Re: Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial

by **Powergunner** Wed 12 Dec 2018, 9:09 am

Crown's change of strategy in Vice Admiral Mark Norman case bound to raise questions

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN - December 12, 2018

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Vice-admiral-mark-norman-m-a-g-cmm-cd-biography-comm

https://calgaryherald.com/news/national/defence-watch/crowns-change-of-strategy-in-vice-admiral-mark-norman-case-bound-to-raise-questions/wcm/1bfefa90-efa9-42cc-a0a5-b17ade89abcd

by **Spider** Thu 13 Dec 2018, 7:20 am

The shipshow prosecution that Mark Norman is facing

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

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD December 12, 2018

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-the-shipshow-prosecution-that-mark-norman-is-facing/wcm/6d869299-f708-47ff-9dbb-0aabbefac587

by **Accer** Thu 13 Dec 2018, 1:14 pm

Military assessment shows a second supply ship from Davie is not needed, says Trudeau

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN December 13, 2018

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 1

As the legal battle over the fate of Vice Admiral Mark Norman was being played out in an Ottawa court Wednesday just a short distance away in the House of Commons the country’s political leaders were dealing with a related issue.

Norman is charged with one count of breach of trust for allegedly providing information to Davie Shipbuilding which had entered into a deal with the previous Conservative government to provide a supply ship to the Royal Canadian Navy.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer questioned the Liberal government why it was not moving ahead with having Davie provide t a second supply ship – the Obelix – to the navy. Scheer said the navy needed the second ship. “The Prime Minister has to stop playing political games and before Christmas should award that contract to Davie,” he told the Commons. “What’s he waiting for?”

But Trudeau accused Scheer of playing “petty politics.”

“The armed forces did an assessment,” Trudeau explained. “They don’t need the Obelix and for him to suggest that we should buy it anyway is pure base politics, the worst politics. We make our decisions based on facts. We recognize the quality of work done by Davie shipyard and we do want them to get good jobs but we are not going to make up work for political reasons.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-assessment-shows-a-second-supply-ship-from-davie-is-not-needed-says-trudeau

by Cypher Fri 14 Dec 2018, 8:25 pm

Crown fights to keep government documents secret in Mark Norman trial

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Image

The Canadian Press
Published Friday, December 14, 2018

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/crown-fights-to-keep-government-documents-secret-in-mark-norman-trial-1.4218533

by **Vexmax** Sat 15 Dec 2018, 9:30 am

Crown urges judge to keep case focused on vice admiral’s actions, not his motive

By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press on December 14, 2018

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Vice-Admiral-Mark-Norman

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Vice-Admiral-Mark-Norman

OTTAWA — Federal prosecutors have urged an Ottawa judge to keep the case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman focused on his actions — not his motives — as they seek to limit the release of thousands of government documents.

Most of the documents relate to a $700-million contract with a Quebec shipyard to refit a civilian container ship into a support vessel for the navy that was negotiated by the Harper Conservatives and finalized by the Trudeau Liberals in 2015.

Norman is accused of breach of trust over allegations he leaked important information to the shipyard and others to help land the contract.

His lawyers have asked for access to those reams of government documents, arguing in court this week that they will provide broader context for the former navy commander’s actions and what was happening with the project.

Crown attorney Mark Covan conceded in court on Friday that some of the documents held by the government could be relevant to the case.

Yet he also attacked suggestions Norman’s activities were above board, saying the defence had yet to show any of the leaks were authorized and citing several emails obtained by the RCMP as suggesting Norman “specifically took steps to hide his conduct.”

“It’s a pattern,” Covan said of the attempts at secrecy. “There’s a pattern.”

Covan’s comments came on the third day of a five-day pre-trial hearing in which Judge Heather Perkins-McVey is being asked to determine whether the government documents that Norman’s lawyers have requested are relevant and should be made public.

They represented the first substantive arguments from the Crown after more than two days of submissions by Norman’s legal team, and provided a glimpse of the prosecution’s expected case against the senior military officer.

The defence said this week that Norman was working with the Harper government in trying to move the project along and it was other civil servants who were trying to thwart cabinet’s will and kill the deal — which they say the requested documents will show.

If that had been the case, Covan countered on Friday, there were numerous legitimate avenues available to Norman and any other civil servant to flag such concerns and ensure the government is made aware of the problem.

The reality, Covan told the court, is that there was a sharp difference of opinion within the civil service over the project, the decision ultimately rested with the politicians in the cabinet — and Norman circumvented proper procedures to get his way.

“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,” Covan told the court.

“This is not a decision that belonged to anyone except to cabinet. And so to the extent that we say this was interfered with — or the work of civil servants was being interfered with — that is conduct that is contrary to the public good.”

He went on to compare the situation to a person robbing a bank to pay for medical treatment, adding that many public departments and agencies such as hospitals need vital equipment.

Earlier in the day, defence lawyer Marie Henein raised concerns about updates the Crown has given about the case to bureaucrats in the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister’s Office.

Perkins-McVey noted that it is not unusual for the Crown to provide updates to complainants or victims, but Henein suggested the exchanges were inappropriate because officials in the Privy Council Office will also be witnesses in the case.

Henein also alleged that the information was being passed up to the Prime Minister’s Office with a view to intentionally delaying Norman’s politically sensitive trial, which is slated to start in August and run through much of next year’s federal election campaign.

Suspended as the military’s second-in-command in January 2017 after previously serving as head of the navy, Norman was charged this past March following a lengthy RCMP investigation. He has denied any wrongdoing.

http://www.canadianinquirer.net/2018/12/14/crown-urges-judge-to-keep-case-focused-on-vice-admirals-actions-not-his-motive/

by **Rockarm** Mon 17 Dec 2018, 7:15 pm

Crown says no evidence of political interference in Mark Norman case

The Canadian Press
Published: Dec 17, 2018

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 SKP101519521_large

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 SKP101519521_large

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/crown-says-no-evidence-of-political-interference-in-mark-norman-case-269051/

by **Navigator** Tue 18 Dec 2018, 5:17 pm

Armed forces avoided using Norman's name, left no record trail: witness

December 18, 2018

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 CPT116-THE-CANADIAN-PRESS-1

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/armed-forces-avoided-using-normans-name-left-no-record-trail-witness

by Jackson Thu 20 Dec 2018, 8:43 pm

Canadian Forces to investigate scheme designed to hide documents from admiral's lawyers

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Mark-Norman-1-3

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
December 20, 2018

The Canadian Forces says it is looking into whether a general alleged to have boasted about purposely hiding records needed in the defence of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman acted in bad faith.

But past investigations and documents show the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence have a track record of over the years destroying, hiding or delaying the release of potentially embarrassing records requested under the Access to Information law.

The Canadian Forces leadership was taken by surprise Tuesday when allegations were made in an Ottawa court about a scheme to hide military records needed by Norman to defend himself against one count of breach of trust. Norman is accused of helping a company providing a supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy, but he denies any wrongdoing.

The vice-admiral’s legal team has been trying to gather documents for his upcoming trial but has been met by various roadblocks from federal officials and lawyers.

One witness called by Norman’s lawyers to testify revealed that his superior, a brigadier general, 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, a military officer, said he was processing an access-to-information request in 2017 that returned no results. When he sought clarification, the witness testified the general 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.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/canadian-forces-to-investigate-scheme-designed-to-hide-documents-from-admirals-lawyers

by Lucifer Fri 21 Dec 2018, 2:39 pm

'Alarmed' and 'disgusted': Vance erupts over report that DND evaded information requests on Mark Norman

'I cannot say enough about how bad this is, if it’s true,' says CDS

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Dec 21, 2018

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Cda-conference-20180223

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-norman-access-information-breach-trust-1.4955102?fbclid=IwAR1vI1Cp45jaTpFWL0SX7JNkHnRVEoIopGVDbpaBee5M6qONPBOjKNWhzXk

by **Navigator** Mon 24 Dec 2018, 9:31 am

Quebec's Davie offers second supply ship at reduced cost to entice Liberal government to buy

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
December 23, 2018

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Frigate_Maintenance_Contract_20181101-e1545590652170

https://nationalpost.com/news/quebecs-davie-offers-to-build-second-supply-ship-at-reduced-cost-to-entice-liberal-government-to-buy

by Charlie Fri 04 Jan 2019, 7:54 am

Vice-Admiral Norman’s case takes another revealing turn

By SCOTT TAYLOR JAN. 3, 2019

If one Canadian Armed Forces witness is right, the former vice-chief of defence staff’s case could point to a dangerous circumvention of access-to-information rules in DND.

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 NormanSM-750x375

OTTAWA—Last month, a witness at the pre-trial hearing of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman dropped a bombshell when he told the court that senior Department of National Defence officials had deliberately omitted Vice-Admiral Norman’s name from key documents in order to avoid a paper trail.

This testimony certainly supports the assertion of Vice-Admiral Norman’s legal team, headed by top-notch lawyer Marie Henein, that the government is deliberately stonewalling it from accessing documents that would be vital to the vice-admiral’s defence.

The identity of the witness, who is a still-serving service member, is protected by a court-ordered publication ban.

On the plus side of this equation is the fact that this individual had the moral integrity to bring this information forward, regardless of the damage this might do to his superiors and the institution.

The flip side of this is the depressing realization that there may still be those in senior offices within the Defence Department who mistakenly think they can deliberately circumvent the access-to-information law, and then rely upon the loyalty of their subordinates to keep their subterfuge a secret.

This high-profile saga began two years ago when it was announced in January 2017 that Vice-Admiral Norman, then vice-chief of the defence staff, was suspended with pay and under investigation.

At that time, DND offered no details as to why the No. 2 officer in the Canadian Armed Forces was so suddenly dismissed.

Without access to the facts, the media turned to speculation. To dampen the feeding frenzy on his reputation, information was eventually provided that his alleged wrongdoing involved an information leak regarding a shipbuilding contract.

In March 2018, a full 15 months after he was dismissed from the job, one charge of breach of trust was laid against Vice-Admiral Norman. It is alleged by the Crown prosecutors that he leaked classified government information regarding a $700-million contract to lease a supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy. Vice-Admiral Norman has steadfastly denied the allegations.

The service member at the pre-trial hearing spoke of an access-to-information request for all of the pertinent emails, reports, memos, etc., which would have been generated at those top-level DND offices in the two-week window bracketing the vice-admiral’s suspension.

Anyone familiar with DND bureaucracy will realize that something as touchy as a public dismissal of a top officer would generate a flurry of correspondence between all of these very senior personnel who had to undertake this very sensitive task.

Thus it came as a bit of a shock to the officer assigned to collect all of these documents when his supervisor smiled and stated there were none.

In his testimony at the pre-trial hearing, the witness recounted his commanding officer’s reaction to the request: “He gives me a smile and says…’Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name. Send back nil return.’”

Stunned not only by this blunt admission of premeditated obstruction by his commanding officer, and the fact that, “he seemed proud to provide that response,” the witness told the court that he felt compelled to do the right thing and come forward to testify in support of Vice-Admiral Norman.

If true, this would reveal a very dangerous culture existing within the upper echelons of the Defence Department. It must be kept in mind, though, that the commanding officer in question has yet to have his version heard in court, and government lawyers have denied allegations of hiding the release of important documents related to the case or cherry-picking what information the court gets.

While the five-day pre-trial hearings were to have been wrapped up last month, there remain a number of unresolved issues concerning the defence team’s claim of obstruction on the part of the prosecution. Three days of additional pre-trial hearings have been added and will be held later this month.

The actual trial will not begin until this summer.

In the meantime, the shipbuilding contract that sparked all of this intrigue and controversy has been completed, on time and on budget. From all accounts, the MV Asterix, converted by Quebec’s Davie Shipbuilding, and now leased to the Navy, is already providing it with yeoman service.

That being the case, the leak allegedly made by Vice-Admiral Norman to the media is credited with thwarting an alleged 2015 attempt by Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, N.S., to have the newly elected Liberal government scrap the contract, which the former Harper Conservative government had negotiated with Davie Shipbuilding. The Irving company and the Liberal minister accused of advocating for it, Treasury Board President Scott Brison, have both denied the allegations of political interference.

If leaking information about Irving Shipbuilding allegedly trying to scuttle a project serves to keep that project on the rails, and in turn the MV Asterix project is an unqualified success, in the big scheme of things what actual harm was done?

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/01/03/vice-admiral-normans-case-takes-another-revealing-turn/182173

by Lucifer Thu 10 Jan 2019, 1:42 pm

January 10, 2019

Cabinet shuffle coming Monday after Scott Brison announces resignation

By Amanda Connolly National Online Journalist Global News

There will be a federal cabinet shuffle on Monday.

Global News has confirmed the shuffle comes as a result of the decision by Treasury Board President Scott Brison to resign after 22 years as an MP.

No time has yet been set for the shuffle.

However, it will result in at least one change in the federal cabinet with others also possible if other ministers are moved around to accommodate the changing portfolios.

In an interview with the Canadian Press published on Thursday, Brison said he had decided to resign given he will not be running for re-election later this year.

He also said he wants to spend more time with his family and has denied that the decision was in any way related to questions raised over recent months in court about his role in the controversial suspension and charging of Vice-Adm. Mark Norman, the military’s second-in-command who has been charged with leaking cabinet secrets.

Brison is expected to be a star witness when the case goes to trial in August — just weeks before this year’s election campaign officially starts.

“If that issue had never occurred, I would be making the same decision that I’m making now,” he said, refusing to further discuss issues that are now before the court.

Brison has admitted to pressing the newly minted Trudeau government in 2015 to suspend a $700-million plan to build a new supply ship, a move that the RCMP alleges prompted Norman to leak secrets to Quebec’s Davie Shipbuilding so it could pressure the Liberals into restarting the project.

But he’s told the House of Commons that he was simply doing his job as Treasury Board president, the minder of the public purse, to ensure taxpayers were getting good value for the ship contract.

Brison has also denied accusations levelled by Norman’s lawyers and echoed by opposition MPs that he lobbied on behalf of Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding, which wanted the Liberals to cancel the Davie deal and hire Irving for the supply-ship job instead.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4833932/federal-cabinet-shuffle-2019-scott-brison/?fbclid=IwAR1a_A5HxySslaD32gfo8TiOO9XjW1Bnf7Lu_kmwJMzbDRIecUjVZawpCEI

by **Lincoln** Fri 11 Jan 2019, 12:40 pm

The Norman case casts a long shadow over Scott Brison's retirement

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jan 10, 2019

Brison said Norman case is 'a matter between the prosecution and Vice Admiral Norman'

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Mark-norman-20181123

It's often said that timing is everything in politics. Scott Brison, the long-time Liberal cabinet minister with Conservative roots, has decided it's time to bow out.

He spent his farewell round of political interviews on Thursday defending the timing of his departure, coming as it does following allegations of political interference related to the criminal case against the military's former second-in-command, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau canvassed his team last summer asking who was sticking around to fight the upcoming election, according to multiple Liberal sources. At the time, Brison's name was on that list of those who were staying.

Since then, however, there's been a steady drip of politically toxic allegations emerging from the case against Norman, the former vice chief of the defence staff charged with one count of breach of trust and accused by the Crown of leaking cabinet secrets.

His defence team has sought to drag Brison in because he was instrumental in the leak-prone cabinet meeting at the heart of the case. Norman is accused of leaking to the media the Liberal government's decision at that meeting to put a plan to lease a supply ship for the navy on hold.

Norman's lawyers alleged he tried to torpedo that $668 million leasing contract with the Davie shipyard in Levis, Que. on behalf of rival Irving Shipbuilding in his home province of Nova Scotia.

On Thursday, Brison denied — vehemently and more than once — that the case had anything to do with the timing of his decision to end his two decades in federal politics.

"Absolutely not. That's a non-factor," Brison told CBC News Network's Power & Politics in a interview. "That's a matter between the prosecution and Vice Admiral Norman. This is a family decision and my family comes first."

After each salvo in the Norman case came behind-the-scenes news reports suggesting that Brison would not run in 2019 — rumours that the people around him were quick to pour cold water over.

Brison's name had long been linked, behind the scenes, with the Norman case, from the moment the former commander of the navy was abruptly suspended in January 2017.

It burst out into the open when Norman's lawyers, led by Marie Henein, went to court in October to force the federal government to release documents related to the case.

Relying on extracts from RCMP interviews — statements that had not been tested in court — Henein alleged Brison had close ties with the powerful Irving family.

'Engaged in transactions'

Brison denied that claim. Under repeated opposition questioning in the House of Commons last fall, he said his presence at the cabinet committee in question, on Nov. 15, 2015, was part of his job as the minister guarding the public purse.

"My mandate as president of the Treasury Board is to ensure due diligence in the expenditure of public funds and to perform a challenge function, particularly in terms of the procurement function," he told the House of Commons on Oct. 15.

A contradiction emerged just over a month later, at the end of November, when more partial police transcripts were released.

Brison was quoted as telling the Mounties that Treasury Board was "engaged in transactions" related to the shipbuilding file, but he wasn't at the meeting for that reason.

"This wasn't my role as … as a member of this committee," he told the RCMP.

Those rumours persisted throughout the fall up to the five-day hearing in mid-December where Norman's lawyers argued with the Crown and federal lawyers about the disclosure of documents, including Brison's emails related to the shipbuilding deal.

The federal government is in process of handing over thousands of pages of documents. A judge will determine if they are relevant to the case.

On Dec. 14, it was revealed that Brison and former defence minister Peter MacKay were on the Crown's list of potential witnesses for the trial, slated to begin in August — just as Canadian are getting ready to go to the polls.

The timing could be a coincidence — but just days later, Brison broke the news to his boss.

"Just before Christmas, I informed the prime minister of my decision not to run again in 2019," Brison said in an interview Thursday with CBC News.

"He was surprised and we had a conversation and when it became obvious that I wasn't going to change my mind, he totally got it."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/brison-mark-norman-trudeau-supply-ship-1.4974115?fbclid=IwAR313-2RADM6Mk-MauhVhWpf46MyfVZEiFKdymmIZ3QGD6KgTReF5wdNZQ8

by **Riverway** Wed 16 Jan 2019, 4:22 pm

Defence chief Vance slated to testify this month in Vice-Admiral Norman case

THE CANADIAN PRESS January 16, 2019

OTTAWA — Canada’s top military officer is expected to take the stand later this month in a pre-trial hearing for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Norman’s lawyer, Marie Henein, said Gen. Jonathan Vance was subpoenaed by Norman’s legal team and is scheduled to testify when the hearing resumes at the end of January.

Suspended in January 2017 as the military’s second-in-command, Norman was charged last March with one count of breach of trust in connection with the alleged leak of cabinet secrets around a $700-million shipbuilding contract.

He has denied any wrongdoing and vowed to fight the charge. His politically charged trial is scheduled to start in August and run through this year’s federal election.

The court heard five days of arguments last month, during which Norman’s lawyers accused the government of hiding key documents, preventing access to witnesses and cherry-picking what information is made public.

Government lawyers denied the allegations.

Another three days have been set aside at the end of the month for the pre-trial.

Vance is expected to be grilled over what instructions he gave to senior military officers — including Norman — with regards to talking with journalists. The allegations against Norman include that he leaked secrets about the shipbuilding deal to the media.

Vance could also face questions over whether military officials intentionally avoided using Norman’s name in internal correspondence, which would have made it more difficult for his lawyers to access certain documents.

Vance refused to comment on the case during a recent interview with The Canadian Press.

The contract, in which a Quebec shipyard was asked to convert a civilian container ship into a support vessel for the navy, was negotiated by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government and finalized by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in 2015.

Norman’s team wants access to potentially thousands of government documents about the contract, including records held by Trudeau’s office, to prove their client was supporting the Tories in obtaining the ship before falling victim to Liberal political games.

They used witnesses and emails during the first five days of the pre-trial to hammer home their allegations that the government is trying to prevent a fair trial for their client.

Norman’s lawyers also pointed to public comments by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and correspondence between the Crown and government as suggesting political interference in the case.

One Canadian Forces member told the court that his commanding officer, who is also expected to be called to testify later this month, appeared proud that officials avoided using Norman’s name.

Following the allegation, Vance expressed alarm in an interview with the CBC last month and promised to launch an investigation into whether such a practice was used.

The court also heard that government lawyers had continued to fight the defence over whether some other documents were relevant to the case even after a public servant had flagged them as such.

Crown prosecutors contended there was no evidence of such interference and government lawyers said they are working hard to produce all documents required for the trial.

https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/defence-chief-vance-slated-to-testify-this-month-in-vice-admiral-norman-case/wcm/3b83a452-b208-49f0-b196-7a53675f7a67

by Jumper Thu 17 Jan 2019, 8:03 am

Canadian military claimed a report didn't exist — even though it 'clearly' did

Details of the incident emerged shortly after a court heard about alleged attempts by officers to hide records needed by Vice Admiral Mark Norman

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
January 16, 2019

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 4 Genevie%CC%80ve-bernatchez-1

Despite being warned what they were doing was potentially illegal and punishable by imprisonment, top military officers failed to disclose important documents under the Access to Information law, the National Post can reveal.

The military officials claimed an internal report highlighting problems with the court martial system didn’t exist — even though there were electronic and paper copies of the draft document.

However, other officers were so worried about the ethical and legal issues that they alerted the highest level — with the office of Canada’s top soldier, Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance, being warned that such a response was “potentially unlawful.”

Details about the 2017 incident have emerged just a month after an Ottawa court heard about alleged attempts by military officers to hide records needed by Vice Admiral Mark Norman to defend himself against one count of breach of trust. The two incidents are separate but some military sources warn they show a pattern of failure to adhere to the access law.

The 2017 incident involves responses sent by the Office of the JAG (Judge Advocate General) to the Directorate of Access to Information, according to an Aug. 28, 2017 Canadian Forces briefing note.

Judge Advocate General Commodore Geneviève Bernatchez, who oversees the military justice system and is the top legal advisor to the Canadian Forces, endorsed a recommendation by one of her staff to tell Department of National Defence’s access to information officials that the documents didn’t exist, according to the briefing document for Vance’s office. The JAG organization sent a “nil” response following two requests for a draft report of the court martial system review.

However, two officers on Bernatchez’s staff prepared a briefing for Vance because they felt that military regulations required them to alert the senior leadership about potential wrongdoing.

Vance’s office was told that the response “that the requested records do not exist is potentially unlawful in that it seeks to deny a right of access to a record.

“The records that were requested clearly exist, and have existed since at least 21 July 2017.”

The briefing warned that it was an indictable offence under the Access to Information law to conceal a record with “intent to deny a right of access.”

“This offence is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment,” Vance’s office was told.

At least three officers in Bernatchez’s organization raised ethical or legal concerns about the decision to withhold the requested records but were ignored, according to the document.

The military’s National Investigation Service examined the concerns but determined that there was insufficient evidence to “support that an offence had occurred,” the DND noted in a statement to Postmedia Wednesday.

The decision to claim “the ‘nil reply’ was due to a misapplication of the Access to Information Act and was not due to malicious intent,” the DND stated.

Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard, who worked as the legal counsel at the Judge Advocate General’s Office from 2001 to 2006, investigated the incident and noted in a Dec. 12, 2018 letter to the DND that the department’s claim that no records existed because the document was a draft report “is not an appropriate reply” under the law.

Her investigation found the records did exist and she flagged what her office considered “a lack of oversight” on the part of the DND.

This offence is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment

The briefing to Vance’s office outlined the behind-the-scene debate over how to respond to the access request for the report.

One officer on Aug. 14, 2017 wrote her supervisors to express her ethical and legal concerns about the decision to claim the records didn’t exist. On Aug. 15 and Aug. 16, 2017 another officer talked to the deputy JAG for Military Justice, Col. David Antonyshyn, to “advise him of the legal and potentially criminal risks associated with the Office of the JAG’s denial of the existence of a record that clearly existed.”

On Aug. 16, 2017 another officer emailed Antonyshyn to remind him that a copy of the requested record had been given to Bernatchez and warned of “the legal risks associated with a denial of this record’s existence.”

Bernatchez’s office also sought advice from a legal advisor who pointed out that such draft documents were not exempt from being released under the access law.

Despite the concerns and advice, the JAG’s office told the DND access branch that no records existed.

The records that were requested clearly exist

The DND in its statement to Postmedia noted steps were being taken to improve the department’s compliance with the law. The department also released a Jan. 11, 2019 response to the Information Commissioner, in which DND Deputy Minister Jody Thomas said she would consult with Vance and Bernatchez to consider ways to improve complying with the law.

“We remain committed to maintaining open and transparent access to information services to Canadians and have taken steps to strengthen the function,” the DND added in its statement.

This is the second allegation that the Canadian Forces have been involved in attempts to prevent the disclosure of records under the Access law. In December a witness at the court hearing involving Vice Admiral Norman outlined how a brigadier general informed him of a method used by the military to avoid having to produce records. The witness, whose name is protected by the court to prevent retaliation by the Canadian Forces, said he was told to send a “nil return” to an access request, indicating no documents related to Norman could be found.

When he sought clarification, the witness testified the general smiled and told him: “Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name.”

Vance is scheduled to testify at the end of the month in the Norman case about those allegations.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canadian-military-claimed-a-report-didnt-exist-even-though-it-did?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR29wXPl1XZkgM24T4h81621yXlz-HigKxPEVL4g50mOT-eNZfsFrmcBiMg#Echobox=1547687291

by Sponsored content