• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
417
Points
880
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
930
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

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
565
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
930
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
238
Points
680
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
48
Points
530
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
238
Points
680
: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

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
565
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
64
Points
560
Ottawa Centre insists party line must be followed otherwise purge trial.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
565
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,470
Points
910
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,490
Points
940
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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
523
Points
960
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?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,914
Points
890
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
930
'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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
587
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,490
Points
940
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.
 
Top