VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[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]

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

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

 

[Halifax Tar]

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]

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]

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 ...

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.

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ..."

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?