidence the current government had even asked Harper for it — repeatedly by the defence, the government refused to answer.

Only on Nov. 1, did the government finally say it wouldn’t claim that confidence, but rather “the public interest immunity.” But in the case of Burke, the PCO had in fact released her from cabinet confidence almost a year ago, yet no one in government — including a Justice lawyer who met her recently — ever deigned to tell her.

“To suggest this isn’t obfuscation and gamesmanship, when we directly asked again and again (about both the Harper waiver and the government’s position on cabinet confidence), they (the government) have refused to answer that question since July,” Henein snapped. “After 3½ years, how is it that his counsel has to try to unravel this?” Henein thundered. “And this is the tip of the iceberg.”

In other words, Mark Norman, is indeed in a war. He just has no happy few with him.


----------



## FSTO

When I initially read the part about leaving VAdm Norman's name out of any correspondence to limit ATI compliance I thought that was being done to protect him. But now it seems that it was being done to ensure that damaging information towards the government and the department would be difficult to acquire.

Pretty dirty business going on up at the executive suite of 101. Or maybe I'm just reading too many thriller paperbacks?


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> When I initially read the part about leaving VAdm Norman's name out of any correspondence to limit ATI compliance I thought that was being done to protect him. But now it seems that it was being done to ensure that damaging information towards the government and the department would be difficult to acquire.
> 
> Pretty dirty business going on up at the executive suite of 101. Or maybe I'm just reading too many thriller paperbacks?



I truly hope fellow CAF pers have not tried to submarine the good Admiral.  We shall find out I suppose.


----------



## CountDC

not submarine him, protect themselves is more likely.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FSTO said:
			
		

> When I initially read the part about leaving VAdm Norman's name out of any correspondence to limit ATI compliance I thought that was being done to protect him. But now it seems that it was being done to ensure that damaging information towards the government and the department would be difficult to acquire.
> 
> Pretty dirty business going on up at the executive suite of 101. Or maybe I'm just reading too many thriller paperbacks?



Having dealt with Ottawa, I am sadly not surprised. They are good people there that struggle to do right, but it's often a case of tilting at windmills.


----------



## Dissident

This obfuscation hurts me deep down in my Canadian soul. Ms Burke and Witness A have my thanks for coming forward.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> When I initially read the part about leaving VAdm Norman's name out of any correspondence to limit ATI compliance I thought that was being done to protect him. But now it seems that it was being done to ensure that damaging information towards the government and the department would be difficult to acquire.
> 
> Pretty dirty business going on up at the executive suite of 101. Or maybe I'm just reading too many thriller paperbacks?



That's definitely dirty pool.  Have done my fair share of ATI processing, and while you sometimes screen things out (because it was outside of the requested range of dates, or something similar) sure they made it broad enough that they should have got something.  What they are doing is unethical as hell, and not IAW the ATI legislation letter of the law or intent.

Also, if you are going to be clever, they should have sent back some stuff, but screened out others. Still unethical, but at least it's not stupid. This was both wrong and hugely improbable, so almost guaranteed to get caught.  If this is true, hope these idiots get crucified and shown the door.

Makes me wish for a benevolent dictator at times to burn the system to the ground and start over. If people put the effort into getting things accomplished they did into building their little empires and playing their daft political games we'd have the best run military in the planet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I do a lot of ATIP requests and crap like this disgusts me.


----------



## Rifleman62

If the reporting is correct, done by a one star.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

CountDC said:
			
		

> not submarine him, protect themselves is more likely.



If true, weak and cowardly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

If I'm the judge I would ask to hear about those other "rodeo's".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes that would be well worth admission to watch


----------



## Rifleman62

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20181221/textview

*Curious conduct of the Crown* - NP - 21 Dec 18 - Christie Blatchford
    _Norman case a show of state power_

As Ontario Premier Doug Ford might say, it’s shaping up as a real humdinger. I refer to the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the former vice-chief of the defence staff, where a third-party records application brought by defence lawyers is now on hiatus until January. The hearing ran for two days in Ottawa this week and was so replete with news — first, an email from former prime minister Stephen Harper, waiving cabinet confidence on documents dating from his era and then two surprise witnesses, public servants called by the defence, the sum of whose evidence was that the current government may be very well trying to bury records in the case — that one aspect got lost.

It is this, the curious conduct of the state in all this. The state is a three-headed beast in the Norman prosecution, who is charged with a single count of breach of trust for allegedly leaking secret information. First, it is the complainant; it was the Privy Council Office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that first called in the RCMP. Second, it is the prosecutor, with three federal Crowns from across the country and three Justice Department lawyers handling the case. Third, the state is the controller of all information.

The defence seeks records (emails, texts, briefing notes) of various meetings among government officials who discussed either the ship (the interim Auxiliary Oil Replenishment, or iAOR, ship Ottawa wanted under Harper and didn’t under Trudeau), the leaks about it or the RCMP investigation into Norman’s conduct.

Only the government, either through the involved departments (such as Treasury Board, Department of National Defence) or the Prime Minister’s Office or the PCO (the powerful bureaucracy that serves the PM), has access to those records and controls them. The departments, for instance, exercise control through requests for information made under the Access to Information and Privacy legislation. The PCO can exert claims of “cabinet confidence,” and this claim is absolute and can’t even be reviewed by a court. Thus, from the get-go, the defence team (Marie Henein, Christine Mainville and Maya Borooah) was up against it.

In fact, even the state’s physical presence in court (six lawyers seated at the tables, with assorted other justice lawyers hanging about in the public section) could be intimidating. I haven’t seen such a muscular presentation of the power of the state since the long-ago trial of my colleague, Conrad Black, in Chicago, where the government’s main witness, Black’s former trusted lieutenant David Radler, once described the array of people who faced him at his first meeting — a representative of every government department with a three-letter acronym (FBI, CIA, IRS, etc.).

There at least, as with much in America, the presentation and message were honest: We are the government, Mr. Radler, and if you don’t help us, we will crush you. It is much less transparent, but with the same awesome power, in the Norman case. Here, the state pretends it is horrified and offended at allegations it is being less than co-operative and dragging its big feet, while still, inevitably, being uncooperative and dragging its big feet. Take, for instance, the issue of the Harper cabinet confidence.

Henein first wrote prosecutors, asking what the status of the waiver of cabinet confidence was — emphasizing that any waiver must cover the entire time period at issue, in other words, the Harper era, on July 9. It is self-evident that the defence needed to know this, if they were to properly defend their guy. With no response, she wrote again on July 17, on Aug. 28, and Sept. 12, this time asking if Norman himself was prohibited from disclosing such confidences to his own lawyers. Finally, on Sept. 18, she wrote Trudeau directly, copying the clerk of the PCO, begging for some direction. (There never was a response from the PM.)

Henein finally got written responses from prosecutors in September, and it’s clear there were some discussions along the way, but when she and Mainville wrote again in early October, they pointed out that the PCO confirms that “PM Harper would have to approve of their disclosure” and asked, in effect, what prosecutors were doing about that. They also remarked, not for the first time, that prosecutors “seem to be wholly unconcerned by this fairness issue.” Finally, this week, Harper sent a note to the clerk of the PCO (copied to Henein) repeating formally what he’d said already in a tweet — “I do not assert cabinet confidence for documents relevant to this proceeding,” and left it for the judge to determine relevance and disclose what she wished.

Lest you imagine only the defence cares about this, Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey appears to care too. At one point on Tuesday, she cut off one of the prosecutors who was attempting to stall to consider the evidence of one of the surprise witnesses. “His evidence is very clear,” the judge said. “Very troubling.” The man had testified at what seemed to him to have been DND efforts to bury key documents. Of another key witness, who testified that though she flagged for government lawyers a particular document, no one had made any effort to get her notes. “It’s troubling,” the judge said. “Very troubling, given how the witness had specifically flagged it.”

_THE STATE PRETENDS IT IS HORRIFIED AND OFFENDED_

For the record, the Crown — in this case prosecutors and Justice lawyers — has a higher duty, as cases at bothThe Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have made clear — than ordinary lawyers. That obligation is, in the language of the court, to the administration of justice. You and I know that as the truth; the Crown has an obligation to get at the full story, the bottom line, and to disclose it. As Ontario appeal court Justice David Doherty remarked in a case called R v Ahluwalia, a drug case where prosecutors had failed to disclose the lengthy criminal record of a key witness, “Remarkably, the Crown professed to have no idea why full disclosure had not been made, offered no explanation (for the failure)…”

Remarkably, it all sounds unsettlingly familiar.


----------



## Rifleman62

He means that he had no idea that something like this was going on. Same as the leadership in the Wpg incident. The CDS absolutely knew the Liberal gov't was going full bore after Adm Norman. The CDS relieved him as VCDS. Who ordered the CDS to that? That's a clear indication that the Liberals had a hate on.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-norman-access-information-breach-trust-1.4955102

*'Alarmed' and 'disgusted': Vance erupts over report that DND evaded information requests on Mark Norman* - 21 Dec 18
    _'I cannot say enough about how bad this is, if it’s true,' says CDS_

The country's top military commander is denying any knowledge of defence officials intentionally trying to subvert the federal access to information system by avoiding the use of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's name in internal correspondence. In a year-end interview with CBC News, Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance described recent testimony in the criminal case against his former deputy as "extremely serious" and alarming. A pretrial hearing this week in the breach of trust case against Norman, the former vice-chief of the defence staff, heard testimony from a military member who handles access to information requests.

The individual, whose name is protected by a publication ban, told the court that in July, 2017 he approached his commander asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman.His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because "this isn't our first rodeo" and officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty. If that's true, Vance said, it could be a breach of access-to-information law and a "reputational hit" for National Defence, which faced outrage in the 1990s when it released altered documents under the act in reference to the Somalia scandal.
_
'We don't use codenames'_

"I'm alarmed and somewhat disgusted by this, if it's true," Vance said in the interview. "I cannot say enough about how bad this is, if it's true." Defence lawyer Marie Henein told the court that if Norman was referred to by a "codename" within National Defence, it would make it very easy to bury the records. Vance denied that suggestion. "We don't hide names. We don't use codenames," he said. "If it was done, if it has been done, it's wrong, dead wrong and we'll stop it." Often, senior members of the military do refer to each other using the acronyms of their job titles — 'CDS' for chief of the defence staff, for example.

Vance vowed an investigation and, if the allegations are corroborated, to hold those responsible to account. He said it is paramount to cooperate with both the defence and prosecution in the case. There will also be measures to remind everybody at National Defence "about the importance of the act and how it works, and why it works," Vance said. Norman is charged with a single count of breach of trust and is accused of leaking cabinet secrets involving a $668 million deal to lease a supply ship for the navy. His lawyers spent five days in court recently arguing for access to federal government documents, including secret cabinet memos, related to the project at the Davie shipyard in Levis, Que. The defence has alleged the government is dragging its feet and even hiding documents, and cherry-picking the information it does release.

Norman's lawyers also claim the Crown has been hindering its access to witnesses. An expert in military law and access-to-information law said it's entirely possible Vance did not know about the alleged suppression of Norman's name, but suspects it could turn out to be a case of "willful blindness." Retired colonel Michel Drapeau used the information legislation extensively during the Somalia affair — a cover-up involving the torture and murder of a teenager during an ill-fated peacekeeping mission. He said National Defence is artful and skilled at keeping sensitive, potentially embarrassing issues from being committed to paper — despite having instituted reforms after getting caught releasing altered documents during the 1990s scandal.

_'Give me a break'_

Officials use sticky notes, or brief each other verbally, said Drapeau. "It comes across that the CDS is scandalized by it. Well, give me a break," he said. "It doesn't correspond with my experience and doesn't correspond with my knowledge of how DND operates."

Drapeau also took issue with the notion that the defence department needs to remind its people of their duty when it comes to the handling of information requests. It is, he said, a matter of leadership and culture — not process. "It's not an issue that the Act doesn't work, or the people running the Act don't know their jobs ... This case is not the first. It's not the exception. It's the norm." Norman's lawyers intend to subpoena Vance, former Defence deputy minister John Forester and the brigadier general who was in charge of access-to-information during the relevant period. Another pre-trial hearing in Norman's case will take place at the end of January.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To bad Operation Honour does not apply to DOJ


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

So will the CDS and others also end up with egg on their face over this?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The armchair quarterback in me says "How could they not"?    Unless someone falls on his/her sword big time.....


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Manged to find a redacted copy of the ITO (Information to obtain and sealing order) for VAdm Norman. Unfortunately, it is to large to attach, but can be read online here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/346452528/ITO-and-Sealing-Order-With-Codes


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmmm interesting I wonder if the 2 events are related.....

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/01/10/scott-brison-resigning-cabinet/


----------



## Kirkhill

One more week and it will be exactly 2 years since VAdm Norman left his desk.

2 years of investigation, a ship built and operational for a full year.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One more week and it will be exactly 2 years since VAdm Norman left his desk.
> 
> 2 years of investigation, a ship built and operational for a full year.



Exactly! Thank you Admiral.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Defence chief Vance slated to testify this month in Vice-Admiral Norman case

OTTAWA -- Canada's top military officer is scheduled to take the stand later this month at a pre-trial hearing for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Norman's lawyer confirms the legal team subpoenaed Gen. Jonathan Vance and is on the schedule when the hearing resumes at the end of January.

More on link:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-chief-vance-slated-to-testify-this-month-in-vice-admiral-norman-case-1.4256206


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So do you think that handing out free popcorn on that day at NDHQ would b frowned upon.....


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin P said:
			
		

> So do you think that handing out free popcorn on that day at NDHQ would b frowned upon.....



I think you'll be alright.  But let me know how it goes


----------



## FSTO

I may take a stroll down to the Bytown Wardroom that day. Just to see who's hanging around the building across the street!


----------



## FSTO

Well, well, well. Somebody has something to hide?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-cds-norman-case-1.4996881

Brison denies being 'Irving's Boy,' seeks privacy protections in Mark Norman case
Social Sharing

Former Liberal cabinet minister wants to be heard in breach-of-trust case
Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jan 29, 2019 5:05 PM ET | Last Updated: 5 minutes ago

Former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison is seeking standing at the breach-of-trust case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Former federal cabinet minister Scott Brison wants to be heard at the pretrial hearing involving the military's former second-in-command.
His lawyers were granted standing Tuesday as the court fight over the disclosure of federal government documents ignited again in Ontario Superior Court.
Lawyers for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who is charged with one count of breach of trust and is accused of leaking cabinet secrets, have accused Brison of political interference in the shipbuilding deal at the centre of the case.
They accuse Brison of trying to kill a $668 million plan to lease a naval supply ship from the Davie shipyard, in Levis, Que. on behalf of a rival, Irving Shipyard.
His lawyers deny any meddling.
"Mr. Brison did not review this procurement at the behest of Irving because he is 'Irving's Boy,"' reads Brison's application for standing.
"This pejorative comment ... and others like it, appear to suggest that the applicant made his decision to review the naval supply ship procurement at the behest of Irving. Such allegations are utterly false."
The long-time MP has already denied wrongdoing under questioning in the House of Commons, prior to his resignation earlier this monh.
Brison is expected to be a Crown witness
His lawyers appeared in court Tuesday to deliver emails from his personal account covered by a defence subpoena, which asked for, among other things, correspondence between him and representatives of Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

Paper trail concerns
Norman's lawyer said those items of correspondence should have come up in the federal government's hunt for relevant documents.
Marie Henein said it's another indication that the search for documents relevant to the vice-admiral's defence has fallen short
"I have no confidence that it has all been captured," she said.
Robert MacKinnon, the Justice Department lawyer responsible for the search, denied the system had failed and said that emails from private accounts are still being collected.
He said Brison's lawyers contacted him and offered the emails, but wanted to deliver them personally.
Brison seeks privacy protections
In the application for standing, lawyers said Brison appreciates Norman's right to mount a full defence and does not want to hinder his efforts to obtain all relevant documents.
Brison is prepared and ready to cooperate, but wants legal standing in the case to "protect against unmerited intrusions into his privacy, and to ensure that disclosure requests are clear and complete," the document reads.
Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance was expected to appear as a witness today, but his testimony was postponed to tomorrow.
Much of the day was taken up by Norman's lawyers questioning the Privy Council Office bureaucrat in charge of the search for government records.
Patsy Bradley testified that retrieving some records at National Defence has been a challenge because of a policy that requires the contents of dormant email accounts of political staff to be "wiped" after six months.
That is potentially significant because Norman has claimed — as part of his broader defence — that he was carrying out the orders of the previous Conservative government, which went to great lengths to push through a $668 million plan to lease a supply ship for the navy. The emails and notes of political staff at the time could be significant to his defence.


----------



## FJAG

If there actually is a policy to “wipe after six months” it contravenes the provisions of the Library and Archives Canada ACT and the DND’s subordinate records retention requirements


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks FJAG

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/pipe.shtml

The Online version of the Pipe Rolls go back at least to Michaelmas 1130.  Domesday predates that.

I hate electrons.


----------



## Rifleman62

First: I would not believe Former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison testimony under oath would be truthful.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-cds-norman-case-1.4996881   (video at link)
*
Codename 'Kracken': Mark Norman's defence accuses military of using aliases to conceal documents *- 29 Jan 19
    S_cott Brison denies being 'Irving's Boy,' seeks privacy protections in Mark Norman case_

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyers today released a list of elaborate codenames they claim defence officials used in an attempt to bury documents sought by the defence in relation to his breach-of-trust case. Lawyers for the military's former second-in-command claim that, in order to thwart document searches related to his case, defence officials have taken to using a variety of aliases in their communications. One of those codenames — 'Kracken' — could be a (misspelled) reference to the giant monstrous squid of legend best known to modern audiences for appearances in the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

Norman's lawyers entered into the court record at today's pretrial hearing in Ottawa a full list of aliases they say were used by defence officials for their client — including the substantive VCDS [Vice Chief of the Defence Staff], MN3, C34 and 'The Boss.' Norman's defence team is battling with the federal government for the release of documents they claim are relevant to his defence.

Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a $668 million contract to lease a supply ship for the navy. The Crown alleges that the former commander of the navy tipped off a now-former CBC reporter about the results of a secret Liberal cabinet committee decision to put the project on hold in November 2015. The government eventually went ahead with the lease arrangement but launched a police investigation into the leak.
_
Records buried?_

Last month, the court heard that senior staff at National Defence avoid using Vice-Admiral Norman's name in internal correspondence as a way to keep his records out of the public domain. The allegations were made at a pretrial hearing last month by a member of the military who handles access to information requests. The military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman. His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty.

Ironically, Norman's lawyers obtained the list of codenames through an access to information request. In a year-end interview with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, flatly denied the Department of National Defence uses aliases to hide documents. "We don't hide names. We don't use codenames," he said. "If it was done, if it has been done, it's wrong, dead wrong and we'll stop it."

Vance was slated to testify Tuesday, but his appearance was pushed back a day as former federal cabinet minister Scott Brison's lawyers were granted standing in the case. Norman's lawyers have accused Brison of political interference in the shipbuilding deal at the centre of the case. They claim, in a court filing, he tried to kill the $668 million plan to lease a naval supply ship from the Davie shipyard, in Lévis, Que. on behalf of a rival, Irving Shipyard.

His lawyers deny any meddling. "Mr. Brison did not review this procurement at the behest of Irving because he is 'Irving's Boy,"' reads Brison's application for standing. "This pejorative comment ... and others like it, appear to suggest that the applicant made his decision to review the naval supply ship procurement at the behest of Irving. Such allegations are utterly false."

The long-time MP has already denied wrongdoing under questioning in the House of Commons, prior to his resignation earlier this month. Brison is expected to be a Crown witness. His lawyers appeared in court Tuesday to deliver emails from his personal account covered by a defence subpoena, which asked for, among other things, correspondence between him and representatives of Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

_Paper trail concerns_

Norman's lawyer, Marie Henein, said those items of correspondence should have come up in the federal government's hunt for relevant documents. Henein said it's another indication that the search for documents relevant to the vice-admiral's defence has fallen short. "I have no confidence that it has all been captured," she said. Robert MacKinnon, the Justice Department lawyer responsible for the search, denied the system had failed and said that emails from private accounts are still being collected. He said Brison's lawyers contacted him and offered the emails, but wanted to deliver them personally.

_Brison seeks privacy protections_

In the application for standing, lawyers said Brison appreciates Norman's right to mount a full defence and does not want to hinder his efforts to obtain all relevant documents. Brison is prepared and ready to cooperate, but wants legal standing in the case to "protect against unmerited intrusions into his privacy, and to ensure that disclosure requests are clear and complete," the document reads.

Much of the day was taken up by Norman's lawyers questioning the Privy Council Office bureaucrat in charge of the search for government records. Patsy Bradley testified that retrieving some records at National Defence has been a challenge because of *a policy that requires the contents of dormant email accounts of political staff to be "wiped" after six months.*

That is potentially significant because Norman has claimed — as part of his broader defence — that he was carrying out the orders of the previous Conservative government, which went to great lengths to push through a $668 million plan to lease a supply ship for the navy. The emails and notes of political staff at the time could be significant to his defence.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> First: I would not believe Former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison testimony under oath would be truthful.



Do you know the man?  Do you have first hand knowledge of a record of mendacity?  Proof of other instances where he has lied under oath?

Or are you basing it on a label? Because he is from the Maritimes?  Because he is a man?  Because he is gay?  All of those types of people have also lied before, right?  Are is it because he is a politician?  Or perhaps even because he is a Liberal?

It is no small thing to accuse someone of committing a crime.  I am interested in how you have come to the level of certainty one assumes is required to level an accusation of having committed a crime, even if it is from the comfort of internet anonymity.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

> Codename 'Kracken': Mark Norman's defence accuses military of using aliases to conceal documents [/b]- 29 Jan 19
> S_cott Brison denies being 'Irving's Boy,' seeks privacy protections in Mark Norman case_
> 
> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyers today released a list of elaborate codenames they claim defence officials used in an attempt to bury documents sought by the defence in relation to his breach-of-trust case. Lawyers for the military's former second-in-command claim that, in order to thwart document searches related to his case, defence officials have taken to using a variety of aliases in their communications. One of those codenames — 'Kracken' — could be a (misspelled) reference to the giant monstrous squid of legend best known to modern audiences for appearances in the Pirates of the Caribbean films.



Yup - proof of a coverup....or that the acronym for Commander Royal Canadian Navy is CRCN....pronounced cracken.

There are codenames as well - Sea Jock, the Sad Em, Cerberus..... :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Then, good sir, it must be a Headquarter Army/Air Force thing because in the Navy, we have always pronounced it (I'll spell phonetically) sea-are-sea-an. We never consider the "C"s to be pronounced like hard "K"s.

Moreover, He was VCDS when all this happened. Or is that pronounced "vi-kay-dee-esse"


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Then, good sir, it must be a Headquarter Army/Air Force thing because in the Navy, we have always pronounced it (I'll spell phonetically) sea-are-sea-an. We never consider the "C"s to be pronounced like hard "K"s.
> 
> Moreover, He was VCDS when all this happened. Or is that pronounced "vi-kay-dee-esse"



Many of us will say KRAKEN informally but the current CRCN has made it well known that he is not amused when the squid term is used.


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> Many of us will say KRAKEN informally but the current CRCN has made it well known that he is not amused when the squid term is used.



Just squirt black ink at him while you run away.


----------



## Rifleman62

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Do you know the man?  Do you have first hand knowledge of a record of mendacity?  Proof of other instances where he has lied under oath?
> 
> Or are you basing it on a label? Because he is from the Maritimes?  Because he is a man?  Because he is gay?  All of those types of people have also lied before, right?  Are is it because he is a politician?  Or perhaps even because he is a Liberal?
> 
> It is no small thing to accuse someone of committing a crime.  I am interested in how you have come to the level of certainty one assumes is required to level an accusation of having committed a crime, even if it is from the comfort of internet anonymity.



That sure set you off. 

I am not your personal Google. Look at his past record of leaks and excuses.

It was my opinion. 

Your angry comments are also from the comfort of internet anonymity. Don't know what it has to being gay, maritimer, man , breathing, short, ........


----------



## Rifleman62

Trial article. IMO, from reading the proceedings from various sources,it appears to stalling, covering up, etc. Who is ordering these Public Servants to do this do you think?

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-for-its-legion-of-prosecutors-mark-norman-case-has-gone-snafu?video_autoplay=true#comments-area
*
Christie Blatchford: For its legion of prosecutors, Mark Norman case has gone SNAFU *- 29 Jan 19
    _In all the searches the various government departments conducted for records about the Norman case, there were no searches 
       done for 'Norman' or 'Mark Norman'_

OTTAWA — Honest to Pete, it never changes here at the third-party records motion at the breach-of-trust trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. The defence team arrives at the downtown Ottawa courthouse all bright-eyed and cheerful, hoping that finally, this will be the day the government lawyers (their number is legion, and growing) will co-operate or perhaps that the documents they have been seeking for months will fall from the sky. Every time, they are doomed to disappointment, and probably, internally, rage.

As a reminder, the two sides — the defence team is one, with federal prosecutors and the Justice Department lawyers forming the impenetrable wall of government on the other — are fighting over documents the defence wants. These are records the defence believes will show that Norman did nothing more than follow the wishes of the former Stephen Harper government in obtaining an interim Auxillary OIL Replenishment (iAOR) ship, that certainly he did nothing wrong or, at worst, that he did nothing that virtually everyone in Ottawa doesn’t do all the time, which is to say, treat information as hard currency. And so it was Tuesday, when the motion hearing resumed.

Lead prosecutor Barbara Mercier said she wanted to put her position very clearly. “I fear we’re losing our way a little bit. My friend (by which she meant lead defence lawyer Marie Henein) is very good at taking us where she wants to go.” She suggested the court should narrow the focus. It is rarely wise to tell a judge she’s being led about by the nose (nor in this case is it accurate), and in short order Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey pointed out that “the integrity of the process has been put at issue,” that no one has been “led astray,” and reminded Mercier that “things don’t always remain in tight little boxes.”

As a hint of how the records-gathering, records-disclosing process has been impugned, let me just say this: In all the searches the various government departments have conducted for responsive records about the Norman case, and among all the search terms they have used, there were no searches done for “Norman” or “Mark Norman.” By this impeccable reasoning, if you wanted to search your company’s files for documents, emails and other communications about one John Doe, there would be no need to search for “Doe” or “John Doe.”

The person who is in charge of this monumental effort is a Justice paralegal named Patsy Bradley. She appears to be a lovely, competent person, but, in the way that many of us become our names, she is also a bit of a Justice Department patsy. She can answer some questions about the searches that were done and the documents retrieved, but not others. In other words, she is at a sufficiently low level that she must defer to Justice lawyers about matters such as what constitutes privilege and cabinet confidence, and thus is a useful witness for the government. And she was looking to lead Justice lawyer Robert MacKinnon for clues as to what she couldn’t or shouldn’t say so obviously — he was like a coach giving hand signals from the stands — that the judge noticed her discomfort and took a break so Bradley could clarify her marching orders.

Among the things she disclosed Tuesday was that since October, when the defence filed their third-party records motion, is that there have been about six meetings with the various government departments that likely have records and justice lawyers. As Henein snapped at one point, “It’s not clear to me how Mr. MacKinnon can be giving legal advice to about seven government departments at the same time…” Here, the judge finished Henein’s sentence, saying, “Without a conflict.”

Another illustration.

After the hearing last sat in December, the judge was presented with a secure laptop containing the documents the government has agreed she should review, first for relevance and later to vet for solicitor-client privilege and the like. One of these documents were the notes of a witness named Melissa Burke, who was sufficiently concerned the defence might not get her notes of a key meeting (this was because no one from the government had showed the slightest interest in getting them for almost two years) that she contacted one of the defence lawyers, Christine Mainville.

At this, MacKinnon said the notes were on the secure laptop. “Not that I can find,” said the judge. “I spent a month trying to find these documents…” on the laptop. She ordered the government to produce a proper, readable list of witnesses and their documents, saying rather furiously, “That should have been done months ago!” And so it went, as they say in the military, SNAFU (Situation Normal All F—ed Up).

That said, there was one amusing frisson of excitement. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance, has been summonsed to testify at the hearing. At the beginning of the day, MacKinnon stood up to ask Perkins-McVey for a “20-minute notice” so that the general could be brought from his secure location, which of course could not possibly be disclosed. Hours later, Vance having taken his leave from a side room adjacent to the court after his muscle and aides waited for reporters and lawyers to be called back into court and the corridor was thus empty, it was agreed he should return at 10 a.m. Wednesday. After all, the judge said, “We don’t want to take him from his secret location” until necessary. She was grinning. Sometimes, it’s all you can do.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Do you know the man?  Do you have first hand knowledge of a record of mendacity?  Proof of other instances where he has lied under oath?
> 
> Or are you basing it on a label? Because he is from the Maritimes?  Because he is a man?  Because he is gay?  All of those types of people have also lied before, right?  Are is it because he is a politician?  Or perhaps even because he is a Liberal?
> 
> It is no small thing to accuse someone of committing a crime.  I am interested in how you have come to the level of certainty one assumes is required to level an accusation of having committed a crime, even if it is from the comfort of internet anonymity.



I have met the man a few times as he is a friend of a friend; and tends to be a similar social gatherings I attend.  To be blunt as soon as he found out I was a member of the CAF he cornered me and prodded me for information and opinions,  especially while the Cons were in power.  My reply to him was always "You know I cant talk about that". 

He's a greasy cars salesman, as far as I am concerned, and I am happy to see him finally leaving politics.


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-breach-trust-access-1.4996445?fbclid=IwAR0PGyIFKWiqvJIxmtpWNirCUS3i4SXwVgG-FTQQsLd1is8EMmImISsEB_s

*Two probes launched into claims that military blocked information requests in Norman case* - 29 Jan 19

There are now at least two investigations underway into allegations Department of National Defence officials intentionally tried to subvert the federal access to information system in the breach-of-trust case involving the military's former second-in-command. CBC News has learned military police have joined the federal information commissioner in probing claims that senior staff at National Defence have avoided using Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's name in internal correspondence as a way to keep his records out of the public domain. The allegations were made by a member of the military who handles access to information requests at a pretrial hearing last month.

Norman is charged with one count of breach of trust for alleging leaking cabinet secrets to an executive at the Davie shipyard, located in Levis, Que. His defence team is seeking access to thousands of pages of government documents related to the plan to lease a supply ship to the navy — an effort the federal government's lawyers have fought against, arguing many of the documents are not relevant to the criminal case.

_'Alarmed and disgusted'_

In testimony, the military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman. His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty. During a year-end interview last month with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, said he was "alarmed and disgusted" by the notion that someone might have been trying to bury the records. Vance has been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday as Norman's pretrial hearing resumes in an Ottawa courtroom.

A spokesman for National Defence acknowledged Monday that the Canadian Forces National Investigative Service opened a criminal investigation into the allegations shortly after information commissioner Caroline Maynard opened her own probe. "This is an ongoing investigation. As such, no timelines are available," said spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said in an email statement. He suggested that National Defence is working in concert with the information commissioner. "We have contacted the [Office of the Information Commission] and agreed to work together and provide any information required to conduct the investigation," said Le Bouthillier. "The OIC understands DND is investigating and appreciates that we are taking this seriously. Given these ongoing investigations, ‎it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time."

Sources have told CBC News that interviews have carried out by military police over the last three weeks with an eye to laying charges. An expert in military law and the access to information system was startled to hear about the involvement of military investigators.
_
'Military police have got no authority'_

The information commissioner, said retired colonel Michel Drapeau, "has the means to investigate and the duty to investigate and all of the necessary powers." In cases where the commissioner suspects the law has been broken, the procedure dictates calling in the RCMP — not military police — he said. The military's national investigative service is set up to be at arm's-length from the chain of command, but Drapeau said it's still incredibly unusual for an organization accused of wrongdoing to essentially investigate itself. He also said he wonders what background the force has to examine potential breaches of the information act. "Military police have got no authority and no expertise and no competence to do that."


----------



## daftandbarmy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> In testimony, the military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman. His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty. During a year-end interview last month with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, said he was "alarmed and disgusted" by the notion that someone might have been trying to bury the records. Vance has been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday as Norman's pretrial hearing resumes in an Ottawa courtroom.



Why did Monty Python come to mind when I read this? Oh, yeah, now I remember!  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI


----------



## Rifleman62

It does sound like a circus by the gov't. The follow on Biggus Dickus is apropos.


----------



## CBH99

This is a good thing though - it only serves in the interest of the VCDS.


Politically motivated charges because he pushed through a contract signed by the previous government, to get the RCN a sorely needed capability.  (Renting from Chile is just embarrassing...) 

Politically motivated charges.  

The defense still hasn't received full disclosure.  

The crown withholding a variety of documents from the defense by claiming they are of a "secret" nature.  

A department that ensured documents were produced without his name on it.  

A finger pointing circus as to who told who what to hide & withhold.  

A witness coming forwards and requiring witness protection, despite it being the federal government who led the charge to prosecute in the first place...


If this were an average person going to court, this s**t-show would have been on it's way to a trash can by now, I'd think?


----------



## FSTO

The CDS testified today. Stated that he only talked to the PM for a "few seconds" about VAdm Norman. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-cds-records-norman-breach-of-trust-1.4998411

Excerpt:
*"Canada's top military commander says he spoke just once — and only for seconds — to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about the Mark Norman breach of trust case.

The brief call came after Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance met with RCMP officials about the case. The general said he also met with Trudeau's principal secretary and chief of staff to brief the office on what he had learned from the RCMP on Jan. 9, 2017.

Vance is testifying at the pre-trial hearing for his second-in-command, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. Norman has pleaded not guilty to one count of breach of trust. He is accused of leaking cabinet secrets related to a $668 million contract to lease a supply ship for the navy.

He said all his communications with Trudeau and his staff were verbal and that he took no notes on the conversations.

"I have no record," he told the court."
*
Doesn't matter that he only talked to the PM for a few seconds. The real power is held by the two people I've highlighted above. Would be nice if those two were called to the docket.


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My opinion of senior management and DOJ is being reinforced far to much by all of this. Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> The brief call came after Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance met with RCMP officials about the case. *The general said he also met with Trudeau's principal secretary and chief of staff to brief the office on what he had learned from the RCMP on Jan. 9, 2017.
> *



Does that mean that Butts and Tetford may be called to testify?


----------



## YZT580

And you can be certain that those two will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  right?


----------



## JesseWZ

YZT580 said:
			
		

> And you can be certain that those two will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  right?



Despite any political misgivings people may have, I would expect senior public servants to *not* commit perjury. 

If and when they do testify, if there are allegations such as the one above, I expect they will enjoy the same presumption of innocence the rest of us, VAdm Norman included, enjoy.


----------



## suffolkowner

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Despite any political misgivings people may have, I would expect senior public servants to *not* commit perjury.
> 
> If and when they do testify, if there are allegations such as the one above, I expect they will enjoy the same presumption of innocence the rest of us, VAdm Norman included, enjoy.



With the ongoing descriptions of behaviour that have been coming out so far, I think it would be wrong to expect anything but the worse from everyone involved in this debacle. I can't see how the people involved would be any different than anyone else that have been caught in(and caught up in) wrongdoing, they will deny and obsfucate. 

Maybe I am too cynical but I'm sure perjury is not uncommon in court rooms across the world, it's not like a bolt of lightning is going to come out of the heavens and strike anyone down.

At what point does the Crown just walk away or are they intent on completely destroying their own case and exposing all the rot in Ottawa at the same time. Or is it possible that the defence is just doing a marvelous PR job and the Crown actually has that magic bullet?

Does the Crown still need to prove that the former VCDS profited from his alleged behaviour?


----------



## TCM621

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-breach-trust-access-1.4996445?fbclid=IwAR0PGyIFKWiqvJIxmtpWNirCUS3i4SXwVgG-FTQQsLd1is8EMmImISsEB_s
> 
> *Two probes launched into claims that military blocked information requests in Norman case* - 29 Jan 19
> 
> There are now at least two investigations underway into allegations Department of National Defence officials intentionally tried to subvert the federal access to information system in the breach-of-trust case involving the military's former second-in-command. CBC News has learned military police have joined the federal information commissioner in probing claims that senior staff at National Defence have avoided using Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's name in internal correspondence as a way to keep his records out of the public domain. The allegations were made by a member of the military who handles access to information requests at a pretrial hearing last month.
> 
> Norman is charged with one count of breach of trust for alleging leaking cabinet secrets to an executive at the Davie shipyard, located in Levis, Que. His defence team is seeking access to thousands of pages of government documents related to the plan to lease a supply ship to the navy — an effort the federal government's lawyers have fought against, arguing many of the documents are not relevant to the criminal case.
> 
> _'Alarmed and disgusted'_
> 
> In testimony, the military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman. His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty. During a year-end interview last month with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, said he was "alarmed and disgusted" by the notion that someone might have been trying to bury the records. Vance has been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday as Norman's pretrial hearing resumes in an Ottawa courtroom.
> 
> A spokesman for National Defence acknowledged Monday that the Canadian Forces National Investigative Service opened a criminal investigation into the allegations shortly after information commissioner Caroline Maynard opened her own probe. "This is an ongoing investigation. As such, no timelines are available," said spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said in an email statement. He suggested that National Defence is working in concert with the information commissioner. "We have contacted the [Office of the Information Commission] and agreed to work together and provide any information required to conduct the investigation," said Le Bouthillier. "The OIC understands DND is investigating and appreciates that we are taking this seriously. Given these ongoing investigations, ‎it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time."
> 
> Sources have told CBC News that interviews have carried out by military police over the last three weeks with an eye to laying charges. An expert in military law and the access to information system was startled to hear about the involvement of military investigators.
> _
> 'Military police have got no authority'_
> 
> The information commissioner, said retired colonel Michel Drapeau, "has the means to investigate and the duty to investigate and all of the necessary powers." In cases where the commissioner suspects the law has been broken, the procedure dictates calling in the RCMP — not military police — he said. The military's national investigative service is set up to be at arm's-length from the chain of command, but Drapeau said it's still incredibly unusual for an organization accused of wrongdoing to essentially investigate itself. He also said he wonders what background the force has to examine potential breaches of the information act. "Military police have got no authority and no expertise and no competence to do that."



The CDS sure seems alarmed at everything that happens under his watch. To read his statements on the various debacle that have occurred since he became CDS, no one tells him anything.


----------



## Journeyman

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The CDS sure seems alarmed at everything that happens under his watch.


Much like Capt Renault was shocked, *shocked* to find gambling occurring in Rick's café.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190131/textview
*
BROTHERS IN ARMS, FOES IN THE COURTROOM* - National Post - CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD - 31 Jan 19
    _Vice-Admiral Norman’s ouster didn’t come up over dinner with PMO staffers, says Gen. Vance_

Born in the same year, to military families, Jon Vance and Mark Norman followed separate career tracks as rising stars, Vance in the army, Norman in the navy, until they ended up, respectively, as the Nos. 1 and 2 in the Canadian Forces. They would have worked together intimately, and likely found themselves, long suffering spouses in tow, at dozens of the military/government social functions that are an inevitable part of life for ambitious officers. Perhaps they were even friends.

But on Jan. 9, 2017, Vance gave his second-in-command what’s called “a notice of intent,” alerting Norman that he might be relieving him of military duty. An RCMP investigation into Norman’s conduct was underway. Vance had just been briefed on it by deputy police commissioner Gilles Michaud. Vance then went to brief Gerald Butts, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s principal secretary, the PM’s chief of staff Katie Telford and others. That meeting started, Vance estimates, around 4 p.m. Then Vance got a phone call from the PM himself, who confirmed he’d been told. Then Vance gave Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and his own chief of staff the news. He took not a single note of any of these discussions. And then he went out for dinner with Butts and Telford.

“We did not discuss that (the Norman suspension), I’m quite sure,” Vance told Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey Wednesday.
Not even Norman’s ferocious lead lawyer, Marie Henein, asked Vance what on Earth the three did chat about — this after all is a pre-trial motion, not the actual trial — but the question leaps like a big fat trout into the air. Does the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) usually break bread with the PM’s top two aides? If so, why? And if not, why then this time on this sad and unusual occasion?

Vance was subpoenaed by Norman’s defence team to testify at their third-party records motion, one of the team’s multi-pronged efforts (they also have badgered insensate prosecutors for disclosure, written personally to Trudeau and made several Access to Information, or ATI, requests) to get at government documents in the case they believe will exonerate Norman. He was later charged by the RCMP with one count of breach of trust for allegedly leaking confidential information to a CBC reporter and an acquaintance at Chantier Davie, the Quebec shipyard the former Stephen Harper government chose to supply the navy with an interim supply ship.

In late 2015, the then-new Liberal government, under pressure from rival Irving Shipbuilding to have another look, appeared to want out of the deal. But media reports that it would cost taxpayers $89 million if the contract was cancelled appeared to have changed the government’s hive mind, and it went ahead. By the by, that ship, the MV Asterix, just completed a stunningly successful first year of operations.

In any case, back to the Ottawa courtroom, where Vance in the witness box and Norman sitting kitty-corner at the defence table, squared off. It was impossible to know if they even exchanged glances.

The public record is silent on whether Vance defended or advocated for his former Vice-Chief, but it certainly appears to the outsider that after a long and noble career, Norman was thrown under the proverbial bus. He is the only person to have been criminally charged for leaking information, though others have been identified as having done so, and in fact, it’s the norm in Ottawa. And the courtroom is entirely absent of his fellow “flag officers” (senior officers) and generals, and there are more of them in the Canadian Forces than you can shake a stick at. So while ordinary Canadians and retired military friends may support Norman, his own are missing in action.

Vance’s evidence was notable on a number of points besides the Butts/Telford dinner.

At this hearing last December, an anonymous witness, a CF member, testified that he had been directed by a brigadier-general to answer “nil response” to a 2017 ATI request for documents about the Norman case. The senior officer allegedly said, “This isn’t our first rodeo” and told his junior they weren’t dopey enough to refer to Norman by name in documents such as emails.

That raised the spectre of a deliberate attempt by the Department of National Defence (DND) to thwart proper requests for information by using code names. In fact, just days later, Vance raged to CBC News about how “extremely serious” and even “disgusting” that allegation was, if true. He vowed to get to the bottom of it. Henein asked, reasonably enough, “So what did you do?” And the sum of what he did, in his own words, is that “I spoke to the deputy minister and expressed my concern.”

Here is where Vance engaged in a remarkable hairsplitting exercise. (By definition, in the military, a blond hair is considered the finest and thinnest, and it’s that sort he split.) You see, after the anonymous witness’s testimony, the defence team filed an ATI request for possible code names. Only then, Vance said, did the penny drop that it was all those damn military acronyms and nicknames (for instance, for Norman, the list includes C34, because he’s the 34th navy commander, and “The Boss” and “The Substantive VCDS or Vice CDS) which were confusing things.

Why there wasn’t, he told Henein, anything “sinister” about those names. Heck, he said, “I’ve been aware of this list my whole life.”
This wasn’t the institution “using code words to avoid having to respond” to ATI requests, heavens no. This was just military folks, speaking in jargon, being their impenetrable selves. However, he acknowledged the effect would be absolutely the same.

A search for documents without those code words, he said once, and “You could miss something,” or as he said another time, when Henein asked, “You won’t get that document?” Vance replied “Right.” The search was only recently ordered rerun within DND, the court heard from another witness, with code words and nicknames. Two sections have responded they have no documents. Ten other sections have yet to respond.

FUBAR, as soldiers say, comes to mind: F---ed Up Beyond All Recognition



A comment from the NP by a retired military person:



> Christie has noted the closeness of the career paths of the General and Admiral, both of whom have achieved a rank one above their respective fathers. Also a bit of a coincidence, both their fathers served in the same infantry regiment, The Royal Canadian Regiment, very likely knew each other, perhaps well, and it is possible their sons crossed paths in their youth.


----------



## McG

> And the courtroom is entirely absent of his fellow “flag officers” (senior officers) and generals, and there are more of them in the Canadian Forces than you can shake a stick at. So while ordinary Canadians and retired military friends may support Norman, his own are missing in action.



There is maybe nothing to read into this.  I don't imagine many GOFO have time to spectate a court case in the middle of working hours and, since this whole court case is highly politicized, I would not be surprised if GOFO have been advised to just stay away and not be seen around the trial.


----------



## Rifleman62

My thoughts also, but that doesn't sell newspapers. I do enjoy Christie's columns on any subject.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MCG said:
			
		

> There is maybe nothing to read into this.  I don't imagine many GOFO have time to spectate a court case in the middle of working hours and, since this whole court case is highly politicized, I would not be surprised if GOFO have been advised to just stay away and not be seen around the trial.



It doesn't stop someone in Ottawa from taking a vacation day and showing up in civilian dress and letting Norman see you, to let him know that you are there for him.


----------



## CBH99

Perhaps this was all done in favour of Mr. Norman?


I'll be the first to admit, there may be some details about the ongoing legal proceedings - especially recently - that I may not have understood correctly.

But if the department isn't identifying him by name, dragging it's heels on releasing information, not providing prosecutors with certain material the prosecution would be required to disclose, etc - this all works in favour of the VCDS?

Perhaps Vance declaring he only spoke with the PM once, briefly, in passing about the issue - as well as all of the problems his lawyers are having with obtaining disclosure, witnesses feeling they need protection from the government, senior officials 'not having any records or e-mails with him named specifically', etc etc - is all part of efforts to have the VCDS back?


I haven't followed the specifics enough to know either way.  Just a thought...


----------



## Kirkhill

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Perhaps this was all done in favour of Mr.  VAdm Norman?  FTFY
> 
> I'll be the first to admit, there may be some details about the ongoing legal proceedings - especially recently - that I may not have understood correctly.
> 
> But if the department isn't identifying him by name, dragging it's heels on releasing information, not providing prosecutors with certain material the prosecution would be required to disclose, etc - this all works in favour of the VCDS?
> 
> Perhaps Vance declaring he only spoke with the PM once, briefly, in passing about the issue - as well as all of the problems his lawyers are having with obtaining disclosure, witnesses feeling they need protection from the government, senior officials 'not having any records or e-mails with him named specifically', etc etc - is all part of efforts to have the VCDS back?
> 
> 
> I haven't followed the specifics enough to know either way.  Just a thought...


----------



## CBH99

Thanks!  I spent a lot of time in provincial court, I get used to calling everybody "Mr." and "Mrs." - thanks for the correction


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I wonder if Brisson is asking for standing at court to be able to counter Normans defence?
Maybe that's the excuse he's using? So as not to offend Butts, et al and tip his hand.  :dunno:
Perhaps he's really worried about getting thrown under the bus by team trudeau and wants standing to defend himself?
If I understand the reason for standing.
Idle speculation.


----------



## Rifleman62

Lots of memory fade here. I think I would have taken notes. CYA at least. 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-norman-defence-says-attempt-to-obstruct-justice-within-dnd-now-in-play?video_autoplay=true#comments-area

*Christie Blatchford: Norman defence says attempt to obstruct justice within DND ‘now in play’* - 31 jAN 19
    _Neither Chief of Defence Staff Jon Vance nor the defence minister’s chief of staff searched their personal phones or emails for relevant communications as instructed_

OTTAWA — At the time Zita Astravas was the crisis manager in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman arguably was the crisis, or one of them anyway. Yet Astravas, who testified Thursday at a pre-trial hearing in Norman’s breach of trust case, struggled to remember the names of her own staff or her interactions with two other key members in Trudeau’s office, principal secretary Gerald Butts and chief of staff Katie Telford.

“Did you also deal with Ms. Telford?” defence lawyer Marie Henein asked. “I would deal with all persons on a senior level,” Astravas replied. “But with Telford?” Henein asked. “I don’t recall specifically,” said Astravas. “Mr. Butts?” the lawyer asked. “I don’t recall specifically,” Astravas said. She was the “issues manager,” which she agreed meant she was responsible for crisis management, from November of 2015, just after the Trudeau government took office, until November of 2017, well after Norman was suspended as the No. 2 in the entire Canadian Forces.

The then-new government was wanting to take a second look at a sole-source contract the previous Stephen Harper government had signed with the Chantier Davie shipyard in Quebec for a desperately needed supply ship for the navy. The Trudeau government eventually proceeded with the contract, but only after news reports that a cancellation would cost taxpayers $89 million.

It is to one of those reporters, from the CBC, and to an acquaintance at Chantier Davie that Norman is accused of leaking confidential information. He is charged with a single count of breach of trust. Norman was temporarily suspended as Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) in January of 2017, but wasn’t charged by the RCMP until March of 2018.

Astravas’s poor memory for a period hardly lost in the mists of time — her most frequent response was easily “I don’t recall” — was remarkable. She now works as chief of staff for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. And it is Sajjan’s department, the Department of National Defence or DND, which Norman’s lawyers suggested may have attempted to obstruct justice.

While making submissions, lawyer Christine Mainville told Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey that testimony given earlier this week by Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Jon Vance means that “an attempt to obstruct (justice) within DND is now in play.” Vance came to court Wednesday with four banker’s boxes full of documents in response to a personal subpoena dated Dec. 18 of last year. But he testified that in response to an earlier defence subpoena served upon the department in October — it sought disclosure of all records, emails, text or BlackBerry messages in which the Norman matter was discussed — he didn’t search his personal phone or email address.

Similarly, when Astravas was asked the same questions on Thursday, she too replied that she had never searched her personal phone or email for communications about Norman on the advice of DND. She said she was “not certain” who in the department had advised her. Yet justice lawyer Rob MacKinnon confirmed for the judge Thursday that when he gave advice to DND last December, “I made it clear the searches were to include” personal emails and phones. Vance’s boxes of documents will be soon handed over to the judge in a secure form. Before her now, on a secure laptop, are about 6,300 government documents, none from DND.

Justice lawyers are in the process of reviewing another 13,000 records. These documents are a mix of those that ought to have been disclosed by prosecutors to the defence in the normal course — such things as notes a witness interviewed by the RCMP may have relied upon — and those which may be protected and thus redacted.

Disclosure of some of those records in the first category, Perkins-McVey remarked Thursday, “should have been done years ago. Why it wasn’t (done) is baffling.” As Henein told the judge, that prosecutors hadn’t been curious enough “to read the notes” of their own witnesses was galling. She told Perkins-McVey that prosecutors seem to define their established duty to disclose evidence “by what the Crown wants to ask” and have been taking what she called “a startlingly narrow view of relevance and disclosure.” Lead prosecutor Barbara Mercier told the judge that the Crown believes very little of what’s in Vance’s boxes are relevant. She described the past week as “a very large fishing expedition” by the defence that “could go on and on til kingdom come.”

The judge’s task is to first determine whether a document is relevant. Those records she deems relevant she then must examine to see if the contents breach solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege or public interest immunity. Witnesses who testified were subpoenaed by the defence team as part of what’s called a “third-party records” motion, in which they are seeking documents dealing with the Norman investigation and prosecution from various government departments and players.

Curiously, in this case, the government is all things — the instigator of the investigation, in that it was the Privy Council Office (PCO) which called in the RCMP; the controller of what documents are or aren’t released to the defence, via again the PCO and the prosecutor, in the form of a team of federal Crowns. Henein is bringing an abuse-of-process motion, saying she can’t properly defend Norman (who still hasn’t been able to access his own emails) in these circumstances. That will be heard the week of March 25.



From the Comments to the article:

In the attached article, Astravas is described by someone who knew her well that she is a ""nose-to-the- grindstone, don’t-miss-a-detail, don’t-drop-a-thing worker". Funny that such a person would come to testify under oath that she doesn't recall anything and would have no notes regarding such an important and politically sensitive matter! 
https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/02/08/top-100-zita-astravas-trouble-shooter/95534


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Rifleman62] 



From the Comments to the article:

In the attached article, Astravas is described by someone who knew her well that she is a ""nose-to-the- grindstone, don’t-miss-a-detail, don’t-drop-a-thing worker". * Funny  * that such a person would come to testify under oath that she doesn't recall anything and would have no notes regarding such an important and politically sensitive matter! 
https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/02/08/top-100-zita-astravas-trouble-shooter/95534
[/quote]

Funny isn't the word I would use. 

Maybe I'm falling for some kind of conspiracy theory or a cleverly worded defense but just what I'm reading in this thread the government and DND sure aren't coming across as honest and transparent to me.


----------



## vonGarvin

I've been out of the country for a few years and am just following this quite peripherally.  


Something is quite rotten


----------



## Kirkhill

On the plus side - all the nicknames seem to make CanForNaCode redundant.

Confusion to the Enemy!


----------



## ModlrMike

Her reputation and performance in court would seem to be divergent.


----------



## Rifleman62

Note that: Henein is bringing an abuse-of-process motion, saying she can’t properly defend Norman (who still hasn’t been able to access his own emails) in these circumstances. That will be heard the week of March 25.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Funny isn't the word I would use.
> 
> Maybe I'm falling for some kind of conspiracy theory or a cleverly worded defense but just what I'm reading in this thread the government and DND sure aren't coming across as honest and transparent to me.



If you read the above Hill Times article you will also find out that Astravas is also a life long Liberal. Just saying.


----------



## Rifleman62

> Astravas, who testified Thursday at a pre-trial hearing in Norman’s breach of trust case, struggled to remember the names of her own staff or her interactions with two other key members in Trudeau’s office, principal secretary Gerald Butts and chief of staff Katie Telford.
> 
> Astravas’s poor memory for a period hardly lost in the mists of time — her most frequent response was easily “I don’t recall”....





> ......contents of dormant email accounts of political staff (Astravas is political staff) to be "wiped" after six months.





> Astravas is described by someone who knew her well that she is a ""nose-to-the- grindstone, don’t-miss-a-detail, don’t-drop-a-thing worker"





> If you read the above Hill Times article you will also find out that Astravas is also a life long Liberal.






> Quote from: YZT580 on January 30, 2019, 16:33:44
> And you can be certain that those two will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  right?
> 
> JesseWZ post in reply to YZT580: Despite any political misgivings people may have, I would expect senior public servants to *not* commit perjury.
> 
> If and when they do testify, if there are allegations such as the one above, I expect they will enjoy the same presumption of innocence the rest of us, VAdm Norman included, enjoy.



You are dealing with the LPC in this matter.  What a track record they have. The PM's track record is not stellar.

https://www.liberal.ca/openness-and-transparency/

OPENNESS. TRANSPARENCY. FAIRNESS. MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR CANADIANS.


The Star - 27 Mar 17


> In the words of one Liberal campaign document, “Under Stephen Harper, the government (grew) secretive and closed-off from Canadians.” Justin Trudeau promised something better, “a sweeping agenda for change” premised on “a simple idea: transparent government is good government.”


----------



## FSTO

I really wonder that when this all happened back in the day that the PMO honestly thought that they'd cancel the contract, there would be about a day of chatter on the media and then that would be it. Therefore they didn't really give this whole matter much thought and it wasn't seared into their memory banks.

Then the story got out about cancelling and Quebec and the head of the RCN refused to play ball and the government had to let the contract contine.
That should have been the end of it.

So now the PMO has egg on its face very early in their mandate and due to their over inflated ego they now needed someone to toss under the bus over this egregious leaking of sacrosanct cabinet confidentiality (something that is a regular occurrence in Ottawa) and a military man was just the person. Name him, he'll quietly resign and the PMO will have their pound of flesh.
The PMO would then dust off their hands and congratulate each other how smart they are and that should have been the end of it.

But then their fall guy decided that his reputation was more important than a golden handshake and he threw a spanner into their cunning plan. On top of it he's hired a shark who seems to enjoy making Crown Prosecutors squirm.

So now the PMO and their fall guy are in court and all sizes of dust rhinos are emerging from under the carpet. Now we are getting the Canadian version of "Pleading the Fifth" as the PMO's cunning plan is spinning more and more out of control.

But this PMO (like all PMO's) thinks it can still control the narrative and they'll emerge as the good guys in all of this. I think we are beyond the point where the government admits defeat apologizes to VAdm Norman and carries on. They still have time for this all to blow over and be totally forgotten by election day. If they don't then this affair will continue to fester like the Duffy debacle.


----------



## Rifleman62

An excellent comment by a military Vet on the situation posted in the NP:



> Odd that we are prepared to accept hundreds of years of native oral history, recollections allowed to have a major impact on Canada. However, we are not prepared to accept the memory based oral recollections of recent ‘histories’ by our own officials. Not saying we should. Just observing on the contradictory approaches we always seem so willing to adopt as we dig the hole deeper and deeper for ourselves with the ‘Canadian values’ shovel. Is there any wonder we are reaching societal paralysis?


----------



## daftandbarmy

MCG said:
			
		

> There is maybe nothing to read into this.  I don't imagine many GOFO have time to spectate a court case in the middle of working hours and, since this whole court case is highly politicized, I would not be surprised if GOFO have been advised to just stay away and not be seen around the trial.



There's a reason the Thursday toast is 'A long war and a sickly season'


----------



## FSTO

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There's a reason the Thursday toast is 'A long war and a sickly season'


A bloody war or sickly season.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:
			
		

> A bloody war or sickly season.



Spot the Army guy (me)


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> It doesn't stop someone in Ottawa from taking a vacation day and showing up in civilian dress and letting Norman see you, to let him know that you are there for him.



The naval officer's mess is around the corner from the courtroom.  Stopped by one day for a prepaid lunch on Thursday and it was packed with brass, and just happened to coincide with one of the VAdm's day in court, who stopped by as well.  No one is really shy about showing support, just not publicly while in uniform. If you have seen the news clips there have been a few times where there was a crowd of people with suspiciously upright posture in suits milling around when he's gone to court.

I think the whole thing is a farce and continues to go terribly wrong for the GoC.  Wonder how many times the council has tried to get this dropped but been kicked back to the grindstone by the political masters.

If you are curious, take a read over the CVs of the lawyer's at Heneinen's firm; they are all high flyers with some pretty serious academic backgrounds that also have some bona fides on getting things done in big cases.  In comparison I always get the impression the GoC lawyers are the well meaning theorists that would do okay in a teaching environment but you wouldn't want to have defending you (if you could afford better).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have met one or two litigators from DOJ that have impressed me, but I being highly underwhelmed by our DOJ legal team over the years.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I've only ever dealt with them on contract issues, but for the most part they lack business acumen and common sense (with a few exceptions).

In this case probably tough to come out as seeming competent, if you are going in with both hands tied behind your back and the big giant heads having outlandish expectations.  Not even releasing him his own notes is a pretty cunning plan, and can just feel the judge facepalming their way through the government arguments.


----------



## OldSolduer

“Big giant heads “. That is funny.


----------



## dapaterson




----------



## Halifax Tar

Shipyard at heat of Norman trial received secret cabinet documents in error

Shipyard at heart of Norman trial received secret cabinet documents in error
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davie-shipyard-mark-norman-supply-ship-1.5005733


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Shipyard at heat of Norman trial received secret cabinet documents in error
> 
> Shipyard at heart of Norman trial received secret cabinet documents in error
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davie-shipyard-mark-norman-supply-ship-1.5005733



Perhaps FJAG can weigh in on this. This, in my opinion, casts doubt on the competency of the department doing the contracting and weakens a case that is weak to begin with.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Unfortunately the competency of the department is not what at issue in the criminal trial of VADM Norman. The sole question is did he disclose confidential information without lawful excuse or authority.  

Although there's no doubt that the DoJ is shooting its own foot off with all this foolishness over ATIP and Crown disclosure, and that might even result in a finding of a breach of procedural fairness for the accused  and he may in fact not be convicted on that basis (because certain evidence may be excluded), that does not mean that he did not commit the act. 

All the intrigue, incompetence, political masturbating, bureaucratic fetishes and ancillary legal squabbling aside, the truth must come out. Among the many questions that have to be answered and accounted for by many people, at the end of the day for the good of the few shreds of confidence and trust from the main body of the armed forces remaining in their own leadership, it needs to be established as fact whether the former VCDS did or did not commit the crime for which he is accused. There can be no grey area about this. The  :rules: apply to everyone.


----------



## FSTO

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the competency of the department is not what at issue in the criminal trial of VADM Norman. The sole question is did he disclose confidential information without lawful excuse or authority.
> 
> Although there's no doubt that the DoJ is shooting its own foot off with all this foolishness over ATIP and Crown disclosure, and that might even result in a finding of a breach of procedural fairness for the accused  and he may in fact not be convicted on that basis (because certain evidence may be excluded), that does not mean that he did not commit the act.
> 
> All the intrigue, incompetence, political masturbating, bureaucratic fetishes and ancillary legal squabbling aside, the truth must come out. Among the many questions that have to be answered and accounted for by many people, at the end of the day for the good of the few shreds of confidence and trust from the main body of the armed forces remaining in their own leadership, it needs to be established as fact whether the former VCDS did or did not commit the crime for which he is accused. There can be no grey area about this. The  :rules: apply to everyone.



Did he disclose anything? Or did he hear from second hand information that the government was looking at cancelling the contract. Also why is James Cudmore not being questioned? He broke the story. Did he receive info from Norman? Or from the young staffer who actually had the brief?


----------



## Cloud Cover

If he was in possession of confidential information and disclosed it or confirmed it, he breached confidence regardless of the originating source. I think it is unwise to be anything but circumspect about the core issue in this matter.


----------



## Rifleman62

Cloud Cover:





> ...... that might even result in a finding of a breach of procedural fairness for the accused  and he may in fact not be convicted on that basis (because certain evidence may be excluded)....


Note that: Henein is bringing an abuse-of-process motion, saying she can’t properly defend Norman (who still hasn’t been able to access his own emails) in these circumstances. That will be heard the week of March 25.


----------



## suffolkowner

does the crown not have to prove
The accused is an official; yes

The accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office; yes
The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office; maybe
The conduct of the accused represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and maybe 
The accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. no?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good, I hope she succeeds because it seems to be the case that something’s rotten, but it won’t clear the air about whether he did it or not. Only a trial can do that,but if they won’t allow him information to clear his name then they still had their way with him, no? Mission accomplished either way for the Libs.


----------



## Cloud Cover

There is an arguable, articulable case to be made that tipping off Davie (if that happened) or confirming confidential information (if that happened) is dishonest, regardless if it was for the “good of the service”, confidential is confidential. The Crown will forcefully argue that intent of the objective of “dishonest” is in part to protect whistleblowers from government suppression of wrongdoing. At least, that could theoretically be what the court will have to decide on the facts.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> Did he disclose anything? Or did he hear from second hand information that the government was looking at cancelling the contract. Also why is James Cudmore not being questioned? He broke the story. Did he receive info from Norman? Or from the young staffer who actually had the brief?



Also, don't forget that they are investigating someone else, who they seem to be able to trace dropping off the package to Davie.  So even if he did discuss the information, did Davie already have it?  Also, Canada was in contract at that point, should the GoC not have disclosed that to Davie if that was their intent after the election?

This whole thing is a shit show, and their case seems to have giant gaping holes without all the disclosure shenanigans. If this does go to trial the lists of who could be called as witnesses would be interesting though, as this was something being pushed through PM Harper's office.


----------



## Kirkhill

Public Record

Witnesses for the Prosecution

Continuity/Admissibility

Peter McKay
RCMP Search and Exhibit Team - Beauregard, Bertrand, Boulanger, Brassard, Cochrane, Ferrante, Gagnon, Grenier, Hebert, Lanteigne, Samonekeo
RCMP Tech Crime Team - Figoni, Gravel, Grondin, Pomerleau, Potvin

Substantive Witnesses

Cdr David Anderson RCN
Tisha Ashton TB
Scott Brison TB
Melissa Burke PCO
Ian Burney PCO
Matthew Crawley PSPC
James Cudmore
George Da Pont PSPC
Spencer Fraser Federal Fleet Services
Siobhan Harty PCO
Gavin Liddy PSPC
Les Linklater PCO
VAdm Ron Lloyd RCN
RAdm Art McDonald RCN
Jon Mack DND
Kevin McCoy Irving Shipyards
Catherine McKenna GOC Minister
Brian Mersereau Hill-Knowlton
Nicholas Ruszkowski Fleishman Hillard
LGen Guy Thibault CA
Gen Jonathan Vance CA
David Vigneault PCO
PCO Witness
Prof Donald Savoie Expert


----------



## brihard

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> does the crown not have to prove
> The accused is an official; yes
> 
> The accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office; yes
> The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office; maybe
> The conduct of the accused represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and maybe
> The accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. no?



Lest this post get overlooked, I wanted to reinforce the important of what suffolkowner added here. These five things, each individually, are the 'essential elements' of the offense of Breach of Trust by a public officer. He quoted them directly from R. v. Boulanger, a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada case that outlines exactly what the offense of 'breach of trust' is.

In criminal law, the 'essential elements' of an offense are the things that must all be individually proven for a conviction to be found. This post has as succinctly as possible offered us a summary of what the crown has to prove- the five boxes it needs to tick in the prosecution.

I won't be weighing in with an opinion on the case, but I didn't want those less familiar with criminal law to miss the really helpful bit that suffolkowner added here.


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-davie-shipyard-breach-trust-1.5014538
*
Norman's defence accuses Trudeau PMO of attempting to direct prosecution* - 11 Feb 19
   _ 'The prosecution should not be discussing trial strategy with the (PMO's) right hand person' - Mainville
_
The essence of the article above is the the Judge's remark:



> "The prosecution should not be discussing trial strategy with the Prime Minister's Office's right-hand person," she said, referring to the PCO legal counsel. "By all appearances, this is a more direct influencing of the prosecution. The attorney general is entirely bypassed. The Prime Minister's Office, via its right arm the PCO, is dealing directly with the (Public Prosecution Service of Canada). And the prosecution service is allowing this to happen."
> 
> That prompted a cutting remark from the judge hearing Norman's case.
> 
> *"So much for the independence of the PPSC,*" said Judge Heather Perkins-McVey.




Then there is the Minister of Justice/PMO/SNC mess.



Possibly it's me, but compare the CBC story at link above to the National Post's article. Seems the CBC article left some of the  (damning) back and forth out.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/alleged-political-interference-in-mark-norman-case-more-concerning-than-snc-lavalin-accusations-defence-lawyer?video_autoplay=true
*
Alleged political interference in Mark Norman case ‘more concerning’ than SNC-Lavalin accusations: defence* - 11 Feb 19
   _ Lawyer Christine Mainville told the court that prosecutors should not be talking strategy with the Privy Council Office, which she 
    called the ‘right arm’ to the PMO_


----------



## The Bread Guy

And, for the record, a "here's what we meant" from the  Public Prosecution Service of Canada:


> In light of comments made in the press regarding the prosecution of Vice Admiral Mark Norman, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada would like to clarify the context of the conversations between PPSC counsel and counsel for the Privy Council Office.
> 
> The document was PPSC counsel’s notes of conversations between crown counsel and counsel for the Privy Council Office. In the process of preparing for trial, the PPSC was looking to identify potential witnesses who could explain issues of cabinet confidence, as it is applied by the Clerk of the Privy Council.   The PPSC will be producing an unredacted version of the notes on Friday to the judge.
> 
> *The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.*
> 
> Director of Public Prosecutions Ms. Kathleen Roussel said: “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”
> 
> The principle of prosecutorial independence is key to the PPSC’s mandate. PPSC prosecutors are expected to be objective, independent, and dispassionate in the exercise of their duties, and to exercise those duties in a manner free from any improper influence, including political influence.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Procurement official with links to Mark Norman case charged with breach of trust

A government official who was named in the unfolding case against suspended Vice-Admiral Mark Norman has been charged with breach of trust and is alleged to have unlawfully disclosed government information to unauthorized parties.

On Tuesday the RCMP charged procurement official *Matthew Matchett * with one count of breach of trust under the Criminal Code.

"This concludes an extensive criminal investigation which first began in December 2015, when the RCMP received a complaint alleging that cabinet confidence information about a Canadian naval supply ship contract had been leaked," said the RCMP in a press release.

Matchett, who works at Public Services and Procurement Canada, was identified in a court filing by Norman's defence team on Oct. 12, 2018 and later suspended without pay.

He's expected to appear in court March 5.

Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets on 12 occasions to the Davie Shipyard, in Levis, Que., and to a CBC journalist in November 2015, regarding a government plan to lease from Davie a supply ship for the navy.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I wonder if this the turning point; and now we'll see a "whoops we're sorry Adm Norman, old boy.  We had the wrong guy all along".   Me thinks this government doesn't want this and the SNC Lavalin shindig going down at the same time.


----------



## Cloud Cover

... but they are going down at the same time. The trains have left both stations, and the Liberals have greased their own rails ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I wonder if this the turning point; and now we'll see a "whoops we're sorry Adm Norman, old boy.  We had the wrong guy all along".   Me thinks this government doesn't want this and the SNC Lavalin shindig going down at the same time.



What this government wants or does not want is irrelevant. 

Unless they actually are interfering politically (it is not beyond them, my personal opinion here), they were stupid enough to ask for RCMP investigations in a moment of anger and that's the end of it: After that, investigating, reviewing the evidence and deciding if an accusation is warranted, then proceeding with and setting its schedule is entirely in the hands of the police, prosecutor's office and ultimately the Court. The government has no say nor any further decision to make ... at least in a country under the rule of law.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What this government wants or does not want is irrelevant.
> 
> Unless they actually are interfering politically (it is not beyond them, my personal opinion here), they were stupid enough to ask for RCMP investigations in a moment of anger and that's the end of it: After that, investigating, reviewing the evidence and deciding if an accusation is warranted, then proceeding with and setting its schedule is entirely in the hands of the police, prosecutor's office and ultimately the Court. The government has no say nor any further decision to make ... at least in a country under the rule of law.



 :nod:


----------



## Rifleman62

> Quote from: Oldgateboatdriver on Today at 19:23:50
> What this government wants or does not want is irrelevant.
> 
> Unless they actually are interfering politically (it is not beyond them, my personal opinion here), they were stupid enough to ask for RCMP investigations in a moment of anger and that's the end of it: After that, investigating, reviewing the evidence and deciding if an accusation is warranted, then proceeding with and setting its schedule is entirely in the hands of the police, prosecutor's office and ultimately the Court. The government has no say nor any further decision to make ... at least in a country under the rule of law.




NP comments today which appears to refute the above:



> crumb13 Feb 2019 5:39 AM
> 
> There is, to my mind, an even bigger issue of abuse of process by government. I hearken back the government's attempt to put a gag order on their whole investigation of the embarrassment that the ham-handed attempt to finagle the contract for the supply ship to the Irvings caused. Having spent weeks investigating in secret, when VAdm Norman was publicly identified and put on ice without charges the RCMP applied for a press gag on reporting any detail of their investigation.
> 
> The judge who heard this application rejected it, ruling that the RCMP's affidavit failed to convince him that one was justified. He went on to opine that it also left him unconvinced that there was legal justification for their investigation having been pursued to the length it had been already. And he published that affidavit, albeit heavily redacted.
> 
> A read through the RCMP affidavit, as heavily redacted as it was, shows that at several points the RCMP, having reported to (redacted) that they could find no evidence that VAdm Norman had committed any offense, were then directed to double down on their efforts and use increasingly intrusive and questionable surveillance tools.
> 
> When, at the final juncture, they again reported that they could find no evidence of an offense, the investigation culminating in the dawn raid on the Norman family home. Why this was necessary and done is an open question, although one can see the chilling effect of this drama on anyone else who might irritate or cause embarrassment to the government.
> 
> We can understand why the judge was querulous; given the amount of time and effort that went into determining that there was no evidence that VAdm Norman had committed any offense, the logic that uses this lack of evidence to justify raiding his home and suspending him from his position is indefensible. But this was done, at someone's direction.
> 
> Whose; one wonders?


----------



## Loachman

Link?


----------



## Cloud Cover

The person who wrote that is referring to the ITO a search warrant, and this decision of Judge Phillips to make the redacted ITO available: _The Globe and Mail Inc. v. R._, 2017 ONSC 2407 
http://canlii.ca/t/h3h48 

The decision contains, among other interesting statements, this gut wrenching observation about the case:

"[34]           It is part of Canada’s history for military procurement and political considerations to go hand in hand.  From Ross rifles to Sea King helicopters, supplies for the armed forces have often been buffeted by political winds.  The results are perhaps not always well received by those on the receiving end of the supply chain.  Here, it would appear that in late 2015, a long-awaited initiative to replace the Navy’s supply ship was maybe headed off the rails due to political considerations, a possibility that allegedly upset a man most eagerly awaiting completion of the contract.  In my view, that mindset and alleged communication arising from it is hardly the stuff of stigma or moral turpitude.  At its highest, it appears that the potential allegation against Vice-Admiral Norman is that he was trying to keep a contractual relationship together so that the country might get itself a badly needed supply ship.  A reasonable member of the informed public might understand the frustration of being Vice-Admiral of a Navy that cannot on its own go more than a tank of gas away from port.  Nowhere is there any suggestion that the man was even thinking of trying to line his own pockets, or get any personal advantage whatsoever.  An officer of his rank would be expected to develop and maintain relationships with those in the business of supplying the Navy and his communications with such people are not, therefore, in and of themselves untoward."
...


----------



## Loachman

PCO lawyer asked prosecutor if there was a way to 'engineer issues' in Norman case, court hears

Judge hearing breach of trust case reads out redacted comments from prosecution notes during pre-trial hearing

Murray Brewster CBC News Posted: Feb 15, 2019 1:04 PM ET

The top lawyer at the Privy Council Office apparently asked federal prosecutors if it was possible to "engineer the issues at stake" in the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The remarks - made on Sept. 14, 2018 and attributed to PCO lawyer Paul Shuttle - were contained in prosecution notes entered into evidence at a pretrial hearing involving the former vice-chief of the defence staff, who faces one count of breach of trust.

Justice Heather Perkins-McVey made reference to them on Friday as the Crown attempted to explain why it redacted notes being sought by Norman's defence team.

The judge acknowledged there is a lot background missing from the reference.

"You wonder what that is about," said Perkins-McVey. "We don't know the context, what they were speaking about."

Defence attorney Christine Mainville agreed and suggested she wasn't prepared to jump to conclusions either, saying a lot of references in both the censored and uncensored versions of the notes "remain ambiguous."

But she also noted during Friday's pretrial hearing that notes of meetings between the Crown and officials at the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet, will be important to the defence when it moves at the end of March to have the charges against Norman dismissed.

<snip>

"There no direction from the Privy Council Office to PPSC on how to direct the case," he said. "There was no direction or input from the Prime Minister's Office to our office on how to direct the case."

As he spoke, Justice Perkins-McVey flipped through the censored version of the meeting notes and asked, _*"What about comments from Paul Shuttle, like, 'Is there a way to engineer the issues at stake?'"*_

The Crown did file an uncensored version with the courts on Friday. 

MacFarlane insisted the meetings were meant to identify a potential witness who could speak to the issue of cabinet confidences. Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets related to a $668 million shipbuilding deal to lease a supply ship for the navy in 2015.

_*The judge seemed skeptical of that explanation.*_

_*"There was certainly a discussion of evidence," said Perkins-McVey, referring to the notes but not quoting further from them. "There was discussion of the evidence-gathering process. Obviously this was done well before."*_

The Liberals are not doing well in the comment section - and this is a CBC article.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Mark Norman's defence team hits Trudeau, Butts with subpoenas

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-trudeau-wernick-butts-1.5029737

Subpoenas have been issued to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his former and current top officials — including ex-principal secretary Gerald Butts — for any notes, emails or texts they may have related to the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The notes are being sought by the legal team defending the former vice chief of the defence staff against a single charge of breach of trust. Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a shipbuilding deal.

The subpoenas were issued earlier this month as Toronto lawyer Marie Henein was preparing a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of alleged political interference.

The court order for notes includes both the prime minister and Butts, and also Trudeau's Chief of Staff Katie Telford, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick and Zita Astravas, chief of staff to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

More on link above.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Loachman said:
			
		

> PCO lawyer asked prosecutor if there was a way to 'engineer issues' in Norman case, court hears
> 
> Judge hearing breach of trust case reads out redacted comments from prosecution notes during pre-trial hearing
> 
> Murray Brewster CBC News Posted: Feb 15, 2019 1:04 PM ET
> 
> The top lawyer at the Privy Council Office apparently asked federal prosecutors if it was possible to "engineer the issues at stake" in the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.



And here is another example of Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick at work again. Is engineering a weak and spurious criminal prosecution and with this revelation now possibly a malicious legal prosecution part of the PCO duty to support and promote the government agenda??


----------



## Rifleman62

There are no notes. Remember?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

I hope he wins and sue the government for every penny!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> I hope he wins and sue the government for every penny!



That may be all that's left in the treasury after the grits give it all away to unsupervised humanitarian projects with no accounting or due diligence.


----------



## FSTO

As part of the PM 1 course our group was briefed on the workings of Treasury Board (TB) and the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) in regards to getting contracts passed by them. Our briefer was a young lass from TBS who led us through the hoops we have to jump through to get projects approved by TB. When the project gets presented to TB, the board can accept it, accept it with reservations, reject it (very rarely happens) or send it back for further work (not often because that shows that the Project Manager and the TBS did not do their jobs). Anyway at the Q&A I asked if TB has ever gone back to relook at a project that has already been passed by a previous board or a previous government TB. I specifically referenced the iAOR. She said that AFASK a TB President has never asked to review a previously passed project. 

Interesting......or am I just a bit tin foily?


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> As part of the PM 1 course our group was briefed on the workings of Treasury Board (TB) and the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) in regards to getting contracts passed by them. Our briefer was a young lass from TBS who led us through the hoops we have to jump through to get projects approved by TB. When the project gets presented to TB, the board can accept it, accept it with reservations, reject it (very rarely happens) or send it back for further work (not often because that shows that the Project Manager and the TBS did not do their jobs). Anyway at the Q&A I asked if TB has ever gone back to relook at a project that has already been passed by a previous board or a previous government TB. I specifically referenced the iAOR. She said that AFASK a TB President has never asked to review a previously passed project.
> 
> Interesting......or am I just a bit tin foily?



It's too bad you had a young analyst; when I did that course about six years ago we had a grey hair mandarin that was semi retired teaching it and knew everything about the paper and actual process. Some of them are okay, but others have a lot more confidence than experience, so would take a lot of grains of salt with whatever she said.

She wouldn't be wrong though; the review was being done about the contract award and not the budget or project itself.  For big enough dollar values a notification goes back to TB with the actual dollar value of the contract being awarded based on the bid price (vice the estimate from the project for that specific item).  That's a different approval gate, and sometimes is a condition of the project budget approval (to come back for a last check before signing the contract). That one can be a pain as the bids normally have a time limit, and if you hit some kind of review snag (ie the Minister leaves, or it's an election), and feels amateurish to go back to the company to confirm you can get an extension on the bid price (for another 30 days or whatever).

Still can't get a straight answer, but I believe the Harper govt actually approved the iAOR contract award (as a sole source) under a cabinet exception before they transferred, but not sure if it was actually signed.  If they had canceled it, guessing we would have paid out a bunch of money to get no capability, and think it was in one of the stories for the VAdm trials where the notes from a civil servant showed the only discussion points where actually around the talking points and media lines for the project, so they were basically stalling to repackage it as their own idea.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting line from today's testimony



> Tonda MacCharles
> ‏
> Verified account
> 
> @TondaMacC
> 10h10 hours ago
> More
> *Raitt asks if Drouin thinks its appropriate for the staff of PMO to have convos with "your prosecutors" or DPP*.
> *Drouin says I don't think so*, but suggests it's doubtful they did.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-davie-shipyard-breach-trust-1.5014538
> *
> Norman's defence accuses Trudeau PMO of attempting to direct prosecution* - 11 Feb 19
> _ 'The prosecution should not be discussing trial strategy with the (PMO's) right hand person' - Mainville
> _
> The essence of the article above is the the Judge's remark:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The prosecution should not be discussing trial strategy with the Prime Minister's Office's right-hand person," she said, referring to the PCO legal counsel. "By all appearances, this is a more direct influencing of the prosecution. The attorney general is entirely bypassed. The Prime Minister's Office, via its right arm the PCO, is dealing directly with the (Public Prosecution Service of Canada). And the prosecution service is allowing this to happen."
> 
> That prompted a cutting remark from the judge hearing Norman's case.
> 
> "So much for the independence of the PPSC," said Judge Heather Perkins-McVey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Minister of Justice/PMO/SNC mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly it's me, but compare the CBC story at link above to the National Post's article. Seems the CBC article left some of the  (damning) back and forth out.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/alleged-political-interference-in-mark-norman-case-more-concerning-than-snc-lavalin-accusations-defence-lawyer?video_autoplay=true
> *
> Alleged political interference in Mark Norman case ‘more concerning’ than SNC-Lavalin accusations: defence* - 11 Feb 19
> _ Lawyer Christine Mainville told the court that prosecutors should not be talking strategy with the Privy Council Office, which she
> called the ‘right arm’ to the PMO_
Click to expand...


See previous comment by DM Justice Drouin in JWR testimony.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> PCO lawyer asked prosecutor if there was a way to *'engineer issues'* in Norman case, court hears ...


Yet another way of saying "we never asked for anything against the law, just a solution," or, put another way ...


----------



## Rifleman62

https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-roy-green-show

The Roy Green show on radio today is to have a discussion re this case. Guest is a CF member (retired???).


----------



## Rifleman62

Believe this fits here due to what the former VCDS has been charged with. Mods can move it as appropriate. This was not written by a certain reporter, it is a publicly available Charles Adler podcast. Starts at the 1:10 mark.

Chris Adler podcast

"90 Minutes"!!

Read the NP.

Mod edit: name removal


----------



## ModlrMike

Now we know the lifespan of confidential information in Ottawa.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The walls are coming down around the PMO's ears and they are oblivious. Business as usual, nothing to see here, move along.

The ultimate height of government arrogance and attitude.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Believe this fits here due to what the former VCDS has been charged with. Mods can move it as appropriate. This was not written by a certain reporter, it is a publicly available Charles Adler podcast. Starts at the 1:10 mark.





			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Now we know the lifespan of confidential information in Ottawa.



As much as I would like to comment about the substance of the issue raised in Rifleman62's post, a review of the guideline thread concerning this journalist seems pretty clear that there should be no discussion about or reference to him regardless of the source material.


> . . . no reference be made of any sort to him or his work, from here forward.



I would suggest that the Mods delete these few messages as they add nothing substantive to the topic discussion.  Of course we can still complain about Irving and the government in general.

Mod edit: name removal.


----------



## Scott

Thanks for the various reports on this subject. It's been reviewed and hashed over with Mike.

We're relaxing the standard in this one case as it does not refer to specific work of an individual, or draw from files from same. 

Names will be edited out as they are not to be hosted on this site, per the guideline.

Thanks all.

Scott


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit more ...


> A federal procurement official charged with breach of trust was told by the RCMP roughly two years ago that he also was in a suspect in the same investigation into the alleged leaking of cabinet secrets which had ensnared Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
> 
> The lawyer for Matthew Matchett revealed that fact in court Tuesday as a date for a preliminary hearing was set in Ontario Superior Court.
> 
> Matthew Day tore a strip off the Crown saying his client has yet to see all of the evidence gathered against him despite the time it has taken to investigate.
> 
> "We've been waiting for two years for the other shoe to drop," Day told the court.
> 
> "Disclosure seems to have been ready in August 2018. We received it in February approaching the two-year anniversary of when our client was informed he was a suspect in this matter."
> 
> The detail is significant because lawyers for Norman, the former vice-chief of the defence staff, and the Conservative opposition have publicly questioned why it took so long to charge Matchett and have sought records related to the handling his case.
> 
> Prosecutors have disclosed — in Day's words — a "voluminous" number of documents, but "we don't have it all yet."
> 
> The preliminary inquiry will run over three days, starting Oct. 23 ...


More @ link


----------



## The Bread Guy

Remember this the next time someone says, "you have to keep your briefing note to 2/3/4 pages" ...


> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s lawyer says she wants to see a secret 60-page memo the federal government’s top bureaucrat penned to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about her client’s case.
> 
> Lawyer Marie Henein revealed the existence of Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick’s memo to Trudeau on Thursday as Norman’s breach-of-trust case returned for another day of pre-trial hearings.
> 
> The revelation is the latest twist in Henein’s months-long fight for thousands of government documents she says are essential to prove his innocence.
> 
> Subpoenas were issued last month for emails, BlackBerry messages and other internal communications from Trudeau, Wernick and other top officials about Norman as Henein seeks records to prove political interference in the case.
> 
> Henein told the court that she recently received a copy of Wernick’s memo to the prime minister dated Oct. 24, 2018 as part of a larger trove of documents but she said the contents were completely blacked out.
> 
> “We received in the material that’s come to us — in completely redacted form for solicitor-client privilege — a memo from Michael Wernick to the prime minister,” Henein told Justice Heather Perkins-McVey.
> 
> “Mr. Wernick is not a lawyer, I don’t believe,” Perkins-McVey replied, though she quickly added: “I’m not sure.”
> 
> It was at that point that Henein said she planned to present arguments on why the contents of that memo and others obtained from the government should be released ...


More @ link


----------



## Cloud Cover

Common  interest privilege, otherwise known as litigation privilege, attaches  to communications or documents prepared during or in anticipation of litigation, and for the dominant purpose of preparing for such actual or anticipated litigation. This document likely falls into that category.

As I understand it, the document was not just sent to the PMO but the PMO lawyers.


----------



## YZT580

I can understand that correspondence from a lawyer to his client or to potential witnesses would be privileged but a memo from a civil servant to the PM even if carbon copied to a lawyer should not be entitled to the same courtesy.  They aren't lawyers themselves.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Lawyers can only be expected to be experts in the law. 
The giving and receiving of legal advice is solicitor and client privileged. There is obviously much more than that to most litigation. 

So, for example, in the course of preparing for litigation about a structural defect with a bridge, a lawyer probably needs some understanding about an engineering issue, they will request a report to be prepared to give an opinion or explanation that may be used in creating and developing a theory of litigation. Like a game plan. Obviously, a clients game plan developed by a lawyer with other parties is going to be subject to some form of litigation protection. It may sound devious and devilish, but that's the way it works in common law litigation.

The main difference between solicitor client privilege and litigation privilege is that solicitor client privilege last forever unless waived by the client voluntarily. Litigation privilege ends with the final decision of a case (with a few odd exceptions such as Cabinet Confidence!!!)


----------



## dapaterson

My guess (not having seen the documents) is that it's probably a one page cover letter quoting legal advice, followed by 59 pages of legal advice.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My guess (not having seen the documents) is that it's probably a one page cover letter quoting legal advice, followed by 59 pages of legal advice.



It was probably one page of legal advice with a 58 page invoice for services rendered.  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Aaaaaaaaaand for the record, this from the DOJ info-machine ...


> The Department of Justice Canada issued the following statement about the Her Majesty The Queen v Mark Norman case:
> 
> “We would like to take this opportunity to clarify information relevant to this case and the third party document disclosure process currently underway, in response to media reports.
> 
> At the outset of this process, it was made clear in court that government organizations would be providing all responsive documents to the court who would review and assess claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege and public interest immunity, including Cabinet confidences and privacy interests. The Government of Canada is committed to a transparent, cooperative, responsive and coordinated process in submitting documents to the court. The Department of Justice is doing this on behalf of seven government organizations to ensure the court and counsel have all of the relevant documents needed before going to trial.
> 
> Following a court appearance on March 28, 2019, some media reports imply that the Clerk of the Privy Council has additional documents that have not yet been provided to the court. However, as we have stated in court, the Clerk has provided to the court all documents that he has in his possession in response to the series of subpoena requests, including the document that was the subject of media reports yesterday.
> 
> Media reports also state that documents provided by the Clerk were heavily redacted. These redactions were applied by legal counsel. Such redactions are consistent with the normal process applied to all documents across the seven implicated organizations where the process for the identification, review and production of documents follows a two-stage process set out by the Supreme Court of Canada case of R v O’Connor. The final say on these redactions and relevance of the documents rests with the court.
> 
> To be clear, a consistent process is in place and is being followed to respond to requests that have been made and any additional requests to review documents, redact them in accordance with the law, and submit them to the court for review. To date, 7,032 documents have been provided to the judge for review and we continue to review approximately 1,000 remaining documents. We expect to submit these remaining documents to the court in the coming weeks.
> 
> This fact sheet*** provides more information on how the document disclosure process works and the department remains open to providing information on its role and how the process continues to unfold.”


*** - Fact sheet attached


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

*"At the outset of this process, it was made clear in court that government organizations would be providing all responsive documents to the court who would review and assess claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege and public interest immunity, including Cabinet confidences and privacy interests. The Government of Canada is committed to a transparent, cooperative, responsive and coordinated process in submitting documents to the court. The Department of Justice is doing this on behalf of seven government organizations to ensure the court and counsel have all of the relevant documents needed before going to trial."*

Now, there's a bureaucratic way of saying "we will abide by the law" if I ever saw one. As if they had a choice but to provide the documents they are required by law to provide the court!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, there's a bureaucratic way of saying "we will abide by the law" if I ever saw one.


Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity - pick any two  ;D


----------



## MilEME09

CTV is reporting that outgoing MP Andrew Leslie will be testifying against the goverment at Normans trial.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> CTV is reporting that outgoing MP Andrew Leslie will be testifying against the goverment at Normans trial.



Someone with some integrity.  Nice.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Or a subpoena


----------



## Czech_pivo

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Or a subpoena



Cynic -


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Cynic -



I'd soooooo love to be proven incorrect.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Apparently he informed the PM over a year ago that he would be testifying, prior to his decision to not run in the forthcoming election.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Someone with some integrity.  Nice.




HAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Oh, you were serious? HAHAHAHAAAAA!!


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm not sure what to make of this ... maybe there's not very much of substance.

It is very possible that LGen (ret'd) Leslie agreed, a year ago, to be a character witness, if required. He was, after all, VAdm Norman's boss on the transformation project and they were colleagues. If that's the case he would have told the PMO that he had been asked to give supportive testimony and the PMO would, I think, have had no objection ... Mark Norman is one of Andrew Leslie's constituents, after all, and it might even look good, from a public relations point of view, to have a Liberal MP testifying for VAdm Norman: "see," the government's propaganda arm could say, "we want to give VAdm Norman every possible opportunity to defend himself."

It is also possible that LGen Leslie might be asked to give "expert" testimony about the way that very senior officers deal with the government, especially the PCO, and with contractors.

The notion that LGen (ret'd) Leslie might 'spill the beans' on what happened inside government seems, to me, a bit far-fetched. First, although he was appointed to the Privy Council ~ which brings that whole "oath" thing into play ~ he was not in the cabinet; and, second, even if he had been a minister it is unlikely that this, the decision to interfere in the Davie contract and then the decision to go after VAdm Norman, would have been a cabinet-level issue ~ perhaps it got discussed in the Treasury Board, which is a committee of cabinet, but, more likely, it, especially the decision to charge Mark Norman, was discussed only in the PMO and PCO.

My  :2c:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The notion that LGen (ret'd) Leslie might 'spill the beans' on what happened inside government seems, to me, a bit far-fetched. First, although he was appointed to the Privy Council ~ which brings that whole "oath" thing into play ~ he was not in the cabinet; and, second, even if he had been a minister it is unlikely that this, the decision to interfere in the Davie contract and then the decision to go after VAdm Norman, would have been a cabinet-level issue ~ perhaps it got discussed in the Treasury Board, which is a committee of cabinet, but, more likely, it, especially the decision to charge Mark Norman, was discussed only in the PMO and PCO.
> 
> My  :2c:



Actually, ERC, I would hope you are completely wrong on that one. I would hope that the decision to charge VAdm Norman was made and discussed only at the level of the independent crown attorneys and within the "professionals" of the offices of Federal prosecutors. Anything else, any decision making at the political or even higher civil service level (PCO) would be entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political. That would in itself justify a judge to declare mistrial.


----------



## MilEME09

Which could then open up the floor to a potential lawsuit to the GoC for ruining the man's career for political purposes


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political.


    ???   You say that like there's some doubt....



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Which could then open up the floor to a potential lawsuit to the GoC for ruining the man's career for political purposes


Trying to picture the Admiral receiving a $10.5M settlement.  Can't.


----------



## FSTO

AFAIK, VAdm Norman wants a complete apology from the GOC and his legal fees paid for. Anything would be gravy.


----------



## Haggis

FSTO said:
			
		

> AFAIK, VAdm Norman wants a complete apology from the GOC and his legal fees paid for. Anything would be gravy.



Sadly, he will get neither from this government. As I posted earlier, the PM situated the estimate by saying, well before the VAdm was charged, that he expected this case to go to trial.  One can infer from this statement that the PM also expects a vigorous prosecution that will result in a conviction, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.  Given the SNC Lavalin debacle, the PM cannot be seen to lose to the VAdm.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, ERC, I would hope you are completely wrong on that one. I would hope that the decision to charge VAdm Norman was made and discussed only at the level of the independent crown attorneys and within the "professionals" of the offices of Federal prosecutors. Anything else, any decision making at the political or even higher civil service level (PCO) would be entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political. That would in itself justify a judge to declare mistrial.



So.... straight up questions:

What happens in October if the Liberals are replaced by the Conservatives?

If the prosecution is independent, does the trial continue?  Can the new government take action to stop the trial, reinstate the admiral and reimburse him? Or is that political interference?

Does the Director of Prosecution Services continue the prosecution because to do otherwise would suggest she was not acting independently in the first place?  Or does the Attorney-General, acting independently and in a non-partisan fashion, despite being a Conservative and a member of Cabinet, quash the prosecution (as would be their right AFAIK) on the grounds of the case having been irredeemably political from the first?   If the latter then wouldn't the result be the tarnishing of the DPS and the Service while at the same time the remedy would be perceived as political?

As much as I believe the Admiral has been screwed-over on this one, I am not seeing an easy road out.   But that is probably why he hired Henein and not me.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

If the Conservatives win in October, the easy way out for them would be to allow the court proceedings to continue (ie- not interfere with the DPS) and simply approve his long standing request to pay his legal bills. If a judge finds him not guilty, the Government could then apologize and offer him a jammy diplomatic post (he is not without talent, after all, but he is probably too damaged in DND to offer him CDS after JV). If he is found guilty- then nothing.

The only grounds that I can see for a new Attorney General to get involved in this case and dismiss it is if it gets clearly demonstrated that the whole thing was politically motivated from the get go that the PMO/PCO had their fingers on the scale of justice. 

One cannot go around accusing this government of interfering with the DPS for political reason and then go do it as soon as you are elected. Even if, especially if, you have public opinion on your side. Mob rule lies in thst direction.


----------



## FJAG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So.... straight up questions:
> 
> What happens in October if the Liberals are replaced by the Conservatives?
> 
> If the prosecution is independent, does the trial continue?  Can the new government take action to stop the trial, reinstate the admiral and reimburse him? Or is that political interference?
> 
> Does the Director of Prosecution Services continue the prosecution because to do otherwise would suggest she was not acting independently in the first place?  Or does the Attorney-General, acting independently and in a non-partisan fashion, despite being a Conservative and a member of Cabinet, quash the prosecution (as would be their right AFAIK) on the grounds of the case having been irredeemably political from the first?   If the latter then wouldn't the result be the tarnishing of the DPS and the Service while at the same time the remedy would be perceived as political?
> 
> As much as I believe the Admiral has been screwed-over on this one, I am not seeing an easy road out.   But that is probably why he hired Henein and not me.



The way out truly isn't easy and will always be viewed as political interference by someone.

I doubt if anyone would interfere in the prosecution. That is an independent prosecutor's decision and will undoubtedly be left there.

The question on reinstatement and legal fees, however, is an administrative decision which can be taken within DND/government and should be taken after a review/investigation of the circumstances under which the initial decisions were made and to what effect they were governed by established policies v discretionary action by civil servants v political interference.

 :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, ERC, I would hope you are completely wrong on that one. I would hope that the decision to charge VAdm Norman was made and discussed only at the level of the independent crown attorneys and within the "professionals" of the offices of Federal prosecutors. Anything else, any decision making at the political or even higher civil service level (PCO) would be entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political. That would in itself justify a judge to declare mistrial.




You're quite right and I phrased that very poorly ... I was trying to say that cabinet does not discuss prosecutions but I am sure that discussions of both the political and policy implications of investigating and then charging such a senior officer were discussed by both PMO (politics) and PCO (policy). I heard a _*rumour*_ that the Ottawa prosecutors were gun shy, maybe after the Duffy fiasco, and that a crown prosecutor from another region finally pressed the charges.

I believe that IF there was (is) substantial evidence that *cabinet confidences* were leaked for any sort of gain, including just getting what one _*believes*_ that the Navy needed, then charges, and, assuming a conviction, a harsh punishment are warranted. I have some personal doubts about this charge, given how many other people handled and mishandled that information, but that's just me guessing. I believe that cabinet government requires a high level of confidentiality to allow public servants, including admirals, to give cabinet the best possible advice ... the public, which includes _Davie_, has no _*right*_ to the information that is given to cabinet, in confidence, and discussed by cabinet as they reach a decision. It, cabinet confidentiality, is not a flaw in our system it is simply a feature of it and one that needs to be guarded.

That being said, the PCO does discuss and debate policy matters and the PMO is there to ensure that the political dimension is considered, too. When someone (Brison?) complained that the cabinet's legitimate _choice_ to reconsider a decision was co-opted by someone else, _Davie_, and when the police said that there was evidence that a _*cabinet confidence*_ had been leaked by VAdm Norman, and a prosecutor decided that the evidence was sufficient to go to trial it is still, in my opinion, both likely and not improper for both the PCO and PMO to discuss the ramifications of the issue and explain those ramifications to the departmental ministers concerned, to the PM, himself, and if there are significant issues related to e.g. the machinery of government or national security to the Attorney General, too; my understanding of the _Shawcross Doctrine _ is that such discussuins are normal and allowed so long as they do not cross a (fairly clear) line and become attempted poltiical directions.


----------



## Kirkhill

An interesting counter-point to this discussion might be the sacking of Gavin Williamson, UK Defence Secretary (equivalent to MND Sajjan) on suspicion of having leaked what was essentially a commercial discussion within the UK National Security Council about the awarding of a contract to Huawei to supply portions of a 5G network.

Williamson was sacked, proclaimed his innocence and asked for a police inquiry.  This happened:



> A leak of information about ministers' deliberations over the Chinese tech giant Huawei did not amount to a criminal offence, Scotland Yard has said.
> 
> Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, Britain's counter-terrorism chief, said he was satisfied that the disclosure from the National Security Council was not in breach of the Official Secrets Act or law on misconduct in a public office.
> 
> The Metropolitan Police rejected demands for a criminal investigation into the matter. The decision came after Gavin Williamson was sacked as Defence Secretary over "compelling evidence" Theresa May claimed to have against her minister.
> 
> In a statement, Mr Basu said today: "I have spoken to the Cabinet Office regarding the nature of the material that was discussed in the National Security Council.
> 
> "This material was used to inform a discussion, the outcome of which was subsequently disclosed to the media. I am satisfied that what was disclosed did not contain information that would breach the Official Secrets Act.
> 
> "I have considered all the information available to me and I have taken legal advice. I am satisfied that the disclosure did not amount to a criminal offence, either under the Official Secrets Act or Misconduct in a Public Office. No crime has been committed and this is not a matter for the police.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/04/huawei-leak-top-secret-national-security-meeting-did-not-amount/

For clarity - Huawei was being considered on the basis of being the least cost bidder, with many ex-civil servants and Tory politicians in its employ.  It was being held up because of concerns about security related to lax standards, poor software, backdoors found in other products supplied to other countries, the requirement of all Chinese companies to co-operate with the Chinese security services on demand and China's poor record wrt IP.


----------



## TCM621

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're quite right and I phrased that very poorly ... I was trying to say that cabinet does not discuss prosecutions but I am sure that discussions of both the political and policy implications of investigating and then charging such a senior officer were discussed by both PMO (politics) and PCO (policy). I heard a _*rumour*_ that the Ottawa prosecutors were gun shy, maybe after the Duffy fiasco, and that a crown prosecutor from another region finally pressed the charges.
> 
> I believe that IF there was (is) substantial evidence that *cabinet confidences* were leaked for any sort of gain, including just getting what one _*believes*_ that the Navy needed, then charges, and, assuming a conviction, a harsh punishment are warranted. I have some personal doubts about this charge, given how many other people handled and mishandled that information, but that's just me guessing. I believe that cabinet government requires a high level of confidentiality to allow public servants, including admirals, to give cabinet the best possible advice ... the public, which includes _Davie_, has no _*right*_ to the information that is given to cabinet, in confidence, and discussed by cabinet as they reach a decision. It, cabinet confidentiality, is not a flaw in our system it is simply a feature of it and one that needs to be guarded.
> 
> That being said, the PCO does discuss and debate policy matters and the PMO is there to ensure that the political dimension is considered, too. When someone (Brison?) complained that the cabinet's legitimate _choice_ to reconsider a decision was co-opted by someone else, _Davie_, and when the police said that there was evidence that a _*cabinet confidence*_ had been leaked by VAdm Norman, and a prosecutor decided that the evidence was sufficient to go to trial it is still, in my opinion, both likely and not improper for both the PCO and PMO to discuss the ramifications of the issue and explain those ramifications to the departmental ministers concerned, to the PM, himself, and if there are significant issues related to e.g. the machinery of government or national security to the Attorney General, too; my understanding of the _Shawcross Doctrine _ is that such discussuins are normal and allowed so long as they do not cross a (fairly clear) line and become attempted poltiical directions.



In general, I agree with you. However, I have an issue with how cabinet confidence is being used these days. The current practice is to label damn near everything cabinet confidence. I can't blame that entirely on the Liberal government, Harper was just as bad. However, this is just another example of the lack of promised transparency from Trudeau and his government.


----------



## Navy_Pete

It's independent of the politicians and now baked into the civilian bureaucracy DNA.  Saw open source background information all labeled as cabinet confidence just because it was part of a briefing package.

If it's designated as secret, it should be judiciously used and not the default. Because of how broadly it's applied, it's not taken seriously compared to actual secret data, and very few offices actually have the IT required to support it anyway, so pretty half assed. I think if they took it seriously on the IT side and realized it would cost millions as a result of the blanket coverage.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It's independent of the politicians and now baked into the civilian bureaucracy DNA.  Saw open source background information all labeled as cabinet confidence just because it was part of a briefing package.



Sometimes, even the fact that there is interest in topic X can warrant designation of information as a cabinet confidence.  And, when included with the larger package, the open source info is considered a cabinet confidence.



> If it's designated as secret, it should be judiciously used and not the default. Because of how broadly it's applied, it's not taken seriously compared to actual secret data, and very few offices actually have the IT required to support it anyway, so pretty half assed. I think if they took it seriously on the IT side and realized it would cost millions as a result of the blanket coverage.



Agreed that over-designation is unfortunately common.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They asked me to prepare a Memo to Cabinet which required a Secret clearance, I advised them that my clearance had expired. But because I was the SME, they said "don't worry about it". Sigh....

I can think of only 1 time in my office career being asked about whether i had the correct clearance for a briefing prior to it.

I also knew of one employee that worked from home on Secret Clearance stuff and MoC's. Except "home" was just across the border in Washington State. I can imagine if one day the US border services searched their computer and found Secret level docs. A quick call to Ottawa Foreign Services; "Does so and so have clearance to take these docs out of the country?" The answer would be no and they would be in jail till it was cleared up and likely a few careers spurting to a halt. I tried warning people, but it fell on deaf ears as the employee was tagged as a potentiel up and comer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Federal government expected to withdraw breach of trust charge against Mark Norman

His lawyers have always maintained that, as they put it in a third-party records application last fall, 'Vice-Admiral Norman is not the right person standing trial'

The federal government is expected to pull the plug on its prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for alleged breach of trust, the National Post has learned.

The case is back in court on Wednesday for what was to have been a brief scheduled update on the progress of the government’s efforts at disclosing documents to Norman’s defence team.

Sources have confirmed that the prosecution will withdraw the charge instead.

The tip-off was an unusual alert from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada sent late Tuesday to reporters who have been following the case.

“The Public Prosecution of Canada would like to advise you that there is a scheduled appearance May 8, 2019 at 10:00 am in courtroom # 11 in the Mark Norman prosecution. You may wish to attend,” said the prosecution’s media advisory released at 6:52 p.m. ET.

It is unclear why exactly the government appears ready to end the case.


----------



## dimsum

So what happens now?  Retirement and lucrative job elsewhere?  I doubt he'll want to go back to his old job (even if he could) now.


----------



## Haggis

Makes good political sense.  Last thing the PM wants is this surfacing in the press again right before October.


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:
			
		

> Makes good political sense.  Last thing the PM wants is this surfacing i the press again right before October.



But the PPSC is independent.....................................................................................


----------



## Haggis

ballz said:
			
		

> But the PPSC is independent.....................................................................................



Where did you hear that?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hmmm....Can you refuse to let them drop the charges??


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hmmm....Can you refuse to let them drop the charges??



No.


----------



## Good2Golf

...or sue for malicious prosecution?


----------



## PuckChaser

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or sue for malicious prosecution?



They're probably hoping he doesn't have money left to do that.


----------



## FJAG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They're probably hoping he doesn't have money left to do that.



I bet there are any number of lawyers willing to do that on a contingency basis.

The more interesting question is whether his legal fees will now be paid by the government and whether or not he will be reinstated. I'm not sure how they could refuse.

 :stirpot:


----------



## YZT580

Perhaps Leslie had more to contribute than just a character witness?  If I were running the Lib. campaign I would ask for the case to be dropped too.  Also, with it gone, they just have to wait a couple of weeks for the noise to die down and then they can let SNC off the hook.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Clobal News is reporting that the case against VADM Norman may be dropped. 

More at the  National Post.

Let the fun begin!!


----------



## Czech_pivo

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They're probably hoping he doesn't have money left to do that.



Well I will state openly and clearly that I contributed to his 'Go Fund Me' campaign. 

And I would do so again if he needed more.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

Curious to see two things:
- what the CDS' response will be to this change; and
- how Trudeau will walk back from his comment in 2018 about this going to court.  
If you remember, back in Feb 2018 Trudeau stated, "I_ won’t say much, other than to say I took the advice of our chief of defence staff on this particular case_,” and “_I trust our public service in their capacity to make determinations about what actually needs to happen in cases like this_"  Will Trudeau circle back and try to place all of the blame on the CDS for so-called bad advice, which seems to be his SOP.  Will be the CDS be told to take the fall, much like Butts and Wernick?


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe they finally figured out that the Court would be well placed to address Pandora’s Box of things the public hadn’t heard about yet?


----------



## ModlrMike

But we're assured that the PMO doesn't influence the DPP office.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Federal prosecutors drop breach of trust charge against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has dropped a single breach of trust charge against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Norman had been accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a $668-million shipbuilding deal to lease a supply vessel to both an executive at the Davie Shipyard, in Levis, Que., which leased a supply ship to the navy, and to a CBC journalist.

The high-profile, politically charged case has seen the Liberal government face allegations of political interference from both the Opposition Conservatives and Norman's defence team, including Toronto lawyer Marie Henein.

The defence had claimed, in both arguments and court filings, that the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office had attempted to orchestrate the prosecution of the case.

CBC News confirmed late Tuesday that prosecutors intended to drop the charge, after the federal prosecution service took the unusual step of advising reporters they "may wish to attend" the court proceeding this morning. The news was initially reported by The National Post.

Andrew Leslie, a retired lieutenant-general who was elected in 2015, announced May 1 he was stepping away from politics after one term as a Liberal MP.

When Norman arrived at the Ottawa courthouse Wednesday morning, he was greeted by Leslie, who was set to testify for the defence.

Norman had little to say to reporters on his way in.

"It's a beautiful day, thank you," he said.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Just watched a poor Crown Prosocuter being hung out to dry in that media scrum.  Thought she was going to start crying...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Because she was ordered to lie and say there was no political interference. The next question to her was, "who was withholding the cabinet documents" and she would not answer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

And the CTV news guy described it as she "ran away from the scrum".
A good point he noted is the Crown says the charges are 'stayed", yet the Prosecutor answered that "this is done".  That's not "stayed" then, that should be a "withdrawn".


----------



## Cloud Cover

Interestingly his defence fund raised 4800$  in the past 24hrs.


----------



## Cloud Cover

They won't withdraw as that makes it one little nudge easier for him to sue. By "staying" the government can still smear him and threaten to reintroduce the charges.
Interesting that Leslie was there and was clearly supporting him.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Updated CBC article...

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has dropped a single breach of trust charge against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

*The Crown said new information came to light thanks to Norman's defence team digging through documents, and that there is no reasonable chance of conviction.*

The prosecution said Norman's actions were inappropriate and secretive, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed. 

"Inappropriate does not mean criminal," said Barbara Mercier, the lead prosecutor. 

She also emphasized there was no political interference in the case. 

Norman had been accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a $668-million shipbuilding deal to lease a supply vessel to both an executive at the Davie Shipyard, in Levis, Que., which leased a supply ship to the navy, and to a CBC journalist.

The high-profile, politically charged case has seen the Liberal government face allegations of political interference from both the Opposition Conservatives and Norman's defence team, including Toronto lawyer Marie Henein.

The defence had claimed, in both arguments and court filings, that the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office had attempted to orchestrate the prosecution of the case.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declined to comment on the case on his way into a Liberal caucus meeting.

"The process involved in a public prosecution like this is entirely independent of my office," he said. "It's an independent process and we have confidence in the work done by the director of public prosecutions."


----------



## Monsoon

Fairly certain the witch hunt will now transition to an administrative one, and that they will seek a 2(a) release.


----------



## Petard

So by staying the charges they leave him financially devastated with no means to answer or repudiate the claims against him, in a politically charged case.

I doubt this is going away as some would hope


----------



## TCM621

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Updated CBC article...
> 
> The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has dropped a single breach of trust charge against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
> 
> *The Crown said new information came to light thanks to Norman's defence team digging through documents, and that there is no reasonable chance of conviction.*
> 
> The prosecution said Norman's actions were inappropriate and secretive, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed.
> 
> "Inappropriate does not mean criminal," said Barbara Mercier, the lead prosecutor.
> 
> She also emphasized there was no political interference in the case.
> 
> Norman had been accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a $668-million shipbuilding deal to lease a supply vessel to both an executive at the Davie Shipyard, in Levis, Que., which leased a supply ship to the navy, and to a CBC journalist.
> 
> The high-profile, politically charged case has seen the Liberal government face allegations of political interference from both the Opposition Conservatives and Norman's defence team, including Toronto lawyer Marie Henein.
> 
> The defence had claimed, in both arguments and court filings, that the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office had attempted to orchestrate the prosecution of the case.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declined to comment on the case on his way into a Liberal caucus meeting.
> 
> "The process involved in a public prosecution like this is entirely independent of my office," he said. "It's an independent process and we have confidence in the work done by the director of public prosecutions."



So basically they are attempting to say he did it but not give him the chance to defend himself. The only word I can come up with is disgusting.


----------



## Rifleman62

Apparently, Norman is holding a press meeting at the Navy Mess at noon.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> They won't withdraw as that makes it one little nudge easier for him to sue. By "staying" the government can still smear him and threaten to reintroduce the charges.
> Interesting that Leslie was there and was clearly supporting him.



Like a said earlier - looks like someone had some integrity.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Apparently, Norman is holding a press meeting at the Navy Mess at noon.



Probably going to be a bigger crowd than what you normally see at Gratis Growlies (on Thursday). Think he pops by there regularly after a morning court appearance and is well received.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Monsoon said:
			
		

> Fairly certain the witch hunt will now transition to an administrative one, and that they will seek a 2(a) release.



He just offered to come back to work in the news conference.


----------



## Haggis

> "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declined to comment on the case on his way into a Liberal caucus meeting.
> 
> "The process involved in a public prosecution like this is entirely independent of my office," he said. "It's an independent process and we have confidence in the work done by the director of public prosecutions."



Bullcrap!  Back in April 2017 and February 2018 the PM stated that the Norman case will inevitably go to court.  This was long before charges were laid.  If that's not an implied order to the RCMP to lay a charge and to the PPSC to pursue it to a conviction I don't know what is.  I suspect the PPSC may have received similar implied direction from the PMO to "make this go away".


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the PPSC ...


> *Ottawa – May 8, 2019* – Today in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada stayed proceedings against Vice Admiral Mark Norman after it was determined that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction.
> 
> In March, 2018, Mr. Norman was charged with one count of breach of trust contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code for allegedly leaking confidential information regarding the contract for an interim Auxiliary Replenishment ship with the Canadian shipbuilding company Chantier Davie.
> 
> In this case, as in every case prosecuted by the PPSC, only two factors were considered: whether there was reasonable prospect of conviction and, if so, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge. It was the conclusion of the PPSC that both criteria were met when the charge was laid. After reviewing further evidence provided to the prosecution, some from applications for records that were not part of the investigation file (third party records) and some volunteered by the defence, the PPSC is no longer of the view that a reasonable prospect of conviction exists. In particular, the Crown has concluded that it will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Norman’s conduct in this case amounted to a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of a person in his position of trust.
> 
> This decision was based on the evidence, the law, and the principles regarding reasonable prospect of conviction, which are set out in the PPSC Deskbook: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p2/ch03.html.
> 
> “No other factors were considered in this decision” said Kathleen Roussel, Director of Public Prosecutions “nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political influence in either the initial decision to prosecute Mr. Norman or in the decision to stay the charge today.”
> 
> The principle of prosecutorial independence is key to the PPSC’s mandate. PPSC prosecutors are expected to be objective, independent, and dispassionate in the exercise of their duties, and to exercise those duties in a manner free from any improper influence, including political influence.
> 
> – 30 –​


----------



## QV

Haggis said:
			
		

> Bullcrap!  Back in April 2017 and February 2018 the PM stated that the Norman case will inevitably go to court.  This was long before charges were laid.  If that's not an implied order to the RCMP to lay a charge and to the PPSC to pursue it to a conviction I don't know what is.  I suspect the PPSC may have received similar implied direction from the PMO to "make this go away".



I'm going to take the Director of PPSC at her word this didn't happen.  I do suspect the PMO was probably briefed on the status of this investigation, and perhaps knew ahead of time that a charge would be filed.  I think it was stupid for the PM to publically comment about Norman inevitably going to court.  But I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the PMO being briefed on the status of an investigation involving someone as significant as the VCDS.


----------



## Petard

Considering the reason to not proceed is due to evidence not uncovered during the investigation (which sounds like it should have been), but uncovered by the defence,  why stay the charges and not dismiss them?

Sounds more like an attempt to prevent any recourse for mistakes made either by those that conducted the investigation, or even possibly those in the PPSC in the way the case unfolded and now left to dangle


----------



## kratz

I'm glad I donated to his GoFundme last fall. He needed all the support that we could offer.



			
				Monsoon said:
			
		

> Fairly certain the witch hunt will now transition to an administrative one, and that they will seek a 2(a) release.





> QR&O Vol 1, Chpt 15, Table 15.01, 2(a)
> 
> Unsatisfactory Service: Unsatisfactory Conduct



VAdm Norman was not convicted of anything so the three sub-categories of the reference do not apply. 

During the Q&A at the mess, one reporter asked about "possible Administrative Action" against the him. No real answer came out of the question.
VAdm lawyer mentioned in the mess, he team's disclosure to the crown was due to government withholding information from all legal teams. This is nugget of information is not the fault of the prosecution and in mind, clearly indicates how the government dug in for this fight.

It'll be an interesting read as more information becomes available over the next while. I'd like to confirm the charges are withdrawn (dropped) vs stayed. 
In one case he's free and clear, but if the charges are stayed, in theory the crown could restart the case within a year, so after the election.



Note: The thread title has been updated to reflect the recent changes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Petard said:
			
		

> So by staying the charges they leave him financially devastated with no means to answer or repudiate the claims against him, in a politically charged case.
> 
> I doubt this is going away as some would hope



The MND did confirm today that the government will be picking up VAdm Norman's legal fees, the amount to be determined.


----------



## Cloud Cover

QV said:
			
		

> I'm going to take the Director of PPSC at her word this didn't happen.  I do suspect the PMO was probably briefed on the status of this investigation, and perhaps knew ahead of time that a charge would be filed.  I think it was stupid for the PM to publically comment about Norman inevitably going to court.  But I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the PMO being briefed on the status of an investigation involving someone as significant as the VCDS.


There is documented evidence on the record including admissions by Crown counsel that (1) they directly met several times with PMO staff, (2) PMO staff offered suggestions to "engineer the outcome" and (3) Jody Wilson Rayboud stated in her testimony that this matter was discussed at Cabinet and that the discussions were privileged. So, was there political instruction-no. Was there attempts at political influence - yes. Were decisions of the PPSC actually influenced--it's too easy to say no.


----------



## Monsoon

kratz said:
			
		

> VAdm Norman was not convicted of anything so the three sub-categories of the reference do not apply.


If you read the third criterion for 2(a) carefully, you can see there's room to use it without a conviction: "By reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, *OR* conviction by a civil court..." (emphasis mine).

Maybe they won't go the 2(a) route, but my sense is that the nightmare isn't completely at an end for VAdm Norman just yet.


----------



## Navy_Pete

My initial thought was that 'no one in DND would be that dumb to not just let this go'.

Then upon reflection, realized when I've thought that in the past, someone in DND has taken the 'hold my beer' approach and proven me wrong.


----------



## Haggis

Monsoon said:
			
		

> If you read the third criterion for 2(a) carefully, you can see there's room to use it without a conviction: "By reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, *OR* conviction by a civil court..." (emphasis mine).



I doubt that 15.01 (2)(a) fits because his alleged unsatisfactory conduct was not civil in nature and there is no conviction.  There's still the remote possibility of an AR being conducted which could result in a recommendation for release.  I doubt that, too, now that the MND has agreed to cover his legal fees.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> My initial thought was that 'no one in DND would be that dumb to not just let this go'.
> 
> Then upon reflection, realized when I've thought that in the past, someone in DND has taken the 'hold my beer' approach and proven me wrong.



I'm sure nobody in NDHQ is sharpening the pitchforks just yet.  The corporate/institutional next steps regarding any career action (positive or negative) will be very, very carefully thought through by the CDSs and MNDs staffs.


----------



## Stoker

So what job can VAdm Norman actually have now? I believe he's over 55. He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him. I think he will be retiring soon.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> So what job can VAdm Norman actually have now? I believe he's over 55. He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him. I think he will be retiring soon.



He's likely is good to CRA 60 and all you have to do now is at age 59 submit a memo asking for a 1 year extension. At least this is how it works for us non GOFO's. They (GOFO) are likely under totally different TOS.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The charges were only stayed, not withdrawn. Probably keep him in the same situation until at least after the election.

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2019/08_05_19.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The charges were only stayed, not withdrawn. Probably keep him in the same situation until at least after the election.
> 
> https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2019/08_05_19.html



But therein might be more legal action.  The Crown Prosocuter made it very clear "it was over" and "no reasonable grounds to convict".  Maybe the non-interferring office in this non-interferred with the wrong wording??? :tsktsk:


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Chief Engineer]  He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him.
[/quote]


----------



## Cloud Cover

CO of Asterix, plus he's in charge of the nukes. Seriously the man needs some time to heal and to get his family back in a good place. Family first.

And, see attached screen shot. Is this over or just beginning...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, under our system, a Stay of Proceedings is the only way for the AG and his/her substitute (which is what the prosecutors are) to actually put a stop to a criminal cases without requiring the permission of the court.

While it is permissible for the proceedings to then be recommenced by mere notice to that effect of the AG or substitute, such recommencement must occur, at maximum, within the first year following the stay. Otherwise, the case simply disappears and it is as if it was never instituted. This way of dying off is exactly what will happen here - so no consequences for the Admiral for the crown choosing this way of disposing of the matter.

A more elegant way would have been to inform the Court that in this matter, the crown would have no evidence to present to the court, which would have led to an acquittal. But the crown doesn't usually do that as it prefers to keep the possibility of new evidence being developed by investigators thus leading to reconsideration of the decision to stay. This, trust me, will not happen here.

Also, remember that even being declared not guilty in a criminal case, which is quite different than being declared innocent - which in our system of criminal law we do not do - has no bearing on administrative proceedings, which must then stand on the merits of the actual evidence entered in such proceedings. Only a finding of guilt becomes a binding fact on administrative bodies. 

In any case, the mere declaration by the prosecutor that there are no reasonable chances of success in the present case would make it difficult for anyone to re-open the proceedings without strong showing of new and previously unavailable evidence.

Finally, as to his return to his old job, remember that GOFO's serve at the crown's discretion. Unlike soldiers/airmen or seamen in the course of their contract, they can be asked by the crown to step down at any time - so long as the crown can bear the political optics of such decision. In the present case, if the MND has already stated they would pay the Admiral's legal bill (and pay him any payments he would have otherwise received but missed on due to this fracas, I hope) and since the Admiral stated that such action and an apology from the government is all he wanted, it would be a nice gesture and easy closing for the government to actually apologize and arrange for his return at his old job, but so that he could then officially and honourably retire.


----------



## Monsoon

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> And, see attached screen shot. Is this over or just beginning...


That (the tweet) makes sense of what happened today. Remember that the prosecutor herself didn’t get to see the contents of the PMO emails until they were recently unsealed by the judge. As soon as she could read them, she realized the PMO had been interfering with witnesses and that it scotched her whole case. I have a sneaking suspicion that this interference/direction to witnesses is what Leslie was going to testify to.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In the present case, if the MND has already stated they would pay the Admiral's legal bill (and pay him any payments he would have otherwise received but missed on due to this fracas, I hope) and since the Admiral stated that such action and an apology from the government is all he wanted, it would be a nice gesture and easy closing for the government to actually apologize and arrange for his return at his old job, but so that he could then officially and honourably retire.


Nope, he said he looks forward to his “immediate reinstatement” as VCDS and that he has a story to tell and that he intends to tell it. Stand by for much, much more to come.


----------



## NavyShooter

And the REAL evil thoughts in my mind are...what would happen if, shortly after he retired, he stepped into politics...and ran in the federal riding of Papineau...perhaps as an independent...


----------



## The Bread Guy

And this from the CDS ...


> General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, made the following statement:
> 
> “On Wednesday, 8 May, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada stayed the proceedings against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
> 
> “This stay eliminates the conditions that caused me to relieve Vice-Admiral Norman from his military duties in January of 2017– in accordance with the Queen’s Regulations and Orders section 101.09.
> 
> “As we know, the RCMP conducted and completed its investigation, charges were laid, and the proceedings have now been stayed. In this new context, the Queen’s Regulations and Orders specifically state: “[t]he authority who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty shall order that the member return to duty when the circumstances giving rise to the decision to relieve the member from the performance of military duty are no longer present….”
> 
> “In that context, Vice-Admiral Norman and I will be discussing his return to regular duty at the earliest opportunity.
> 
> “This decision ends court proceedings that have been a long and difficult process for Vice-Admiral Norman, his family and for the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> “We have missed Vice-Admiral Norman a great deal and I look forward to welcoming him back to work as soon as possible.”
> 
> - 30 -​


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. If he resigns/retires then he is a free man to say and do whatever. Bringing him back in means they can gag him.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, under our system, a Stay of Proceedings is the only way for the AG and his/her substitute (which is what the prosecutors are) to actually put a stop to a criminal cases without requiring the permission of the court.
> 
> While it is permissible for the proceedings to then be recommenced by mere notice to that effect of the AG or substitute, such recommencement must occur, at maximum, within the first year following the stay. Otherwise, the case simply disappears and it is as if it was never instituted. This way of dying off is exactly what will happen here - so no consequences for the Admiral for the crown choosing this way of disposing of the matter.
> 
> A more elegant way would have been to inform the Court that in this matter, the crown would have no evidence to present to the court, which would have led to an acquittal. But the crown doesn't usually do that as it prefers to keep the possibility of new evidence being developed by investigators thus leading to reconsideration of the decision to stay. This, trust me, will not happen here.
> 
> Also, remember that even being declared not guilty in a criminal case, which is quite different than being declared innocent - which in our system of criminal law we do not do - has no bearing on administrative proceedings, which must then stand on the merits of the actual evidence entered in such proceedings. Only a finding of guilt becomes a binding fact on administrative bodies.
> 
> In any case, the mere declaration by the prosecutor that there are no reasonable chances of success in the present case would make it difficult for anyone to re-open the proceedings without strong showing of new and previously unavailable evidence.
> 
> Finally, as to his return to his old job, remember that GOFO's serve at the crown's discretion. Unlike soldiers/airmen or seamen in the course of their contract, they can be asked by the crown to step down at any time - so long as the crown can bear the political optics of such decision. In the present case, if the MND has already stated they would pay the Admiral's legal bill (and pay him any payments he would have otherwise received but missed on due to this fracas, I hope) and since the Admiral stated that such action and an apology from the government is all he wanted, it would be a nice gesture and easy closing for the government to actually apologize and arrange for his return at his old job, but so that he could then officially and honourably retire.



What happens when he tries to enter the US and is rejected due to the stay? 

The records don't just "go away".


----------



## Haggis

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> What happens when he tries to enter the US and is rejected due to the stay?
> 
> The records don't just "go away".



A stay of proceedings doesn't bar someone from entering the US.  It is not a finding of guilt.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Haggis said:
			
		

> A stay of proceedings doesn't bar someone from entering the US.  It is not a finding of guilt.



Haggis - please keep your facts to yourself.  They impede the narrative.

 :facepalm:


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The MND did confirm today that the government will be picking up VAdm Norman's legal fees, the amount to be determined.



What a bunch of spineless c*****! You charge a guy on the absolute flimsiness of reasons, deny him financial support that is rarely refused to public servants, obstruct access to documents that are critical to his defence and conduct another whisper campaign to destroy his reputation. Then once your Captain Dreyfus like case is rightly tossed out on its ear you belatedly decide to cover his legal fees but you don't have the intestinal fortitude to tell this news to his face? The PM, Defence Minister and the former President of the Treasury Board are absolute f****** disgraces to their offices.


----------



## Journeyman

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Haggis - please keep your facts to yourself.  They impede the narrative.
> 
> :facepalm:


The MilPoints should have read *sarcasm* emoji;  some people require small word explanations when it comes to using facts.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Haggis said:
			
		

> A stay of proceedings doesn't bar someone from entering the US.  It is not a finding of guilt.



Doesn’t matter. It’s all visible to the border agent. It’s up to them whether they let him in or not, and people have been turned away for having a stay on their record.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

From Pardons Canada:



> If your criminal offence has been stayed in court, then it is not a full conviction however the criminal record will still show up on a criminal background check or RCMP or CPIC report. Whether your criminal offence was an assault, theft, fraud or anything else that was stayed in court, it will show up for life until you apply to get it removed.
> 
> This will get in the way of getting employment, volunteering and traveling to the US as it can still be seen by the public.
> 
> It is important to apply for a file destruction in order to remove your stayed offence from public record. Once completed, your offence will no longer show up on a criminal background check or RCMP file and you will be safe for work, travel and volunteering. You do not need a full record suspension or pardon as a stayed offence is not a full conviction but a file destruction will be enough.
> 
> Here is a recent article on the CBC about how a stayed sexual offence has severely affected the person’s ability to get work:
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/appeal-court-orders-do-over-for-criminal-record-check-legal-challenge-1.5116208



https://www.pardons.org/pardons-canada-how-to-remove-a-stayed-offence/

My understanding is it's at the discretion of the border agent.  If they feel like being a jerk that day and not letting you in, you are pooched.  It also depends on the crime.  Marijuana?  You are never getting in to the US ever. Lesser crimes?  Somewhere in the middle. It also means you have to apply for a waiver for the rest of your life every time you want to enter if you are flagged.

The US doesn't recognize portions of our legal system like Stays, Peace Bonds or Discharges.


----------



## Cloud Cover

This is 100% true, and even if the 12 month window for the Crown to resume a prosecution passes, the status remains in CPIC until updated. Some information that is in CPIC is migrated into the US NCIC and NICS, both of which are used by the CBP. 
However, it seems doubtful to me that Norman will have any problem crossing any borders. 
It also true that the US does not recognize various status under the Canadian Criminal Justice System, and we do not recognize parts of their CJS.


----------



## Haggis

I should stop posting before coffee.  Let me be more clear.

The USCBP will not normally deny entry for stays or convictions unless the crime is a serious one, a crime of moral turpitude (crimes of violence or dishonesty where harm was intended) or drug offences.  A stay on any charge, in an of itself, is not an automatic bar to entry into the US.

That being said, the decision to allow entry to a foreign national is the prerogative of the examining USCBP officer.

Better?



			
				Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> It also true that the US does not recognize various status under the Canadian Criminal Justice System, and we do not recognize parts of their CJS.



Very true.  Pardons and Record Suspensions are a perfect example (as stated earlier).  If one is deemed inadmissible to the US, one can apply for a Waiver of Inadmissibility.  The process is lengthy.

When someone is coming into Canada with a record from another country, the offences on their record are compared against those in our Criminal Code.  Some nations have unique criminal offences which don't exist in our laws.  Adultery and homosexuality, for example, are not illegal in Canada but are criminal offences elsewhere.  The Canadian equivalent to a US Waiver of Inadmissibility is known as a Rehabilitation.


----------



## Loachman

https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/in-an-inspired-performance-henein-did-incalculable-damage-to-the-trudeau-brand/wcm/c352e56c-cba2-414e-92b0-49bcc135a578

In an inspired performance, Norman lawyer Marie Henein did incalculable damage to the Trudeau brand

Henein put on a piece of political theatre that was as understated as it was devastating. She flayed the prime minister without ever mentioning his name

Richard Warnica Updated: May 8, 2019

You see the phrase ‘political performance’ a lot in this business. But the truth is, most politicians, even good ones, can’t perform worth a damn. They’re hams, most of them, by necessity. In politics, nuance doesn’t sell.

That’s what made what Marie Henein did Wednesday so remarkable. For more than 30 minutes, she performed in the truest sense. She put on a piece of political theatre - complete with shrugs, half smiles and quiet asides - that was as understated as it was devastating.

In front of the assembled Ottawa press corps, Henein flayed the prime minister without ever mentioning his name. She never said the words “SNC-Lavalin,” either even as she linked her client’s case, indelibly, to that festering scandal.

<snip>

The SNC-Lavalin affair has come to define the later part of Trudeau’s tenure in office. And on Wednesday, Henein kept the focus on Trudeau, and his brand, from the moment she sat down.

“Before we get started,” she began, “I’d just like to introduce the” - at this point she paused for half a beat and allowed herself the slightest smile - “all female team that represented Vice-Admiral Norman.” She delivered her next line in a stone-faced deadpan. “Fortunately Vice-Admiral Norman didn’t fire the females he hired.”

The reference to Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott could not have been clearer if it was stencilled in red paint on a white wall in letters a hundred metres tall.

But Henein was far from finished. Again and again, she hammered in references to the SNC-Lavalin affair without ever making them direct. “The decision to stay this prosecution,” she said, “was discretion exercised by prosecutors and the (Director of Public Prosecutions), unimpacted by any political considerations, as it should be.”

She delivered that last line with a staccato flair, underlining each word as a separate sentence. She slipped in the next one, the most devastating one, as a casual aside. “That is in fact how things are supposed to work,” she said. “Politics are supposed to stay out of the prosecutorial process.”

Henein took pains to praise the prosecutors in the Norman case for their integrity and professionalism. She was not as kind about the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, which she blamed collectively for withholding a host of documents, over months and even years, that she felt were crucial to her client’s defence.

“You should be very concerned when anyone tries to erode the resilience of the justice system or demonstrates a failure to understand why it is so fundamental to the democratic values we hold so dear,” she said.

<snip>

But she followed that, too, up with a thinly veiled barb about the SNC affair, which centred on alleged political interference into the DPP’s decision on whether or not to offer the SNC Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement.

“If it tells you anything, it should tell you that when she (the DPP) thinks she should prosecute, she goes ahead” - at that Henein paused almost imperceptibly and smiled just for an instant - “and when she thinks she shouldn’t, she declines to do so. That’s the way it should be.”

The defence allegations once again put the prime minister on the defensive.

<snip>

Henein was later asked if Norman was owed an apology. He has been through a great deal, she replied. “There is a ship, a supply ship, that is in operation, on time and under budget, thanks, in part, to Vice-Admiral Norman.” Here her voice dipped and got a little gravely. “I think it’s time” - she waited half a beat - “to say sorry to him.”

<snip>


----------



## observor 69

Don Martin's summation of the story line of the Vice Admiral's misfortune.

"Don Martin: The fall guy could be the general who suspended Mark Norman"

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-martin-s-blog/don-martin-the-fall-guy-could-be-the-general-who-suspended-mark-norman-1.4415666


----------



## X Royal

Starting to look like the Conservatives held information all along that could have put the end to Norman's charges. 
They are playing the nobody asked so we didn't tell game and let VAdm Norman swing in the wind for their own political gains.
Only after Normans defense interviewed them did their information come out.


----------



## Rifleman62

Wrong.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-mark-norman-is-indeed-in-a-war-but-one-hes-fighting-with-few-allies/wcm/0ec00eb8-3a98-4644-89f1-4495374b78ec



> As the Norman case got more headlines and the issue of whether the Justin Trudeau government would waive cabinet confidence and thus free civil servants to speak honestly, it became clear that most of the documents the defence is seeking date to the Harper era. In apparent reply to all this, Harper even tweeted that he had never claimed cabinet confidence. Yet asked for that waiver — or any evidence the current government had even asked Harper for it — repeatedly by the defence, the government refused to answer. Only on Nov. 1, 2018 did the government finally say it wouldn’t claim that confidence, but rather “the public interest immunity.”



Can't find the original article re former PM Harper releasing his Cabinet documents. Wiped from the internet.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-mark-norman-is-indeed-in-a-war-but-one-hes-fighting-with-few-allies/wcm/0ec00eb8-3a98-4644-89f1-4495374b78ec
> 
> Can't find the original article re former PM Harper releasing his Cabinet documents. Wiped from the internet.



Funny I cant find them either but I do seem to remember Harper ok'ing cabinet documents from his time as PM.  Or at least saying he had no objection to their release.


----------



## Breacher

There is a reference to Stephen Harper's waiving of privilege in this article from 18 Dec 2018:
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/witness-at-mark-norman-hearing-alleges-dnd-attempts-to-keep-files-hidden-from-public-view


----------



## X Royal

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/how-evidence-from-harpers-conservative-government-helped-collapse-the-case-against-mark-norman?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1R-emuTwz75O9P0sl1swE1SiQcxtqRNFxurUtfiH7h_qd5giDM3QgLFVc#Echobox=1557451118

How do you explain this?


----------



## Rifleman62

Believe what you want to believe. Vote Liberal if you wish.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Believe what you want to believe. Vote Liberal if you wish.



How does voter intention change one's view of the veracity of what was reported in the National Post?


----------



## ModlrMike

X Royal said:
			
		

> Starting to look like the Conservatives held information all along that could have put the end to Norman's charges.
> They are playing the nobody asked so we didn't tell game and let VAdm Norman swing in the wind for their own political gains.
> Only after Normans defense interviewed them did their information come out.



I believe that it's up to the prosecution to establish guilt, not the defendant to establish innocence. If investigators knew that the majority of the leaks occurred under the former government, then the onus was on them to conduct the appropriate interviews.


----------



## FJAG

X Royal said:
			
		

> https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/how-evidence-from-harpers-conservative-government-helped-collapse-the-case-against-mark-norman?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1R-emuTwz75O9P0sl1swE1SiQcxtqRNFxurUtfiH7h_qd5giDM3QgLFVc#Echobox=1557451118
> 
> How do you explain this?




This might cover it.

Email from Harper to Michael Wernick and others last November.




[url=https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1075067216201179136]https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1075067216201179136

 :cheers:


----------



## X Royal

FJAG said:
			
		

> This might cover it.
> 
> Email from Harper to Michael Wernick and others last November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1075067216201179136
> 
> :cheers:


How about non documented occurrences which have now became evident?
Not "DOCUMENTS" is a big difference here.


----------



## FSTO

X Royal said:
			
		

> How about non documented occurrences which have now became evident?
> Not "DOCUMENTS" is a big difference here.



Early 2018 was when the VAdm was charged.
Maybe the former government cabinet minsters were waiting for the RCMP to interview them?
Maybe they thought the whole thing was a farce and they were waiting for the judge to throw the case out or the Crown come to its senses and withdraw the charge?
Maybe they took the current PM at his word that this would be an open and honest government and all relevant documents would be released due to the rock solid base that the case rested on? 
Who knows what darkness lies in the hearts of men?


----------



## Kirkhill




----------



## kratz

The highest standards of ethics are displayed throughout this drama, include but not limited to:

- Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector;
- Open and accountable Government;
- Values and Ethics Code of the Department of Justice
- DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics;
- Canadian Association of Journalists - Ethics
- Ethics Commissioner
-  Governance Model for Values and Ethics:  Ethics and Integrity Program

And more…


----------



## Cloud Cover

kratz said:
			
		

> The highest standards of ethics are displayed throughout this drama, include but not limited to:
> 
> - Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector;
> - Open and accountable Government;
> - Values and Ethics Code of the Department of Justice
> - DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics;
> - Canadian Association of Journalists - Ethics
> - Ethics Commissioner
> -  Governance Model for Values and Ethics:  Ethics and Integrity Program
> 
> And more…



All of which are a bridge too far.  While I do support due process for the Admiral, and i do believe it was interfered with and orchestrated, this was not a whole of government failure or conspiracy.


----------



## Brad Sallows

This isn't something that can be thrown back on the previous government, but I see some people have really got the bit in to try and cast blame there.

What's remarkable to me is the incurious approach taken by investigators and the press.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This isn't something that can be thrown back on the previous government, but I see some people have really got the bit in to try and cast blame there.
> 
> What's remarkable to me is the incurious approach taken by investigators and the press.



Isn't that SOP now ?  When in doubt blame the previous government.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Isn't that SOP now ?  When in doubt blame the previous government.




Are you all familiar with the '_three envelopes_' story? 

LCol X took command of the 3rd Royal Geffufian Underground Fusiliers from LCol Y. There was a fine parade and a nice reception and after all that the two walked back tot he RHQ building so that LCol Y could pick up a couple of things from the office before the change of command mess dinner. When they got to the office LCol Y put his diary and calendar in his briefcase and then he handed LCol X three envelopes, marked 1, 2 and 3. 

"Look, my friend," LCol Y said: "command of this regiment is wonderful but, trust me, something will go wrong and you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a one-sided conversation with the commander. When that happens," he said, "open these envelopes in the order, 1,2 and then 3."

Well, after a few months that one-sided conversation did happen and LCol X remembered the envelopes LCol Y had given him and he pulled them out of his desk drawer and opened No. 1. "_*Blame me*_," it said ... "one can always blame his predecessor for leaving things in a muddle." LCol X did that and the commander seemed mollified.

Regimental command was, indeed, wonderful and it was many months before the commander, once again in high dudgeon, called for the second time. LCol X remembered how well envelope 1 had worked and he opened #2. "_*Reorganize*_," it said. He explained to the commander that he needed to reorganize to cope with the ever-changing demands of modern warfare and, once again, the commander seemed satisfied.

Of course, since we have three envelopes in this story we need a third phone call ... it came and LCol X, confidently, opened envelope #3 ...
.
.
.
.
.
"_*Prepare 3 envelopes*_" was all it said.


----------



## FSTO

So the MND was on CTV Question Period today.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=1681735

I'll keep my opinions to myself, but I'm posting this so that folks can make up their own mind on what came out of his mouth.

All I'll say is that the Liberals have their talking points down tight.


----------



## Petard

MND waffled, answering questions unasked, which should be no surprise

I think they covered it pretty well during the scrum later that involved Peter McKay


----------



## Haggis

Today on Global's The West Block, Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough commented on Trudeau's foretelling of the outcome of the RCMP's investigation into the former VCDS on two occasions.  It's important to note that these predictions that the VAdm's case would inevitably got to trial are evidence of political interference from his office long before he put pressure on the former AG to influence the outcome of the SNC-Lavalin case.

A good question was asked by the journalist:  In a town with more leaks than the Titanic, why was the hunt for the source of this particular leak so fervent?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Petard said:
			
		

> MND waffled, answering questions unasked, which should be no surprise



Yea that was embarrassing to watch. Poor guy.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yea that was embarrassing to watch. Poor guy.


Follow the Process. Respect Independence of Investigation. Support the Decision of General Vance. 
Remove slime, rinse and repeat.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Follow the Process. Respect Independence of Investigation. Support the Decision of General Vance.
> Remove slime, rinse and repeat.



I like that reporter. 
"You treated him guilty from the start without a trial, hurt his family and his reputation. The government apologizes to _everyone_, why can't you apologize to him?"
"waffle waffle waffle".


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> "You treated him guilty from the start without a trial, hurt his family and his reputation. The government apologizes to _everyone_, why can't you apologize to him?"



The PM is well rumoured to have a temper with anyone who crosses him (e.g. JWR).  I'm sure the stay of proceedings in this case didn't make him happy at all. The PM never apologized to JWR so to expect anyone in his government to apologize to VAdm Norman is disingenuous.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:
			
		

> The PM is well rumoured to have a temper with anyone who crosses him (e.g. JWR).  I'm sure the stay of proceedings in this case didn't make him happy at all. The PM never apologized to JWR so to expect anyone in his government to apologize to VAdm Norman is disingenuous.



A “temper” is an understatement. This is the kid that got stuffed in the locker in high school.
We’re led (not well) by the equivalent of one of those hereditary kings who wasn’t the pick of the litter but gained power only because he was the oldest. A spoiled brat who has never been told he’s wrong or heard the word “no”.


----------



## Remius

Joffrey Baratheon?


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:
			
		

> Joffrey Baratheon?



Good analogy. Thank you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Where is a Stark when we need one?


----------



## tomydoom

Colin P said:
			
		

> Where is a Stark when we need one?


Edard lost his head, so maybe Tony would be a better Stark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius

Spoiler alert.

Lady Olenna Tyrell is the one who did away with Joffrey...that is likely what you need instead of a Stark.  Most of the Starks get themselves killed or crippled.


----------



## Cloud Cover

This guy is on crack: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-theres-no-evidence-liberals-interfered-in-mark-norman-prosecution/?utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links 

<SNIP
"But the facts do not support that allegation. As much as this might disappoint their critics, there is no evidence the Liberals interfered in the Norman prosecution.

The government did ask police to investigate the leak of a cabinet decision concerning a supply vessel from the Davie shipyard in Quebec.

The RCMP investigation led to a charge of breach of trust against Vice-Adm. Norman. That charge was stayed last week, more than two years after Vice-Adm. Norman was first suspended from the navy. He has suffered greatly as a result of this ordeal and deserves restitution.

But there is no evidence the government pushed the office of the director of public prosecutions to lay the charge. Quite the opposite.

In the recording of the Dec. 19 phone call between Jody Wilson-Raybould and Michael Wernick over the SNC-Lavalin affair, the former attorney-general warned the former clerk of the Privy Council that Mr. Trudeau is “interfering with one of our fundamental institutions,” and “breaching a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence,” by trying to intervene in the case.

“We can stand up in the House of Commons on Norman on – totally appropriately on Norman – on extradition, and we can talk about the rule of law,” she states. “The cases are not dissimilar.” (“Extradition” refers to the detaining of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, which Canada maintains it was bound to do under an extradition treaty with the United States.)"  END SNIP>

In fact, it transpired after that call that the lawyers at the PMO did in fact meet with lawyers from PPSC, and they did in fact make suggestions and demands to "engineer the outcome" and in fact they did this without informing the AG.  All of this information was in the Crown disclosure in February*. 

I'm not sure what Ibbitson is thinking here, this is not his first rodeo either....


*
Norman's defence accuses Trudeau PMO of attempting to direct prosecution
<SNIP
"The prosecution should not be discussing trial strategy with the Prime Minister's Office's right-hand person," she said, referring to the PCO legal counsel.

"By all appearances, this is a more direct influencing of the prosecution. The attorney general is entirely bypassed. The Prime Minister's Office, via its right arm the PCO, is dealing directly with the (Public Prosecution Service of Canada). And the prosecution service is allowing this to happen."

That prompted a cutting remark from the judge hearing Norman's case.

"So much for the independence of the PPSC," said Judge Heather Perkins-McVey."   END SNIP> 

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-davie-shipyard-breach-trust-1.5014538


----------



## Good2Golf

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> This guy is on crack: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-theres-no-evidence-liberals-interfered-in-mark-norman-prosecution/?utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links
> 
> <SNIP
> But there is no evidence the government pushed the office of the director of public prosecutions to lay the charge. Quite the opposite.



Well, other than that time...no, make that...two times...that the PM pre-saged that the Norman issue would be dealt with in the Courts...even before the Vice-Admiral was charged.

You know, independence of the prosecutorial system, et al.

Regards
G2G


----------



## observor 69

Norman was told by Harper cabinet to talk to Quebec shipyard about leasing deal

'Mark Norman was acting ... with cabinet authority,' says ex-defence minister Peter MacKay
Vice-Admiral Mark Norman not only had the blessing of the former Conservative cabinet to deal with a Quebec shipyard, he was authorized to speak with it directly in the run-up to the signing of a $668-million leasing contract, CBC News has learned.

The revelation raises further questions about the handling of the RCMP's investigation into allegations that the military's former second-in-command leaked sensitive cabinet information about the contract.

It also peels back the curtain on some of the thinking that may have gone into the Crown's decision to stay the single breach-of-trust charge against Norman, who at one time commanded the Royal Canadian Navy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-supply-ship-davie-harper-mackay-1.5134548


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Is somebody high up in the RCMP taking a political bribe here while throwing his investigators under the bus?  Really, the RCMP, with how many folks working on this case,  didn't think of asking the sitting cabinet members at the time the contract was awarded any questions?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Is somebody high up in the RCMP taking a political bribe here while throwing his investigators under the bus?  Really, the RCMP, with how many folks working on this case,  didn't think of asking the sitting cabinet members at the time the contract was awarded any questions?



There is massive speculation out there on social media that puts the liberal appointed commissioner right in trudeau's pocket. I don't know, just sayin' from what I've seen.


----------



## Monsoon

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> There is massive speculation out there on social media that puts the liberal appointed commissioner right in trudeau's pocket. I don't know, just sayin' from what I've seen.


The investigation and referral for charges happened under Bob Paulson, who was a Harper appointee. The issue seems to have been that the RCMP were only given one name to investigate by PCO out of the 72 PCO knew to have been able to leak the information. That’s where the political interference took place.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Monsoon said:
			
		

> The investigation and referral for charges happened under Bob Paulson, who was a Harper appointee. The issue seems to have been that the RCMP were only given one name to investigate by PCO out of the 72 PCO knew to have been able to leak the information. That’s where the political interference took place.



Thanks for the info Monsoon

I made no claims to veracity. Tossed in as fodder in answer to a question. Only what I've seen. A simple observation claiming no pedigree.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop the peanut gallery chiming in though does it? Passive aggressive bullies are everywhere  :


----------



## Navy_Pete

Ugh, Ken Hansen was interviewed on CTV as a 'military insider' on this.

No idea how a retired three ringer, who has no experience with procurement, working in requirements, or being a GOFO, but why does this guy keep getting called up as a talking head all the time??

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?binId=1.1145507#1.1145518


----------



## dapaterson

The inherent self confident ignorance of being a MARS officer?


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The inherent self confident ignorance of being a MARS officer?


But there are so many of us to choose from...

Ken’s claim to media fame is as a Dalhousie security studies prof. He’s one of relatively few on that beat who are naval officers, so I guess it was inevitable he might weigh in. I have to say I’m in complete disagreement with him, though.


----------



## suffolkowner

VCDS Norman should never have been charged unless there was evidence of personal benefit, unless the Crown felt that the public good was served by changing precedent.

Perhaps the RCMP and prosecution half assed it on purpose? What other reason can there be for their poor performance?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The inherent self confident ignorance of being a MARS officer NWO?



There, fixed that for you. 

It just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? ;D


----------



## Haggis

CTV is reporting that the House  has voted unanimously to apologize the VAdm Norman.  Now, let's see who gets tagged with making that apology.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No one will get tagged. This is not a Government apology, it's an apology from the House of Commons made by way of Motion, which BTW will let the Government continue with it's "all due process was followed" line and not apologizing otherwise on behalf of the Government.

The normal procedure, since it relates to a specific person, is for the Speaker of the House to forward a certified copy of the motion to the appropriate party with a cover letter. All this is prepared by his/her staff on behalf of the HoC.

P.S. These type of motions are non-binding on the Government.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Maybe we'll get treated to another 'teaching moment' speech by the king of non-apologies.


----------



## NavyShooter

Although apparently, the King walked out before the vote...so that's still a bit of a slap in the face.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Ugh, Ken Hansen was interviewed on CTV as a 'military insider' on this.
> 
> No idea how a retired three ringer, who has no experience with procurement, working in requirements, or being a GOFO, but why does this guy keep getting called up as a talking head all the time??
> 
> https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?binId=1.1145507#1.1145518



Mr. Hansen is on News 95.7fm in Halifax all the time.  He seems to be their go to for all things RCN. 

Just my opinion from listening to him allot but he comes across as a Liberal and Irving fan boy.  

He was very unsupportive of Asterix right from the get go.


----------



## Journeyman

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Although apparently, the King walked out before the vote...so that's still a bit of a slap in the face.


To be fair, he did have to get to a photo op at Notre Dame cathedral… with a pesky side-trip to a political Summit on curtailing online extremism (if only there was some technology that would have allowed them to do that meeting... you know... online)


----------



## Halifax Tar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To be fair, he did have to get to a photo op at Notre Dame cathedral… with a pesky side-trip to a political Summit on curtailing online extremism (if only there was some technology that would have allowed them to do that meeting... you know... online)



That has been proven untrue.  As I watched CTV news at 2200hrs (Halifax time) last night the PM still hadn't flown out of the country. 

It was brought up as another head scratcher by the CTV News Power Panel.


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> That has been proven untrue.


Damn, I was clutching at straws...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Mr. Hansen is on News 95.7fm in Halifax all the time.  He seems to be their go to for all things RCN.
> 
> Just my opinion from listening to him allot but he comes across as a Liberal and Irving fan boy.
> 
> He was very unsupportive of Asterix right from the get go.



Maybe retired RCN talking head is a growth market? 

"I'm so-and-so, and my head is an external organ. Call me for all your filler opinion needs; I will be your pseudo-SME on demand!"


----------



## Journeyman

And from Twitter...


> *Erin O'Toole* @ErinOTooleMP
> 
> I would note that the PM left the House shortly before this motion. He has personally apologized in the House for incidents prior to Confederation, but would not even stay for this symbolic motion for Admiral Norman. #sunnyways


----------



## Remius

He really isn't helping is case...

I wonder if he has hit a wall where he just doesn't care anymore and has seen the writing on the wall and will just do what he wants


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Remius said:
			
		

> He really isn't helping is case...
> 
> I wonder if he has hit a wall where he just doesn't care anymore and has seen the writing on the wall and will just do what he wants



Which is different from what he's been acting like since the election how?


----------



## Strike

Remius said:
			
		

> He really isn't helping is case...
> 
> I wonder if he has hit a wall where he just doesn't care anymore and has seen the writing on the wall and will just do what he wants



The man is a narcissist. He doesn't know how to REALLY apologize and likely believes he can do no wrong and was justified in his actions. Heck, look at what happened when the one female MP claimed he had verbally attacked her.  His response was that wasn't how he interpreted things.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Strike said:
			
		

> The man is a narcissist. He doesn't know how to REALLY apologize and likely believes he can do no wrong and was justified in his actions. Heck, look at what happened when the one female MP claimed he had verbally attacked her.  His response was that wasn't how he interpreted things.



So, in other words, he is a politician.


----------



## OldSolduer

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Which is different from what he's been acting like since the election how?



Are we speaking of King Joffrey? 😉


----------



## Jarnhamar

In the Prime Ministers defense he was off to apologize for the *spins wheel* _1730 Massacre at Fox Fort, Quebec._


----------



## YZT580

He has never, that I recall, apologised for any of his own actions, just historical ones.  It is easy to say you are sorry for someone else's actions but to admit personal errors requires real cojons and an acknowledgement of personal involvement neither of which he has ever shown that he possesses.


----------



## FJAG

YZT580 said:
			
		

> He has never, that I recall, apologised for any of his own actions, just historical ones.  It is easy to say you are sorry for someone else's actions but to admit personal errors requires real cojons and an acknowledgement of personal involvement neither of which he has ever shown that he possesses.



You don't have to apologize when you are perfect in every way. 

 ;D


----------



## dapaterson

So you're saying he's a NWO officer?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So you're saying he's a NWO officer?



Which you obviously are not, DP.

Otherwise you would have known that it is either "NWO" period, or "NW officer". 

But not "NWO officer, which is a tautology in the same category as SIN number.

/pedant NWO off


 ;D


----------



## dapaterson

And here I thought it was Naval Warfare Operations... or New World Order, but those are the ones flying black helicopters.


----------



## kratz

It's no surprise the Liberal majority blocked the call for a parliamentary inquiry, but the weak justification is slim at best:

NationalPost.com



> Liberals block parliamentary inquiry into Mark Norman case, reject invitation to have him testify
> BRIAN PLATT MAY 16, 2019
> 
> OTTAWA — Liberal MPs have blocked an attempt by the opposition parties to hold a parliamentary inquiry into whether there was political interference in the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman criminal case.
> 
> The Liberals also voted against inviting Norman to testify at the House of Commons national defence committee and tell his side of the story.
> 
> The Conservatives and NDP had brought a motion to the defence committee to launch a study of the Norman case, but the Liberals used their majority on the committee to vote it down on Thursday afternoon.
> 
> “This is very disappointing, to know that Vice-Admiral Norman has put in over 30 years in service to his country in uniform, and the Liberals won’t even give him three minutes,” said Conservative MP James Bezan after the meeting ended.
> 
> Liberal MPs argued the committee wouldn’t be the right forum for Norman to speak in, describing the atmosphere as “hyper-partisan.”
> 
> “Vice-Admiral Norman is one of our highest-ranking military officers, it’s a question about political interference, optically we should not insert him into a politically-charged forum to make the case that he needs to make,” said Liberal MP Sven Spengemann.
> 
> The Liberals suggested the media might be a better place to tell his story, but the Conservatives argued he should have the protection of parliamentary privilege, which shields him from liability over what he says.
> 
> But Conservative MP Erin O’Toole — a former air force officer — said he doesn’t think active members of the military should be seeking to testify, and that it would have been more appropriate for the committee to invite Norman.
> 
> “Rather than the Liberals turning themselves into pretzels to try to find ways not to do this…if the majority is going to be used to crush it, just come out and say that,” O’Toole said. A few minutes later, the Liberals voted against the invitation to Norman.
> 
> Norman was charged in March 2018 with a single count of breach of trust over an allegation he systematically leaked confidential info about a $700-million navy supply ship project. The case collapsed last week after prosecutors acknowledged they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.
> 
> The original motion put forward by the opposition would have seen many witnesses called to testify, including Norman, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, and various other senior government figures. It would have also invited Liberal MP Andrew Leslie (who offered testify on Norman’s behalf) and former CBC reporter James Cudmore (who received some of the alleged leaks, and is now a Liberal staffer).
> 
> It was NDP MP Randy Garrison who tried to find a compromise by amending the motion to only call on Norman as a witness.
> 
> “I remain concerned that he says he has more to say, and that he be given a forum to do that where he can be protected from prosecution,” Garrison said.
> 
> Speaking after the meeting, Garrison said he had no confidence the Liberals were serious when they said maybe Norman could testify if he requested to.
> 
> Other Liberal MPs on the committee said they don’t see any evidence of political interference in the case. Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen called such allegations “hearsay,” and said the Conservatives were pushing that narrative to avoid talking about the country’s economy.
> 
> “I too believe that this is a bit of a fabricated, partisan exercise,” said Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz. She said it’s a distraction from the “key issues of the day,” and said her Toronto constituents are more concerned about climate change, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and the success of the arts community.


----------



## Loachman

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-norman-not-the-only-victim-of-trudeaus-vindictive-streak#comments

LILLEY: Norman not the only victim of Trudeau's vindictive streak

Brian Lilley

Published: May 15, 2019

As the Conservatives hammered the Liberals in the House of Commons for the second night in a row, a woman at the centre of the drama surrounding Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was hammering the actions of the Trudeau government.

Kelly Gabie was the lead federal representative in the negotiations to award a supply ship retrofit contract to the Davie shipyard in Quebec.

<snip>

In a letter to Conservative MP Michelle Rempel, Gabie thanks the MP for her support of Norman but says he hasn’t been the only one hurt.

"The Liberal government has not just hurt (Vice-Admiral) Norman; there has been so much collateral damage affecting every member of the integrated team that worked on that file, either DMs retired out early, ADMs promoted quietly out of Ottawa," Gabie writes.

<snip>


----------



## FSTO

Front page of the Globe and Mail today. Me thinks this thing has legs for a few more days.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-set-in-motion-mountie-probe-that-led-to-charges-against-vice/


----------



## Journeyman

kratz said:
			
		

> Liberals block parliamentary inquiry into Mark Norman case, reject invitation to have him testify
> BRIAN PLATT MAY 16, 2019
> 
> [Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz] said it’s a distraction from the “key issues of the day,” and said her Toronto constituents are more concerned about climate change, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and the success of the arts community.


Yes, potential government impropriety, and by extension national security (ship building programme), is a distraction from the arts community!   :facepalm:


----------



## Navy_Pete

Loachman said:
			
		

> https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-norman-not-the-only-victim-of-trudeaus-vindictive-streak#comments
> 
> LILLEY: Norman not the only victim of Trudeau's vindictive streak
> 
> Brian Lilley
> 
> Published: May 15, 2019
> 
> As the Conservatives hammered the Liberals in the House of Commons for the second night in a row, a woman at the centre of the drama surrounding Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was hammering the actions of the Trudeau government.
> 
> Kelly Gabie was the lead federal representative in the negotiations to award a supply ship retrofit contract to the Davie shipyard in Quebec.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In a letter to Conservative MP Michelle Rempel, Gabie thanks the MP for her support of Norman but says he hasn’t been the only one hurt.
> 
> "The Liberal government has not just hurt (Vice-Admiral) Norman; there has been so much collateral damage affecting every member of the integrated team that worked on that file, either DMs retired out early, ADMs promoted quietly out of Ottawa," Gabie writes.
> 
> <snip>



Wow, that's a bit of a leap. Had the misfortune of working on the NSS file for a while, and a lot of these people were just empire building on the back of a project, and would constantly delay progress to push some BS agenda. Hated that posting, and had me actively applying to civvie jobs. Not going to get into the details, but she was part of the problem, so while I wish her the best in recovery, wasn't sad to see a number of people transferred out.

The worst part of working there was having people who had never stepped worked in a shipyard explaining to me that they somehow understood ship repair and shipbuilding better than anything myself or the various shipbuilding experts we had on call did. I think my final straw was putting together a report from a group with over a century of work in shipbuilding, and having it ignored completely in the decision process. The big giant heads love them some third party expert reports, right up until it doesn't support their uninformed preconceived opinions. :facepalm: :facepalm:


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Wow, that's a bit of a leap. Had the misfortune of working on the NSS file for a while, and a lot of these people were just empire building on the back of a project, and would constantly delay progress to push some BS agenda. Hated that posting, and had me actively applying to civvie jobs. Not going to get into the details, but she was part of the problem, so while I wish her the best in recovery, wasn't sad to see a number of people transferred out.
> 
> The worst part of working there was having people who had never stepped worked in a shipyard explaining to me that they somehow understood ship repair and shipbuilding better than anything myself or the various shipbuilding experts we had on call did. I think my final straw was putting together a report from a group with over a century of work in shipbuilding, and having it ignored completely in the decision process. The big giant heads love them some third party expert reports, right up until it doesn't support their uninformed preconceived opinions. :facepalm: :facepalm:



Sadly from what I have seen in the forum that seems to be the norm, not the exception. I has the pleasure weeks ago chatting to Rhemantall during a train the trainung course for those new 720G radios. I won't go into detail but what you described seems to not be isolated at all.


----------



## Caesar Augustus

What abt Gen. Vance's involvement? Nobody seems to discuss it here? He seems pretty involved in this too.🤨

'I own it': Vance says decision to suspend Mark Norman was his, not PM's

http://flip.it/zvo-S7


----------



## FSTO

From Murray Brewster. A lot of poo hit the fan on this issue and I think the only entity that didn't get spattered is Seaspan. ;D

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-supply-ship-trudeau-1.5141446

Who was at fault? According to the government, nobody — or maybe everybody

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: May 20, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

There's a time-honoured tradition in Ottawa: when things go wrong — horribly wrong — somebody gets thrown under the bus.

The collapse of the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman saw that custom accelerated at breakneck speed this week as the Liberal government sought to put as much distance as possible between itself and the failed prosecution.

The most prominent person among those tossed beneath the wheels is the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, who — according to both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — was the one who decided to suspend Norman in the first place.

"The chief of defence staff has full responsibility for the administration and command of the Canadian Armed Forces," Trudeau told the Commons during question period this week.

Sajjan, who served under Vance in Afghanistan, also tried to steer blame toward the chief of the defence staff during marathon questioning Wednesday night related to his department's budget.

"When the decision [to suspend Norman] was made, I supported it," the minister said, citing the chief's authority under the National Defence Act. "I have faith in the chief of defence staff to carry out his duties."

Those remarks made it sound as though the minister was an innocent bystander who had no authority to question or challenge Vance's decision.

That's pretty ironic, since senior government officials have for months framed the prosecution of Norman, on allegations of leaking cabinet information, as an effort to reinforce civilian control over the military.

The commander of the navy, they argued, should never be allowed to usurp the will of the elected government of the day by agitating for a leased supply ship.

The notion that military men should be "limited to request[ing] and advising on needs" is seeded throughout the Crown's factum in the Norman case, filed last December.

Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance participates in an interview with The Canadian Press in his office in Ottawa on Friday, Jan. 11, 2019. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)
On Friday, Vance insisted that the decision to suspend Norman was his alone and was made without political direction or interference.

And beyond informing Sajjan and Trudeau of the RCMP investigation, the defence chief said, "I have never, ever spoken to anybody political about this, beyond that, ever. Period."

There are some in Ottawa who will interpret that statement as Vance taking a bullet for the Liberal government — but the law does invest him with the authority to act.

Whether he should have acted so swiftly — whether he should have demanded to see more information from the RCMP in advance — is a question observers have been asking from the outset. But the calls have become louder since the Crown conceded it did not have all of the evidence when it decided to lay a charge of breach-of-trust against Norman.

"The main point to take away from all of this," said retired lieutenant-colonel Rory Fowler, a former military lawyer now in private practice, "is that the CDS was not obliged to do what he did and, quite frankly, the decision had nothing to do with the Code of Service discipline. His decision was administrative in nature."

Others being tossed under the bus this week include harried (and occasionally befuddled) civil servants whose slow, deliberate combing of federal government documents subpoenaed by the defence turned the court process into an extraordinary exercise in frustration.

Buckets of black ink were poured over the various records through redaction, apparently in the interest of preserving cabinet secrecy or solicitor-client privilege.

"The decision to redact information was made by public servants in this case and overseen by the court," said Justice Minister David Lametti. "We met all our obligations."

What the Liberals failed to explain was why Conservative-era cabinet documents — which could have helped to exonerate Norman early on — were not in the hands of either the RCMP or the Crown.

The Conservatives are using that fact, among others, as the foundation for their call for a public inquiry.

Not even the Ontario government escaped the bus this week. In what was one of the more creative deflections, justice officials and (eventually) Liberal MPs argued that it wasn't the federal government that actually prosecuted Norman.

Rather, the director of public prosecutions was acting in the name of the Attorney General of Ontario because the case was grinding through provincial court system.

Given all their verbal and mental gymnastics this week, Liberal MPs have shown little curiosity about how they got into this mess in the first place — and a fierce desire to get far away from it.

Maybe in quieter moments they'll reflect on why the former Conservative government felt compelled to hotwire the military procurement system in an exceptional deal with the Davie Shipyard, in Lévis, Que., to lease a supply ship for the navy.

And why former ministers failed to speak to the RCMP after Norman was charged.

"The deal has literally no comparison," said Dave Perry, a defence analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Procurement regulations were changed to make it go ahead the way it did. A letter of intent signed immediately prior to the election period. Everything about this was atypical."

And perhaps, one day, the Liberals might ask why one of the country's most senior and decorated naval commanders staked his career on that project.


----------



## observor 69

An article from the Hill Times discussing Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's experience.
https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/05/20/conservatives-confident-mark-norman-will-expose-more-liberal-wrongdoing/200489?

I have been thinking over the past while what are some of the possible outcomes for the Admiral.
1. Reinstated as Vice CDS or appointed CDS. 2.Shuffled into some benign military post. 3. Give a senior civil servant spot.
4. Golden handshake.
Thoughts?


----------



## Haggis

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> 1. Reinstated as Vice CDS or appointed CDS. 2.Shuffled into some benign military post. 3. Give a senior civil servant spot. 4. Golden handshake.
> Thoughts?


5. Released having reached retirement age.  Even though he may have elected CRA 60, there is no requirement for the CAF to retain him until age 60 if there is no place to put him.  GO/FO, I believe, serve at the pleasure of the GiC and can be released 5(c) at any time if not succession planned for higher.

I would suspect the relationship between the VAdm and the CAF, particularly the CDS is strained.  The CDS has no choice but to reinstate him as per QR&O 19.75 (5).  What to do with him in this eventuality was probably never considered as the PM and many others expected him to be found guilty.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

GOFOs essentially serve at the pleasure of the CDS, who serves at the pleasure of the PM...


----------



## Haggis

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> GOFOs essentially serve at the pleasure of the CDS, who serves at the pleasure of the PM...


Kinda figured you'd be along shortly.  I was close... thanks, PPCLI, Guy.


----------



## Rifleman62

Question I have: Jame Cudmore of the CBC, then employed by the government. The media protects it's sources. Anyone (gov't investigators/RCMP/CDS/DM officials) ask Cudmore if it was VAdm Norman? Yes or no answer. Is that revealing sources if Cudmore said it was someone else he received the info from, not VAdm Norman?


----------



## Cloud Cover

The feds hired him within days of writing that article. There is no legal privilege with journalism sources-if a source of journalism information  is demanded by an authority through an established legal process, they must comply. There's no grey area here, the Supreme Court made that crystal clear in the Vice media case.


----------



## Loachman

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/we-did-it-well-lametti-defends-justice-departments-response-to-subpoenas-in-mark-norman-case

'We did it well': Lametti defends Justice Department's response to subpoenas in Mark Norman case

Norman's lawyers criticized the department for the lengthy, arduous process in disclosing crucial documents

Brian Platt May 20, 2019 5:15 PM EDT

OTTAWA - Justice Minister David Lametti says he’s satisfied his department did the best job it could in finding, reviewing and disclosing thousands of government documents requested by Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s defence team.

<snip>

Even so, Norman’s defence team made several successful arguments in court that the searches were not as comprehensive as they should have been. In some cases the search terms weren’t being used consistently across departments. In others, personal phones and email accounts weren’t being included in response to subpoenas for “all communications.”

Justice Perkins-McVey called it “baffling” that the Crown still had not handed over the requested documents and ordered the Justice Department to search again for them.

“This was an extraordinarily complex request for documents,” Lametti said. “At every stage, in good faith, we adjusted. There were things that one wouldn’t anticipate, necessarily. We fixed this thing in an ongoing way as we moved forward.”

After the case was stayed, Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein argued the government shouldn’t have been fighting so hard in the first place to hang onto documents and fight the subpoena requests. “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,” she said.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeaus-dark-cast-of-characters-at-the-centre-of-scandal

LILLEY: Trudeau’s dark cast of characters at the centre of scandal

Brian Lilley Published: May 21, 2019 

Perhaps Jody Wilson-Raybould should be meeting up with Mark Norman to compare notes.

The Vice-Admiral and the former attorney general likely have much in common in how they have been treated by Team Trudeau.

In separate interviews with Postmedia over the last few days, the pair have been telling their respective stories.

<snip>

What they have in common is the attempt by Team Trudeau to interfere in the supposedly independent justice system.

They also share the same cast of characters.

Katie Telford, Michael Wernick, Scott Brison and of course Trudeau himself.

Telford is Trudeau’s chief of staff who famously said, “We don’t want to debate legalities any more.”

That is what Telford told Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff after hearing another explanation on why SNC-Lavalin would not be getting the sweetheart deal to avoid prosecution.

Translation: forget what the law says, do what the PM wants.

Telford was also there when Norman was suspended prior to trial, getting a special briefing for political staffers including the now departed Gerry Butts.

<snip>

Given how Norman describes the situation it is likely Telford, a civilian and political staffer, knew more about the allegation against Canada’s second highest ranking military officer than Norman himself did.

The whole Norman affair started after then-Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick effectively kickstarted the investigation.

After Trudeau became concerned about the leak regarding the shipbuilding contract, Wernick wrote a 60-page memo for Trudeau detailing the situation and why he thought Norman was to blame.

When the RCMP was asked to investigate the request came from Wernick.

<snip>


----------



## observor 69

Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance and Vice-Admiral Mark Norman met this week to discuss the return of the senior naval officer as second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Although Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said Vice-Adm. Norman would not be getting his old job back as vice-chief of the defence staff, a source said the discussions between General Vance and Vice-Adm. Norman focused on when he could return to the No. 2 post.

The source, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about what transpired between the two senior military officers, said the issue is about timing and ensuring his reinstatement is done responsibly.

A source said Gen. Vance made the decision to bring Vice-Adm. Norman back on his own and that an immediate announcement is unlikely because a role has to be found for Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk, who was named Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in July, 2018.

The meeting took place on Monday, and one source described it as a warm conversation between two old friends.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/technology/science/article-first-satellites-for-elon-musks-starlink-internet-venture-launched/

What happened, had an attack of common sense in Ottawa?  Sounds like the right thing to do, almost to good to be true.


----------



## Haggis

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> A source said Gen. Vance made the decision to bring Vice-Adm. Norman back on his own...



The article makes it seem that the CDS did something magnanimous, when, in fact he didn't.  As I stated above, the CDS has no choice but to reinstate him as per QR&O 19.75 (5) and/or QR&O 101.09(4), which both read: "the authority who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty *shall order that the member return to duty *when the circumstances giving rise to the decision to relieve the member from the performance of military duty are no longer present.".


----------



## Halifax Tar

*Senate votes to hear testimony from Vice-Admiral Mark Norman*

A second attempt to hold parliamentary hearings on the collapse of the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was successful late Tuesday, as a handful of Independent senators voted in favour of a Conservative motion to hear him testify.

The motion, put before the Senate defence committee, calls on it "to examine and report on the circumstances that led the RCMP to lay now stayed criminal charges" against Norman, the military's former second-in-command.

The committee now looks to see the former vice chief of the defence staff, his boss Gen. Jonathan Vance and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan called to testify before June 20, when Parliament is widely expected to rise for the final time before the fall election.

The committee will have to meet again to decide when that testimony will be heard.

More at link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-mark-norman-parliamentary-hearings-murray-brewster-1.5153487


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sept-Oct would be nice....


----------



## kratz

VAdm Norman is on the guest list for next week's RCN Change of Command parade.


----------



## dapaterson

kratz said:
			
		

> VAdm Norman is on the guest list for next week's RCN Change of Command parade.



Incoming Kraken?


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Incoming Kraken?



Nope, Art McDonald is CRCN.


----------



## kratz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Incoming Kraken?



I was inaccurate WRT VADM Norman. He'll attend a secondary event after the COC this week. 
So no, there's no speculation of him as a drowned Kraken.    ;D

From what I see, it'll be the best coast as the next Kraken vs the sandy bottom.


----------



## FSTO

You’re mistaken sir. Best Coast and Sandy Bottom are the same locations. 😊


----------



## kratz

FSTO said:
			
		

> You’re mistaken sir. Best Coast and Sandy Bottom are the same locations. 😊



I'l disagree, but allow you have own thoughts on the topic.  :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat

The following story is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to retire from the military
JANICE DICKSON
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED JUNE 26, 2019
UPDATED 3 MINUTES AGO
 0 COMMENTS
Vice-Admiral Mark Norman says he will retire from the Canadian Armed Forces.

A joint statement from Vice-Adm. Norman and the Department of National Defence says lawyers for both the Canadian government and the military officer have concluded conversations that have resulted in a mutually accepted agreement, and that the senior naval officer has decided not to return to his former post.

“Vice-Admiral Norman remains committed to the Navy, the Canadian Armed Forces and their mission. However, after consulting with his family, his chain of command, and his counsel, Vice-Adm. Norman has decided to retire from the Canadian Armed Forces,” says the statement issued from the department.

“Both parties believe that this resolution will return focus to the critical work of the Canadian Forces, which is the protection of all Canadians.”

The federal government thanked Vice-Adm. Norman for his 38 years of service.

The decision comes over one month after a grueling legal battle ended for Vice-Adm. Norman.

Vice-Adm. Norman was suspended as the military’s second-in-command on Jan. 16, 2017, and charged last year with a single count of breach of trust. That charge was later dropped. The Crown prosecutor said new information provided by his defence team prompted the decision in early May to stay the charge. Federal prosecutor Barbara Mercier told court in May that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction.

The Globe and Mail has reported that the Prime Minister was frustrated and angry that a cabinet decision to delay a navy supply ship contract had been leaked to a CBC reporter in late 2015. Sources said that triggered the Privy Council Office to call in the Mounties, which eventually led to the charge against Vice-Adm. Norman.


----------



## observor 69

A joint statement from Vice-Adm. Norman and the Department of National Defence says lawyers for both the Canadian government and the military officer have concluded conversations that have resulted in a mutually accepted agreement, and that the senior naval officer has decided not to return to his former post.

I can only hope that his lawyer was able to get a reasonable amount of true justice for the Vice-Adm.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> A joint statement from Vice-Adm. Norman and the Department of National Defence ….


Here it is straight from the info-machine ...


> With the assistance of the Honourable Warren Winkler, former Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, counsel for both the Government of Canada and VAdm Mark Norman have concluded discussions, held in good faith, which have resulted in a mutually acceptable agreement, the details of which will remain confidential.
> 
> Vice Admiral Norman remains committed to the Navy, the Canadian Armed Forces and their mission. However, after consulting with his family, his chain of command, and his counsel, VAdm Norman has decided to retire from the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Both parties believe that this resolution will return focus to the critical work of the Canadian Forces, which is the protection of all Canadians.
> 
> The Government of Canada thanks VAdm Norman for his 38 years of dedicated service, and wishes him well in all of his future endeavours.


Stand by for thread merge ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

His deck will be cleared for action if he wishes to enter politics and run in October.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Colin P said:
			
		

> His deck will be cleared for action if he wishes to enter politics and run in October.


I wonder if part of his secret "_mutually accepted agreement_" included not running for political office. 

Either way looks like the real bad guys get off the hook.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It's over and done, without so much as a whimper. The story is finished.
Move along. Nothing to see here. Speculation is futile.
 :rofl:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First of all, I have had the pleasure of meeting justice Winkler and therefore, fully trust that his mediation is quite certain to have resulted in a fair deal for all parties. I don't think that would include an agreement to "not enter" politics, as such agreement would be unconstitutional and in any event, beyond the purview of such agreements.

As for Mark: If you are reading through these fora, I say to tou:"Fair winds and a following sea", or as they say in Newfoundland: "May your big gib draw".


----------



## FJAG

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> A joint statement from Vice-Adm. Norman and the Department of National Defence says lawyers for both the Canadian government and the military officer have concluded conversations that have resulted in a mutually accepted agreement, and that the senior naval officer has decided not to return to his former post.
> 
> I can only hope that his lawyer was able to get a reasonable amount of true justice for the Vice-Adm.



I wonder if he got as much as Khadr?


----------



## ballz

The settlement money was spent out of public money, approved through some mechanism that is authorized by legislation and by someone, under that legislation, with authority to do so, either at TB or the MND (if he had authority). The other details of the sentence aside, I'm curious to know how an amount like this would not be public info if an ATI were submitted.


----------



## FJAG

ballz said:
			
		

> The settlement money was spent out of public money, approved through some mechanism that is authorized by legislation and by someone, under that legislation, with authority to do so, either at TB or the MND (if he had authority). The other details of the sentence aside, I'm curious to know how an amount like this would not be public info if an ATI were submitted.



Cabinet confidence!


----------



## ballz

FJAG said:
			
		

> Cabinet confidence!



Could that actually be possible? Seems like beyond a slippery slope to me that Cabinet could just simply declare any expense they want as a secret.


----------



## dapaterson

My understanding is that Justice holds funding for the GoC to settle such actions; gross amounts paid annually are presumably reported through annual reports to government, but the breakdown of $50 to Norman, $125 000 to FJAG etc would not be provided.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My understanding is that Justice holds funding for the GoC to settle such actions; gross amounts paid annually are presumably reported through annual reports to government, but the breakdown of $50 to Norman, $125 000 to FJAG etc would not be provided.



Listening to Tim Powers on Power and Politics, he says this will be on the public accounts as a discretionary expense somewhere... and that a savvy person can probably drill it down to see the changes in the books. He's not wrong, the government uses accrual accounting and so as soon as this agreement is made, it goes on the books immediately as an expense and an accounts payable. So a review of the public accounts for 26 Jul, for example, might show a "discretionary expense" and corresponding accounts payable for $X,000,000. 

Of course, that's if it doesn't get out before then... he was surprised the secret has lasted three hours already.

So sure, maybe an ATI for "How much was VAdm Norman's settlement" might be somehow protected but reviewing the books, you will see it there on the ledger somewhere, even as a vaguely labelled expense.


----------



## dapaterson

A quick google found a 2015 story about 2014-15's $575M in settlements.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/lawsuit-settlements-cost-federal-government-more-than-575m-in-2015


----------



## dapaterson

Found it.  Volume III of the Public Accounts.  For 2017-18:

Claims against the Crown:
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2018/vol3/s8/prce-pcac-eng.html

Ex Gratia payments:
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2018/vol3/s8/ptg-egp-eng.html

Court Awards:
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2018/vol3/s8/mapuc-ca-eng.html


----------



## ballz

Right, so if that's published every year then it should be pretty easy to pinpoint.... start there the "name withheld" amounts under DND and then hit the ledgers to find the dates they were paid, and then decide which one makes sense with the amount and date. His legal bills were going to be paid, so it's not like they could leverage financial hardship to buy his silence... I'd be shocked if it was below 7 figures.


----------



## observor 69

Just rumbling through Google and on civy street "compensation for wrongful dismissal" can often be one years salary. Not sure how applicable that would be to this situation? What's a Vice Admiral's annual salary..... $125000 range?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think that is fairly low for the VCDS.


----------



## dapaterson

Current VAdm / LGen pay scale, monthly rates.

Lieutenant-General
20683	21244	21833	22392
(TB, 30 May 2019, effective 1 April 2018)

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/officers.html#lieutenantgeneral


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two thinner bands, three leafs pay around $250,000:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/officers.html#lieutenantgeneral












Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Blackadder1916

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> . . . What's a Vice Admiral's annual salary..... $125000 range?



That's what LCols make.  For a three star - double the above amount and add 18 grand.  And even then he's making less than some Medical Officer Majors.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> . . .  or as they say in Newfoundland: "May your big gib draw".



You know, I've never said that even once, but if I had to in order to prove I was a Newf, I'd use "jib" correctly.


----------



## FJAG

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Just rumbling through Google and on civy street "compensation for wrongful dismissal" can often be one years salary. Not sure how applicable that would be to this situation? What's a Vice Admiral's annual salary..... $125000 range?



The calculation is much more complicated than that and depends very much on the terms of the contract of employment, length of service, opportunity to find a replacement income and other factors. The more senior the employee the more complex the calculation.

If there is any general rule of thumb it's one month of salary and benefits for every year of service which would equate to roughly three years compensation for him but I'm not sure how close he was to CRA as that would be a limiting factor.

Don't forget that there is also a the fact that he was treated shabbily, put through extreme mental pressure and his reputation dragged through the dirt. That would up the settlement significantly.

 :cheers:


----------



## garb811

For those that are curious as to the Gofundme which was accepting donations as of yesterday:

Admiral Mark Norman Legal Defence


> Good day everyone. By now you may have seen in the news that VAdm Norman will be retiring from the Canadian Forces and has reached a settlement with the government. I will be discussing mechanisms by which the money received can be returned (or potentially donated to charity) depending on the ability of GOFUNDME to support such an approach and the wishes of the contributors. I will get back to everyone once I have more information. Standby for more updates. Lee


----------



## ballz

FJAG said:
			
		

> The calculation is much more complicated than that and depends very much on the terms of the contract of employment, length of service, opportunity to find a replacement income and other factors. The more senior the employee the more complex the calculation.
> 
> If there is any general rule of thumb it's one month of salary and benefits for every year of service which would equate to roughly three years compensation for him but I'm not sure how close he was to CRA as that would be a limiting factor.
> 
> Don't forget that there is also a the fact that he was treated shabbily, put through extreme mental pressure and his reputation dragged through the dirt. That would up the settlement significantly.
> 
> :cheers:



Indeed. This was far more than a "wrongful dismissal" scenario..... the guy's pension alone is worth ~$135,000+ a year for the rest of his life, plus he's got a hell of an axe he must be dying to grind... buying him out on this did not come cheap.


----------



## Cloud Cover

FJAG said:
			
		

> The calculation is much more complicated than that and depends very much on the terms of the contract of employment, length of service, opportunity to find a replacement income and other factors. The more senior the employee the more complex the calculation.
> 
> If there is any general rule of thumb it's one month of salary and benefits for every year of service which would equate to roughly three years compensation for him but I'm not sure how close he was to CRA as that would be a limiting factor.
> 
> Don't forget that there is also a the fact that he was treated shabbily, put through extreme mental pressure and his reputation dragged through the dirt. That would up the settlement significantly.
> 
> :cheers:



He would get _Wallace_ damages, probably even some small recognition on a punitive scale. If he's getting more than 3-4 million, to me that's also an affront to justice- it's treating rich people different than other people who would not have been able to afford the quality of lawyer that he had. Let's be clear, this is the same Admiral for which it can be said Karma is a bicth, and for full disclosure I also supported his case financially, more out of spite against Trudeau than anything else.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> You know, I've never said that even once, but if I had to in order to prove I was a Newf, I'd use "jib" correctly.



 :facepalm:


----------



## Remius

"What's a jib?"  Homer Simpson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZB7xEonjsc


----------



## MilEME09

One final casualty, Current VCDS has resigned citing the reversal of a choice to have mark Noman replace him.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5477661/paul-wynnyk-resigns-mark-norman/?utm_source=GlobalCalgary&utm_medium=Facebook


----------



## OldTanker

I guess his planned retirement date of 2019 worked out after all. Too bad he had to be screwed around like this though. I worked for him a long time ago and found him (Paul Wynnyk) to be a fair, competent and very knowledgable officer. I wish him all the best in his retirement.


----------



## Cloud Cover

If the CDS isn't a chain smoker and frequent consumer of very hard liquor with lunch, he soon will be.


----------



## garb811

The letter is out on Twitter, probably a few other places as well. It was an...interesting...read.

@MercedesGlobal


----------



## ballz

I actually don't see the news here... if anything, it makes the government and CDS look good as it shows they actually were going to reinstate VAdm Norman as VCDS.

Gen Wynnk, of course, probably accepted that decision as a professional, realizing that yes, it was in the best interest of the CAF (well... no... it was in the best interest of the government... but as was pointed out, Generals serve at the pleasure of Cabinet) and that he was unfortunately the spare prick at the wedding. Given he wanted to / was ready to release anyway and live with his family again after 7? years of being on IR... he made his plans and probably wasn't too upset about it. He was probably pretty happy to be getting on with it in all seriousness.

The CAF with its on-the-bus off-the-bus modus operandi, I probably would have made the same decision after being told "oh no wait, situation change... can you stay?" His family was already set on him coming home, he's served his 35+ years, he's already got subsequent employment lined up that he's looking forward to, etc. Seems like a logical choice to me...


----------



## The Bread Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> One final casualty, Current VCDS has resigned citing the reversal of a choice to have mark Noman replace him.
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5477661/paul-wynnyk-resigns-mark-norman/?utm_source=GlobalCalgary&utm_medium=Facebook


And the info-machine version ...


> Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, announced his retirement today after more than 38 years of loyal and dedicated service to Canada. Lt.-Gen. Wynnyk’s retirement will be effective as of 9 August, 2019. The selection of his successor in the critical position as the second in command of the CAF will be announced in the near future.


----------



## PuckChaser

No, the last casualty will be Vance. He'll get the boot post Election 2019 if a new party is elected. He might stay on if the Liberals win again, simply because he's been an apt shield for an underwhelming Defense Minister to deflect away any problems.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Wynnyk writes Vance advised him that his “continued service as the VCDS [vice-chief of defence staff] was * no longer in the best interests of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)*



Best interest of the CAF or Liberal government?


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Best interest of the CAF or Liberal government?


For what it’s worth could he be fed up with the continued bullshyte coming from the GoC?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Can't imagine 7 years of IR to Ottawa from Edmonton; what a grind!  18 months of IR to a high OP tempo unit was enough for me, but would have gone barmy if I was working a desk job.

I think after 38 years of service, you really deserve better than that kind of on again/off again job security (especially when you've hit the pension ceiling) so wish him a productive and enjoyable retirement.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Treated a bit more graciously by the Army info-machine via FB ...


----------



## Jarnhamar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Treated a bit more graciously by the Army info-machine via FB ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I wish nothing but the best for the General in his upcoming retirement.



As do I.  I didn't think he letter was overly amiable, actually.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Discussion specific to IR and its vagaries is now here - enjoy.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## observor 69

A little more info and context for the resignation:

OTTAWA — Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk may be at the epicentre of the latest controversy to convulse the Canadian Armed Forces, but Canada’s second-highest ranking officer looked relaxed and was in good humour Wednesday when he reached out to emphatically deny that his resignation a day earlier had anything to do with his relationship with the country’s top soldier.

“I categorically would like to say that that is not the case,” the military’s second-in-command said during an interview at his office, before launching into a robust defence of his boss.

“The chief seems to be a target. It is not only unfair to him. It damages the institution,” Wynnyk said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5482436/paul-wynnyk-jonathan-vance-defends-resignation/


----------



## dapaterson

Chief of the Defence Staff announces Canadian Armed Forces General and Flag Officer senior appointments, promotions, and retirements
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/07/chief-of-the-defence-staff-announces-canadian-armed-forces-general-and-flag-officer-senior-appointments-promotions-and-retirements.html


Lieutenant-General P.F. Wynnyk, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, will retire from service resulting in the following promotions and appointments:

Lieutenant-General J.M. Lanthier will be appointed Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, replacing Lieutenant-General P.F. Wynnyk.

Lieutenant-General W.D. Eyre will be appointed Commander Canadian Army, replacing Lieutenant-General J.M. Lanthier.

Rear-Admiral H.C. Edmundson will be promoted to the rank of Vice-Admiral and will be appointed Commander Military Personnel Command, replacing Lieutenant-General W.D. Eyre.

Major-General S.J.R. Whelan will be appointed Deputy Commander Military Personnel Command, replacing Rear-Admiral H.C. Edmundson.

Brigadier-General J.R.M. Gagne will be promoted to Major-General and will be appointed Chief Military Personnel Strategic Programs, replacing Major-General S.J.R. Whelan.

Colonel F.G. Carpentier will be promoted acting while so employed to the rank of Brigadier-General and appointed as Commander 2 Canadian Division and Joint Task Force (East), in Montreal QC, replacing Brigadier-General M.A.J. Carignan.


----------



## FSTO

Reviving an old topic.

And in other news, the sun will rise in the east in the morning!

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/07/22/information-czar-finds-numerous-shortcomings-at-national-defence-2/#.XxkN4fhKjjB

OTTAWA — Information commissioner Caroline Maynard says she uncovered "evidence of the possible commission of an offence" related to the processing of an Access to Information request related to now-retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

In a report presented Wednesday to Parliament, Maynard said she passed the finding to Attorney General David Lametti in February of last year, since she does not have the authority to investigate such offences.

In turn, Lametti's office handed the file to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, given the concern related to the possible investigation and prosecution of an offence under federal legislation.

The prosecution service said Wednesday it brought the matter to the attention of the RCMP.

"We understand that the investigation was referred by them to the Ontario Provincial Police to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest," said Nathalie Houle, a spokeswoman for the prosecution service.

In addition, also to avoid the appearance of a conflict, federal prosecutors asked the Alberta Prosecution Service to provide any required prosecution-related advice, Houle said.

Norman, a vice-admiral who served as the military's second-in-command, was charged with breach of trust in 2018 following a two-year criminal investigation into the alleged disclosure of classified government information. Fresh evidence led to the charge being stayed last year.

Serious allegations made during pre-trial hearings for Norman helped spark Maynard's decision to conduct a systemic probe of how National Defence handles Access to Information requests.

The evidence concerning a possible offence related to a request about Norman surfaced during the systemic examination, Maynard said.

She also identified several general shortcomings — from inadequate training to cumbersome paper-based processes — that hamper National Defence's ability to answer formal requests from the public.

Overall, she found Defence did not meet its obligations under the Access to Information Act because of dated or inefficient practices.

The access law allows people who pay $5 to request an array of federal files but it has been widely criticized as outdated, clumsy and often poorly administered.

Maynard says Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and his deputy minister are now aware of some of the tools and practices needed to support and deliver on their responsibilities.

She says these leaders should champion a new approach and adopt the recommended methods to make necessary changes, saying Canadians expect as much.

Maynard says her probe also shows that all federal institutions must follow sound information-management practices and make smart use of technology to meet their responsibilities under the access law.

"As the government begins to recover from the impact on operations of the pandemic, and looks to how it will work in the future, my findings should have added relevance to institutions across government."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 22, 2020.

Jim Bronskill , The Canadian Press


----------



## Kirkhill

Hot Potato or Pass the Parcel? What's your game of choice?  Seems it's getting hard to find objective reviewers  in Ottawa.


----------



## FJAG

A new article today that I can't repost here states that the RCMP who received the request to investigate the possible ATIA breaches last in March 2019 and who determined that they would be in a conflict of interest and would refer the matter to the OPP did in fact not do so until this last Sunday due to administrative errors and changes in senior staff.

Sounds like it's time for a certain commissioner to fall on her sword.

Watch and shoot!

 :facepalm:


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:
			
		

> A new article today that I can't repost here states that the RCMP who received the request to investigate the possible ATIA breaches last in March 2019 and who determined that they would be in a conflict of interest and would refer the matter to the OPP did in fact not do so until this last Sunday due to administrative errors and changes in senior staff.
> 
> Sounds like it's time for a certain commissioner to fall on her sword.
> 
> Watch and shoot!
> 
> :facepalm:



Our National Police Force seems to be more interested in covering the errors of the whole of government than working in the best interests and confidence of the public at large.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:
			
		

> Our National Police Force seems to be more interested in covering the errors of the whole of government than working in the best interests and confidence of the public at large.



Sad because they could be such a force of good.  Instead, they are just an organization of shills.  #provemewrong

There is a stank in the Officer Corps of the RCMP. They would do well to remember they serve the people of Canada.


----------



## CBH99

The rank and file do a great job, it's the senior leadership that is lacking.

Unfortunately, I think it's just the way senior agency leaders have to behave in the context of Ottawa politics.  Nobody seems to do what seems simple & straightforwards to the rest of us.  I imagine political pressure & unofficial influence plays a far greater role than we realize.

CDS Vance is a very common sense, straightforwards guy.  What he says to the public (and us) is what he has to say as the face of the department.  I highly doubt he's in agreement with all of the GoC and their military-related decisions.



I've wondered if perhaps some of the 'errors' and 'tartiness' on behalf of certain people involved in the VAdm Norman case wasn't quite intentional, in the hopes it would actually help his case in regards to legal technicalities.  

"Oh, did we refer to someone by a code name as to keep their real name out of documents that could be used to incriminate him?  Gee, shucks, sorry about that..."


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:
			
		

> The rank and file do a great job, it's the senior leadership that is lacking.



And I agree. The ordinary constable on patrol isn't the issue, its the senior management in Ottawa. I say "management" because from what I've seen the high ranking RCMP officers don't lead.


----------



## CBH99

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> And I agree. The ordinary constable on patrol isn't the issue, its the senior management in Ottawa. I say "management" because from what I've seen the high ranking RCMP officers don't lead.




Extremely true, and well said.  I should have used the work management instead of leadership, as you are 100% correct.

What surprised me most in my transition from the military to law enforcement was how - at the very top - it truly is management.  Here at the Alberta Solicitor General, the various police services that we communicate with weekly, etc.  It truly is management, not leadership.

The leadership, I've noticed anyway, seems to be from Staff Sgt & down.  From the station chiefs, to their subordinates.  Etc.


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Extremely true, and well said.  I should have used the work management instead of leadership, as you are 100% correct.
> 
> What surprised me most in my transition from the military to law enforcement was how - at the very top - it truly is management.  Here at the Alberta Solicitor General, the various police services that we communicate with weekly, etc.  It truly is management, not leadership.
> 
> The leadership, I've noticed anyway, seems to be from Staff Sgt & down.  From the station chiefs, to their subordinates.  Etc.


And the same goes for the jail I work at. Leadership is the Senior Unit Officer and the Unit Manager but not in all cases. Some are in fact quite useless.


----------



## McG

This is back in court, but now it is a public servant who is charged.






						Federal public servant pleads not guilty as shipbuilding trial begins |  National Newswatch
					

National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views. Make it a daily habit.




					www.nationalnewswatch.com


----------



## Underway

I saw VAdm (Ret'd) Norman at CANSEC.  Had to do a double-take as I was a little surprised to see him there.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> I saw VAdm (Ret'd) Norman at CANSEC.  Had to do a double-take as I was a little surprised to see him there.


Same.  He was looking as buoyant as always. 

Other than the expected non-disclosure elements, his settlement was probably not very restrictive (appropriately).


----------



## FSTO

McG said:


> This is back in court, but now it is a public servant who is charged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal public servant pleads not guilty as shipbuilding trial begins |  National Newswatch
> 
> 
> National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views. Make it a daily habit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalnewswatch.com


I predict another high cost non-disclosure agreement. JFC, this was a simple contract to provide a strategic interim capability until the JSS's came online. But our partisan idjits in the PMO just had to have a win to stick it to the previous government and once again our treasury takes a hit and proper support to the RCN is delayed again.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:


> I predict another high cost non-disclosure agreement. JFC, this was a simple contract to provide a strategic interim capability until the JSS's came online. But our partisan idjits in the PMO just had to have a win to stick it to the previous government and once again our treasury takes a hit and proper support to the RCN is delayed again.


Looks like it's been withdrawn: Crown drops breach of trust case against bureaucrat over $700M shipbuilding deal leak  | Globalnews.ca


----------



## dapaterson

Now, will the Crown make him whole for legal fees?


----------



## OldSolduer

Edward Campbell said:


> Looks like it's been withdrawn: Crown drops breach of trust case against bureaucrat over $700M shipbuilding deal leak  | Globalnews.ca


I'm not normally vindictive but I certainly hope this gentleman receives a generous payout and sticks it to this government.


----------



## FSTO

What a total waste of time, money, reputation, and trust that the government has the best interests of the nation in mind. Finally, someone with power within Crown Prosecutions got their heads out of their asses and decided the itch was not worth the scratch.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> Now, will the Crown make him whole for legal fees?


I have a relative who was improperly charged and spent a month in custody. His charges were dropped and he was released without even an apology. Equal treatment for all should be the norm.


----------



## brihard

“The Crown’s case fell apart after its prime witness, longtime lobbyist Brian Mersereau, testified that he could not remember if Matchett had provided him with a secret memo to cabinet.”

Appears to be one of those fun instances where a witness says something in the course of interviews and investigation, and then something different once they’re on the stand. It would be prudent to look at the collapse of the Norman and Matchett prosecutions as distinct from each other, with different events underlying.


----------



## FSTO

brihard said:


> “The Crown’s case fell apart after its prime witness, longtime lobbyist Brian Mersereau, testified that he could not remember if Matchett had provided him with a secret memo to cabinet.”
> 
> Appears to be one of those fun instances where a witness says something in the course of interviews and investigation, and then something different once they’re on the stand. It would be prudent to look at the collapse of the Norman and Matchett prosecutions as distinct from each other, with different events underlying.


It just seems that the whole sorry affair was based on pretty thin evidence right from the start. Then the way it was handled by the Crown lawyers, PMO, and the Executive suite at 101 would make even Groucho Marx gasp at the ineptitude.


----------



## KevinB

FSTO said:


> It just seems that the whole sorry affair was based on pretty thin evidence right from the start. Then the way it was handled by the Crown lawyers, PMO, and the Executive suite at 101 would make even Groucho Marx gasp at the ineptitude.


I am no longer current with how much a Crown can be influenced politically - here as DA's are elected, you can usually be sure that they don't care what someone says to them, but what is good for re-election with the public...

It seems to be a rather ridiculous fishing expedition from the outside looking up at y'all


----------



## FSTO

KevinB said:


> I am no longer current with how much a Crown can be influenced politically - here as DA's are elected, you can usually be sure that they don't care what someone says to them, but what is good for re-election with the public...
> 
> It seems to be a rather ridiculous fishing expedition from the outside looking up at y'all


Well we had a justice minister who was fired because she wouldn't listen to the direction from the PMO. So there's that.

My initial stance when this first blew up was that the Liberals were flushed with victory, wanted to stick it to everything the Harperites did, and Brisson was in the back pocket of Irvings. When their dumb ass decision came to light (I thank the person who did the right thing) I really think that Trudeau had a hissy fit that some Public Servant (whom he thought he had in his back pocket) betrayed him. So the PMO was out for blood and figured Norman was an easy target. He was involved in the original contract with Davie, he was high rank, would be able to retire quietly with a hefty pension to boot, and the PMO's desire for revenge would be sated. Much to their surprise the Admiral said F you, my reputation is rather important to me, and I'm going to hire a lawyer that'll make your clowns look like articling students fresh out of Brandon University Law School. The rest is history and a couple of folks walked away with an enhanced bank account and a PMO with egg on their face (which they quickly wiped away because they are Liberals and nothing sticks to them). In the end nobody but a few in the RCN really gives a shit.


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> Brandon University Law School


Just to clarify, Brandon University has no faculty of law and if it did, why would you assume it would be low rate?

Asking for my friends in Brandon.

😁


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:


> Just to clarify, Brandon University has no faculty of law and if it did, why would you assume it would be low rate?
> 
> Asking for my friends in Brandon.
> 
> 😁


Being a graduate of the "Number 1 University in Western Manitoba" I can toss shade at that illustrious institution. They let me graduate! LOL!
But that was my point, Henin so ran rings around the Crown attorneys that they did seem that they had no idea what they were doing.

I also said Brandon because I knew you'd have a chuckle.


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> Being a graduate of the "Number 1 University in Western Manitoba" I can toss shade at that illustrious institution. They let me graduate! LOL!
> But that was my point, Henin so rang rings around the Crown attorneys that they did seem that they had no idea what they were doing.
> 
> I also said Brandon because I knew you'd have a chuckle.


😁 I only went there for some pre-law extension courses (Politics and Propaganda in the Cinema with Skinner) but did my law at UofM.

BU did have a really good basketball team there in the mid Eighties when I got there and Jerry Hemmings was coaching. That was my regular form of live sports entertainment during the winter months.

🍻


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:


> 😁 I only went there for some pre-law extension courses (Politics and Propaganda in the Cinema with Skinner) but did my law at UofM.
> 
> BU did have a really good basketball team there in the mid Eighties when I got there and Jerry Hemmings was coaching. That was my regular form of live sports entertainment during the winter months.
> 
> 🍻


I was there from 85 to 88. Yep we had quite a bunch of ringers from the Carolina's that Hemmings brought up. I spent most of my time chasing skirts in the English department, talking history with the profs, and chasing more skirts at the Unwinder. Good times!


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> I was there from 85 to 88. Yep we had quite a bunch of ringers from the Carolina's that Hemmings brought up. I spent most of my time chasing skirts in the English department, talking history with the profs, and chasing more skirts at the Unwinder. Good times!


Made me think of my first Bobcat game and seeing Joey Vickery on the court. Said to myself, what's a 5'10" white kid from Winnipeg doing playing point guard? Then I watched him sink eight three-pointers. 

Anyway. To get back to the trial. The problem is that crown attorneys are generally your middle of the road folks with a few stars and a large bunch of time-clock-punchers. Defence attorneys on the other hand are more stratified into those that go at it with high skill and a passion and earn the big bucks and a herd of guys who chase around remand courts doing the scutt work that keeps the system moving. High profile case like these bring out the defence stars and it shows.

🍻


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:


> Made me think of my first Bobcat game and seeing Joey Vickery on the court. Said to myself, what's a 5'10" white kid from Winnipeg doing playing point guard? Then I watched him sink eight three-pointers.
> 
> Anyway. To get back to the trial. The problem is that crown attorneys are generally your middle of the road folks with a few stars and a large bunch of time-clock-punchers. Defence attorneys on the other hand are more stratified into those that go at it with high skill and a passion and earn the big bucks and a herd of guys who chase around remand courts doing the scutt work that keeps the system moving. High profile case like these bring out the defence stars and it shows.
> 
> 🍻


Makes sense.
So in your learned opinion, did the crown really have a case against the Admiral from the evidence that was released to the public? And when did you think they should have just dropped it or should of Henin forced it to go to court to really embarrass the crown?


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> Well we had a justice minister who was fired because she wouldn't listen to the direction from the PMO. So there's that.
> 
> My initial stance when this first blew up was that the Liberals were flushed with victory, wanted to stick it to everything the Harperites did, and Brisson was in the back pocket of Irvings. When their dumb ass decision came to light (I thank the person who did the right thing) I really think that Trudeau had a hissy fit that some Public Servant (whom he thought he had in his back pocket) betrayed him. So the PMO was out for blood and figured Norman was an easy target. He was involved in the original contract with Davie, he was high rank, would be able to retire quietly with a hefty pension to boot, and the PMO's desire for revenge would be sated. Much to their surprise the Admiral said F you, my reputation is rather important to me, and I'm going to hire a lawyer that'll make your clowns look like articling students fresh out of Brandon University Law School. The rest is history and a couple of folks walked away with an enhanced bank account and a PMO with egg on their face (which they quickly wiped away because they are Liberals and nothing sticks to them). In the end nobody but a few in the RCN really gives a shit.



Absolutely.  Partisan politics to the T.  

It would be nice to see some red and blue folks reach across the aile find some common ground to grow on.


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> Makes sense.
> So in your learned opinion, did the crown really have a case against the Admiral from the evidence that was released to the public? And when did you think they should have just dropped it or should of Henin forced it to go to court to really embarrass the crown?


Not a clue. Based on the evidence given yesterday (as reported) I said to myself "why was this guy a prosecution witness?" he didn't implicate anyone and it didn't strike me that he was laying a base for evidence to come. But you never know with newspaper articles. They frequently do not see the subtleties of the evidence.

That said though, based on today's actions, it seems that the crown was expecting more from Mersereau than he gave. I would have liked to have been in the court to see the crown's facial expressions as the evidence came out. 

My guess, and only a guess, is that he may have changed the slant of his evidence from that given during the investigation or the crown was expecting (hoping) that he'd spill more once under oath. There did seem to be some email messages between them that, while not conclusive, were suggestive.

Usually with a crown's standard of proceeding when there is a "substantial likelihood of conviction", you'd expect that the evidence would be nailed down more positively than this one was. I would be reluctant to say that there was direct PMO pressure but there very well could have been a self-imposed pressure to move on with a weak case especially after Norman's collapsed.

🍻


----------



## brihard

FSTO said:


> And when did you think they should have just dropped it or should of Henin forced it to go to court to really embarrass the crown?


Just for a bit of insight, Crown can pretty much always withdraw charges or stay the proceedings if they choose. If that’s done there really isn’t a way for defense to force the matter to continue through airing of the charges.

An individual who is charged and later has matters end without a conviction can of course sue if they want. Doesn’t mean they’ll win or necessarily that the matter will see to a trial. Usual in civil proceedings, the respondent (which would be crown in such a case) can prevent the matter going to trial in court with facts laid bare, so long as they’re willing to agree to a reasonable settlement.

Whether criminal or civil, if the crown ultimately decides it no longer wants to fight the matter in court, it can be very hard to impossible to force the spectacle of a public trial.

Usually when a matter is already in trial and then criminal charges are stayed, that indicates that there is some material change that causes crown to assess that there is no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction. It could be the introduction of new evidence by defence that introduces reasonable doubt. It can be a key witness completely shitting the bed and collapsing crown’s case. There could be a Charter application that results in some key piece of evidence being excluded from consideration.

Trial is about the crown’s ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused Did The Thing. My experience has almost always been that it’s going to be something that defeats a key piece of evidence, or the value of a key witness collapsing, without which the case cannot be proven. Seldom is it new evidence that actually changes the understanding of the facts to one where the accused is actually likely to be factually innocent of the thing they’re accused of. It does happen but it’s rare.

Criminal law is extremely procedural, and with good reason- any of us could be accused of an offence, and that due process protects us. But it can mean a prosecution falls apart at potentially any point. It sucks when that happens.


----------



## suffolkowner

brihard said:


> Lest this post get overlooked, I wanted to reinforce the important of what suffolkowner added here. These five things, each individually, are the 'essential elements' of the offense of Breach of Trust by a public officer. He quoted them directly from R. v. Boulanger, a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada case that outlines exactly what the offense of 'breach of trust' is.
> 
> In criminal law, the 'essential elements' of an offense are the things that must all be individually proven for a conviction to be found. This post has as succinctly as possible offered us a summary of what the crown has to prove- the five boxes it needs to tick in the prosecution.
> 
> I won't be weighing in with an opinion on the case, but I didn't want those less familiar with criminal law to miss the really helpful bit that suffolkowner added here.





suffolkowner said:


> does the crown not have to prove
> The accused is an official; yes
> 
> The accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office; yes
> The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office; maybe
> The conduct of the accused represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and maybe
> The accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. no?



I dont think they ever had the evidence to charge Admiral Norman IMO. These high profile cases just bring to light the ethical workings of the Crown in Canada


Haggis said:


> I have a relative who was improperly charged and spent a month in custody. His charges were dropped and he was released without even an apology. Equal treatment for all should be the norm.


They happen at all levels but unfortunately many people do not have the resources to fight


FJAG said:


> Made me think of my first Bobcat game and seeing Joey Vickery on the court. Said to myself, what's a 5'10" white kid from Winnipeg doing playing point guard? Then I watched him sink eight three-pointers.
> 
> Anyway. To get back to the trial. The problem is that crown attorneys are generally your middle of the road folks with a few stars and a large bunch of time-clock-punchers. Defence attorneys on the other hand are more stratified into those that go at it with high skill and a passion and earn the big bucks and a herd of guys who chase around remand courts doing the scutt work that keeps the system moving. High profile case like these bring out the defence stars and it shows.
> 
> 🍻


Yes it appears that crown attorneys often work under the same conditions/assumptions that public defenders do in an American legal drama

I guess I am just naive to expect better

With respect to the idea of political interference, I'm just not sure the Crown seems capable of screwing these things up all by themselves. Is there a paper trail? Was there one when Duffy was charged?


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> With respect to the idea of political interference, I'm just not sure the Crown seems capable of screwing these things up all by themselves. Is there a paper trail? Was there one when Duffy was charged?


By “paper trail”  do you mean the CBC reporter who did an investigation into the origins of the arrangement, then who stopped being a reporter after becoming a political staff member policy advisor to the Minister of National Defence, but who was never implicated by the very government that hired him as an Exempt PS employee in the service of the Minister?


----------



## FSTO

suffolkowner said:


> With respect to the idea of political interference, I'm just not sure the Crown seems capable of screwing these things up all by themselves. Is there a paper trail? Was there one when Duffy was charged?


Funny how the Duffy affair was in play in the subsequent election (I forget how much) but the Norman affair absolutely disappeared.


----------



## brihard

suffolkowner said:


> Was there one when Duffy was charged?


My understanding the Duffy situation was that it was mostly a matter of the senate’s own rules being so poorly laid out that they proved unenforceable in criminal court.


----------



## suffolkowner

brihard said:


> My understanding the Duffy situation was that it was mostly a matter of the senate’s own rules being so poorly laid out that they proved unenforceable in criminal court.


The way I remember it the judge wrote a treatise on how Nigel Wright was the one that whould have been charged









						Mike Duffy - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




On July 17, 2014 Duffy was charged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with 31 offences.[19] Duffy was acquitted of all charges on April 21, 2016. Ontario Court Justice Charles Vaillancourt ruled: "Mr. Neubauer (the Crown prosecutor) stated that Senator Duffy’s actions were driven by deceit, manipulations and carried out in a clandestine manner representing a serious and marked standard expected of a person in Senator Duffy’s position of trust. I find that if one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and others for Senator Duffy in the aforementioned sentence that you would have a more accurate statement." The judge ruled Duffy had no choice but to list his Prince Edward Island home as his principal residence, as he had been appointed a senator from that province and was constitutionally required to be resident there. Duffy's "free will" had been "overwhelmed" and he had "capitulated" as a result of the PMO's -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office, that is, -- "threatening efforts," the judge said. The Superior Court judge said Duffy had been pressured by senior members of the Prime Minister's staff to admit to improper expense accounts when they were, in fact, legitimate, adding "the real deceit came from Harper's office."[20][21] Robert Fife, now the Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau chief, won an award for his reporting on the so-called "Senate scandal." On the day Sen. Duffy was acquitted, Fife claimed he had been repeatedly misled by the Harper PMO. He went on to declare the scandal was a "manipulative hoax" by Nigel Wright foisted on the Canadian public. "From the beginning when I broke that story on the $90,000. The Prime Minister’s Office every step of the way lied to me, they lied to Canadians. And inch by inch we were able to scale back and find out one lie after another, one lie after another. And then in the summertime when Nigel Wright and the other key lieutenants in the Prime Minister’s Office were put on the stand, we saw just how this manipulative hoax was put on the Canadian public."[22] Duffy immediately resumed his seat in the Senate and sat as an independent until his retirement.


----------



## brihard

suffolkowner said:


> The way I remember it the judge wrote a treatise on how Nigel Wright was the one that whould have been charged
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Duffy - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On July 17, 2014 Duffy was charged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with 31 offences.[19] Duffy was acquitted of all charges on April 21, 2016. Ontario Court Justice Charles Vaillancourt ruled: "Mr. Neubauer (the Crown prosecutor) stated that Senator Duffy’s actions were driven by deceit, manipulations and carried out in a clandestine manner representing a serious and marked standard expected of a person in Senator Duffy’s position of trust. I find that if one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and others for Senator Duffy in the aforementioned sentence that you would have a more accurate statement." The judge ruled Duffy had no choice but to list his Prince Edward Island home as his principal residence, as he had been appointed a senator from that province and was constitutionally required to be resident there. Duffy's "free will" had been "overwhelmed" and he had "capitulated" as a result of the PMO's -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office, that is, -- "threatening efforts," the judge said. The Superior Court judge said Duffy had been pressured by senior members of the Prime Minister's staff to admit to improper expense accounts when they were, in fact, legitimate, adding "the real deceit came from Harper's office."[20][21] Robert Fife, now the Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau chief, won an award for his reporting on the so-called "Senate scandal." On the day Sen. Duffy was acquitted, Fife claimed he had been repeatedly misled by the Harper PMO. He went on to declare the scandal was a "manipulative hoax" by Nigel Wright foisted on the Canadian public. "From the beginning when I broke that story on the $90,000. The Prime Minister’s Office every step of the way lied to me, they lied to Canadians. And inch by inch we were able to scale back and find out one lie after another, one lie after another. And then in the summertime when Nigel Wright and the other key lieutenants in the Prime Minister’s Office were put on the stand, we saw just how this manipulative hoax was put on the Canadian public."[22] Duffy immediately resumed his seat in the Senate and sat as an independent until his retirement.


Your recollection is better than mine. I never looked into that one in any real detail, thanks.

I will say that I don’t envy the investigators who get stuck with these very politically loaded and sensitive files.


----------



## FSTO

brihard said:


> Your recollection is better than mine. I never looked into that one in any real detail, thanks.
> 
> I will say that I don’t envy the investigators who get stuck with these very politically loaded and sensitive files.


I can just imagine getting phone calls from the PMO Chief of Staff and trying very hard not tell said office to GTFO.


----------



## brihard

FSTO said:


> I can just imagine getting phone calls from the PMO Chief of Staff and trying very hard not tell said office to GTFO.


That’s definitely in the realm of the imaginary. That would be utterly hamfisted obstruction, and would be politically self destructive. Any call from anyone to an investigator is gonna be written about in a notebook and likely discussed at an investigative team meeting with minutes taken. That would not stay secret. I was more referring to the absolute media circus after charges are laid and through trial, or the matter otherwise becomes public.


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> That’s definitely in the realm of the imaginary. That would be utterly hamfisted obstruction, and would be politically self destructive. Any call from anyone to an investigator is gonna be written about in a notebook and likely discussed at an investigative team meeting with minutes taken. That would not stay secret. I was more referring to the absolute media circus after charges are laid and through trial, or the matter otherwise becomes public.


Well the PM did try it didn't he? And lost nothing


----------



## FSTO

brihard said:


> That’s definitely in the realm of the imaginary. That would be utterly hamfisted obstruction, and would be politically self destructive. Any call from anyone to an investigator is gonna be written about in a notebook and likely discussed at an investigative team meeting with minutes taken. That would not stay secret. I was more referring to the absolute media circus after charges are laid and through trial, or the matter otherwise becomes public.


Hmmm, you are more than likely right, but then there was the pressure being applied to a former minister of Justice by the Clerk of the Privy Council and the PMO CoS during the SN Lavalin disagreement.
But that could be written off as inter-cabinet shenanigans.

You've likely noticed that I have no love for the "bullies in short pants" who run the PMO. An office that really really needs its wings clipped since its been out of control (IMO) since Trudeau Pere.


----------



## brihard

OldSolduer said:


> Well the PM did try it didn't he? And lost nothing


Not at the level of PMO contacting police. I’m not commenting on the entire situation around JWR and attempts or actions to influence decisions that were here to make.


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> Not at the level of PMO contacting police.


Directly, no.  But Trudeau's statement in the media that he expected the Norman affair to go to trail is an inferred order to "get on with it, lay charges and find him guilty".


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Directly, no.  But Trudeau's statement in the media that he expected the Norman affair to go to trail is an inferred order to "get on with it, lay charges and find him guilty".


March the guilty bastard in CSM!!


----------

