Author Topic: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight  (Read 337511 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 489,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,388
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #800 on: March 28, 2019, 23:16:36 »
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.

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 236,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,797
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #801 on: March 29, 2019, 00:12:28 »
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
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 452,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,899
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #802 on: March 30, 2019, 07:36:35 »
Aaaaaaaaaand for the record, this from the DOJ info-machine ...
Quote
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
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 145,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,744
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #803 on: March 30, 2019, 07:54:18 »
"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!

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 452,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,899
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #804 on: March 30, 2019, 08:13:59 »
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
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 40,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,753
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #805 on: May 03, 2019, 13:11:50 »
CTV is reporting that outgoing MP Andrew Leslie will be testifying against the goverment at Normans trial.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 331
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #806 on: May 03, 2019, 13:19:31 »
CTV is reporting that outgoing MP Andrew Leslie will be testifying against the goverment at Normans trial.

Someone with some integrity.  Nice.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 265,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,157
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #807 on: May 03, 2019, 13:22:46 »
Or a subpoena
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 331

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 265,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,157
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #809 on: May 03, 2019, 13:48:52 »
Cynic -

I'd soooooo love to be proven incorrect.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 51,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,472
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #810 on: May 03, 2019, 14:36:26 »
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.
... Move!! ...

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 231,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,919
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #811 on: May 03, 2019, 17:09:05 »
Someone with some integrity.  Nice.


HAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Oh, you were serious? HAHAHAHAAAAA!!
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 489,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,417
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #812 on: May 03, 2019, 19:52:34 »
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:
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 145,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,744
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #813 on: May 04, 2019, 06:58:19 »
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.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 40,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,753
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #814 on: May 04, 2019, 08:15:37 »
Which could then open up the floor to a potential lawsuit to the GoC for ruining the man's career for political purposes
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 575,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,411
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #815 on: May 04, 2019, 08:20:33 »
... entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political.
    ???   You say that like there's some doubt....

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.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 55,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,966
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #816 on: May 04, 2019, 08:42:40 »
AFAIK, VAdm Norman wants a complete apology from the GOC and his legal fees paid for. Anything would be gravy.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 70,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,894
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #817 on: May 04, 2019, 09:36:28 »
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.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 211,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,887
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #818 on: May 04, 2019, 10:07:23 »
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.   ;)
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 160,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,664
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #819 on: May 04, 2019, 10:34:50 »
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.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2019, 10:44:23 by SeaKingTacco »

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 236,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,797
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #820 on: May 04, 2019, 12:34:39 »
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:
« Last Edit: May 04, 2019, 16:20:56 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 489,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,417
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #821 on: May 04, 2019, 14:01:13 »
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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 211,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,887
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #822 on: May 04, 2019, 15:43:17 »
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:

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2019, 15:47:11 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 13,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 774
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #823 on: May 06, 2019, 12:52:20 »

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.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 35,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 958
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #824 on: May 06, 2019, 13:10:04 »
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.