VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[garb811]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.