Re: Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial

by **Spider** Mon 21 Jan 2019, 7:32 am

Military witness in the Mark Norman case needs protection – that tells you a lot about National
Defence HQ

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Updated: January 21, 2019

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 National-defence-headquarters

Lawyers will be back in court at the end of the month dealing with the ongoing quest for documents that Vice Admiral Mark Norman needs to defend himself against one count of breach of trust. Norman is accused of helping a company that provided a supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy. He denies any wrongdoing, pointing out that he was ensuring that Conservative government orders to acquire the vessel were followed, despite efforts by some federal bureaucrats to scuttle the purchase.

The vice admiral’s legal team has been trying to gather documents for his upcoming trial, scheduled for the summer, but they have faced intense opposition from the federal government.

There are also concerns that some in National Defence headquarters have made a concerted effort to hide the documents Norman needs. Some of the vice admiral’s supporters believe he is being railroaded.

In December the court heard a bombshell that appears to give that theory some legs. One witness called by Norman’s lawyers to testify revealed that his superior officer, a brigadier general, told him that Norman’s name was deliberately not used in internal Department of National Defence files — meaning any search for records under the Access to Information law about Norman would come up empty.

The witness, a military officer, told the court that 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.”

“He seemed proud to provide that response,” said the witness of the general. The witness does not know Norman but came forward because of his concerns the actions being taken were not proper.

Just as disturbing is that fact the judge believed there was a need to protect the witness from reprisals from federal officials and those at National Defence headquarters. To do that, the judge ordered a publication ban so the name of the military witness – for now anyways – would not be revealed publicly.

Think about this for a minute. This isn’t some Mafia or narcos trial. This isn’t some snitch who needs to be protected from his fellow gangsters.

This is a military member who knew what the right thing to do was and came forward on his own. He didn’t trust the Canadian Forces system to protect him. He didn’t trust the senior military and defence leadership, which had already determined that Norman was guilty of wrongdoing, even though no internal investigation into the vice admiral’s actions were conducted.

The witness didn’t go to the National Investigation Service, the internal DND police force that often finds it challenging to gather evidence that might implicate senior leaders. He didn’t go to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, a troubled organization which is considered a joke among whistleblowers. And he didn’t go to the Information Commissioner of Canada, the organization that oversees the Access to Information law but on that is gaining an increasing reputation among those who use the process as being too cozy with the senior bureaucracy.

This is a situation where it seems the courts don’t believe Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance, and Deputy Minister Jody Thomas can even guarantee basic workplace protection to those individuals who want to follow an ethical and legal path.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-witness-in-the-mark-norman-case-needs-protection-that-tells-you-a-lot-about-national-defence-hq

by **Spider** Wed 23 Jan 2019, 6:55 am

DND blames clerk for internal failures, even as documents show senior officers discussed withholding records

Postmedia revealed last week the July 2017 attempt to stymie the request made under the Access to Information law for the report highlighting problems with the court martial system

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Mali_cda_20180319-e1548192366380

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
January 22, 2019

Defence department officials tried to blame a clerk for failing to challenge the military’s top legal officials who had claimed a report requested under the Access to Information law didn’t exist even though it did.

The department’s decision to assign blame to the unidentified clerk came even though Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance and police investigators were in possession of documents clearly showing senior Judge Advocate General staff discussed withholding the records and acknowledging what was being done was illegal. Postmedia revealed last week the July 2017 attempt to stymie the request made under the Access to Information law for the document, a report highlighting problems with the court martial system.

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 the Department of National Defence’s access to information officials the documents didn’t exist, according to the briefing document for Vance’s office. The JAG organization sent a “nil” response to the DND Access branch, known by its acronym as DAIP, in response to two requests for the draft report of the court martial system review.

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

“We conclude that the Office of the JAG’s response to DAIP indicating that the requested records do not exist is potentially unlawful in that it seeks to deny a right of access to a record,” Vance’s office was told by Bernatchez’s staff. “The records that were requested clearly exist, and have existed since at least 21 July 2017.”

At least three officers in Bernatchez’s organization raised ethical or legal concerns about the decision to withhold the records.

At one point, one of the officers acknowledged the attempt might be discovered by the Information Commissioner while another pointed out what was being done was “unlawful” and “possibly criminal.”

Despite that, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard, who worked as the legal counsel at the Judge Advocate General’s Office from 2001 to 2006, determined the situation resulted from “a lack of oversight” on how requests were being handled. An RCMP officer assigned to the military police investigation unit was also given the evidence handed to Vance’s office. The police officer determined there was no “malicious intent” and the issue was linked to “a misapplication of the Access to Information Act,” according to the DND.

Instead, the department put much of the blame on an unnamed clerk in the DND Access to Information branch who hadn’t challenged the Judge Advocate General’s office when it claimed the report didn’t exist.

In explaining to Maynard what happened, the department’ s Access branch management noted the analyst was “at the time a new hire with little experience in access and with the Act, and was managing a heavy caseload.”

The access branch also pointed out its more seasoned staff were on holidays at the time and the organization is understaffed.

Department insiders tell Postmedia the access to information process at the DND is a mess, with documents being withheld with no justification and excessive delays in producing requested material. They attribute that to the belief among senior managers there are few consequences to violating the law.

Gen. Vance will be in court next week as lawyers for Vice Admiral Mark Norman examine allegations the Canadian Forces were involved in another attempt to prevent the disclosure of records under the access law. Those allegations emerged in federal court in December when a military officer outlined how a general explained the method used by the Canadian Forces to avoid producing records about Norman that had been requested under the law.

Norman is charged with one count of breach of trust related to a supply ship project and needs the records for his defence.

Byrne Furlong, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, would not say when the minister was made aware of the issues around access documents from the JAG’s office or Norman. She stated the Liberal government has made openness and transparency its guiding principles since taking office. Furlong blamed the Conservative government, which was last in power more than three years ago, for delays at DND in releasing access requests.

dpugliese@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/davidpugliese

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/dnd-blames-clerk-for-internal-failures-even-as-documents-show-senior-officers-discussed-withholding-records?fbclid=IwAR1Pq1JNzIBycUgaJxoVa1QEWjfvNebIqfzZPqAInSrc7o_qHwUaIm-nQsM

by Gridlock Fri 25 Jan 2019, 1:13 pm

Hiding documents, blaming clerks a tried and true Canadian Forces-DND tactic from the 1990s

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN January 25, 2019

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Cf-uniform-cdn-flag-sized-copy

The news that senior officers at National Defence headquarters are hiding documents requested under the Access to Information law is like a journey into the past for us few journalists who have covered the Canadian Forces over the decades.

As I reported earlier this week, Department of National Defence officials tried to blame a clerk for failing to challenge the military’s top legal officials in the Judge Advocate General’s Office. The officials had claimed a report requested under the Access to Information law didn’t exist even though it did.

And next week in federal court we will hear more details about a brigadier general who boasted about the military’s alleged method that was designed to prevent any records about Vice Admiral Mark Norman from being released under the Access law. That plan was able to undercut attempts by Norman’s lawyers to obtain the records he needs to defend himself in court against government allegations he illegally helped a company providing a supply ship to the navy.

At times it seems like we are back in the 1990s when the Somalia scandal was on the front pages and documents requested from the Canadian Forces and the DND under the Access law were either being destroyed, altered or withheld.

A discussion on Twitter the other day with Toronto Star journalist Dave Rider brought back some of those memories.

In the 1990s, Rider, along with Rick Gibbons, then both of the Ottawa Sun had been breaking a significant number of stories on the Somalia scandal. To counter that, military police launched an investigation, trying to identify who was providing them with tips about the racial abuse and wrongdoing during the Somalia mission. Rider wrote a first-person article about how the Access to Information law at the DND was rigged and how Canadian Forces public affairs officers went to great lengths to try to determine his sources.

Through the privacy law Rider got edited videotapes of the military police interviews with DND Access to Information staff officer Sue Lajoie, then his regular ATI contact, and naval Lieut. Al Wong, the public affairs spokesman on Somalia-related issues. Rider explains what he watched on tape in his June 1997 article:

On camera, they can barely contain their willingness to spill details of my phone calls, faxes and letters to DND. Wong makes deductions and gleefully reminisces about attempts to trick me into revealing my source. “I didn’t want to push him. I didn’t want to spook him. I wanted to keep him talking,” Wong recalls.

More bothersome is cool, efficient Lajoie, who must have staggered under the weight of the ATI files — mine as well as those of others — she brought with her to the interview. She tells the cops what I knew — that my many ATI requests yielded almost nothing because DND officials always found some clause in the Act allowing them to “protect” or “sever” the documents. Lajoie goes on to make it clear that, if there is no obvious reason to withhold potentially damaging information, her job is to go looking for one.

Rider’s article noted that Lajoie went on to describe how eight senior officials in the Canadian Forces had the job of examining every one of his Access to Information requests and gutting them of information.

Like with the recent Access to Information boondoggle at the Judge Advocate General’s Office, singling out clerks or lower-ranked soldiers to take the fall was also a feature in the 1990s scandals.

Take the 1996 case of Lt.-Gen. Armand Roy, then the third highest ranking officer in the military. He was dismissed from the Canadian Forces after discrepancies were found in his expense accounts. Roy had to pay back between $70,000 and $80,000. Among those discrepancies that I reported at the time was that Roy billed taxpayers for a house-hunting trip to the Ottawa area even though he already owned a home there.

It was military finance clerks who first warned the Canadian Forces leadership about widespread irregularities in senior officers’ hotel and travel claims. A general then investigated those irregularities and found that Roy was entitled to his entitlements. The clerks continued with their warnings. Esprit de Corps magazine reported on the case. The Auditor General got involved. Roy’s career was done and he was dismissed from the Canadian Forces. But he was allowed to retire with a full pension.

As often is the case, the military’s National Investigation Service could find no evidence that any criminal or service offence had been committed.

In retirement, Roy found himself again under investigation for continuing to use a government telephone calling card. Again, military clerks had flagged the problem. Military police didn’t investigate until the news media reported that Roy had racked up $900 on his government telephone card, even though he was no longer in uniform. The National Investigation Service determined that Roy’s use of the card “did not conform to Canadian Forces administrative policies.”

But again, the NIS never laid any charges. The clerks were blamed for not cancelling Roy’s calling card

And what about the clerks?

They were targeted for retaliation.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/hiding-documents-blaming-clerks-a-tried-and-true-canadian-forces-dnd-tactic-from-the-1990s

by **SniperGod** Mon 28 Jan 2019, 7:20 pm

'We're not perfect' says DND as court to hear about alleged attempts to withhold information in Norman case

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

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
January 28, 2019

Incidents such as the alleged attempt to withhold records in the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman case and another where senior military officers are accused of hiding documents requested under the law are simply mistakes and should not be seen as an indictment of Canadian Forces or Defence department values, those organizations say.

The statement comes as Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance and former deputy defence minister John Forster are in an Ottawa court to answer questions from Norman’s lawyers about how the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence handle information requested under the Access to Information law. Those proceedings start Tuesday.

In December the same court heard from a military officer who testified that a brigadier-general boasted of a method used by the Canadian Forces to avoid having to produce records about Norman under the Access to Information law. The name of the witness is protected by the court to prevent retaliation by the Canadian Forces.

Situations occur where mistakes happen

In a second separate but similar case, Postmedia recently revealed that top military legal officers at National Defence headquarters allegedly withheld documents requested under the access law in 2017 even though they were repeatedly warned what they were doing was potentially criminal.

But Defence department deputy minister Jody Thomas has repeatedly claimed her organization takes the access law seriously. That law allows members of the public to pay a fee to request federal government records.

Thomas declined an interview to explain why she continues to state the DND takes the access law seriously despite the allegations that have emerged in the Norman case and the incident with the legal officers. But in a response approved by Thomas, the department noted in an email that, “broadly speaking, and as is the case with any large institution or collective entity, the actions of the few do not dictate the values of the whole.”

“We are not perfect,” the DND stated. “Situations occur where mistakes happen.”

Norman has been charged with one count of breach of trust for allegedly providing information to a shipyard hired to provide a new supply ship for the navy. 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. His lawyers have also tried to use the access law to gather records.

The military’s National Investigation Service (NIS) has started an investigation into the allegations made by the military witness at the Norman hearing in December, a DND official said Monday.

But defence sources say they don’t expect much to come from the probe. They noted that an RCMP officer assigned to the NIS also looked into the allegations in July 2017 that military legal officers allegedly withheld documents requested under the access law. Despite having emails and other evidence where individuals openly talked about breaking the law, the police determined there was no “malicious intent” and the issue could be linked to “a misapplication of the Access to Information Act.”

The department put much of the blame on an unnamed clerk in the DND Access to Information branch who hadn’t challenged the legal officers when they claimed documents that existed didn’t exist.

Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard announced Dec. 21 she is also examining the allegations made in the Norman case.

The ongoing problem, military sources say, is that there appears to be no consequences to breaking the Access to Information law at the DND and in the Canadian Forces. They pointed out that instead of complaining to the Information Commissioner and military police about the allegations, the military officer who testified at the Norman court hearing in December took his concerns directly to the vice-admiral’s lawyers.

dpugliese@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/davidpugliese

https://nationalpost.com/news/were-not-perfect-says-dnd-as-court-to-hear-about-alleged-attempts-to-withhold-information-in-norman-case

by **Hammercore** Tue 29 Jan 2019, 8:25 am

Two probes launched into claims that military blocked information requests in Norman case

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jan 29, 2019

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Mark-norman-20181123

There are now at least two investigations underway into allegations Department of National Defence officials intentionally tried to subvert the federal access to information system in the breach-of-trust case involving the military's former second-in-command.

CBC News has learned military police have joined the federal information commissioner in probing claims that senior staff at National Defence have avoided using Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's name in internal correspondence as a way to keep his records out of the public domain.

The allegations were made by a member of the military who handles access to information requests at a pretrial hearing last month.

Norman is charged with one count of breach of trust for alleging leaking cabinet secrets to an executive at the Davie shipyard, located in Levis, Que.

His defence team is seeking access to thousands of pages of government documents related to the plan to lease a supply ship to the navy — an effort the federal government's lawyers have fought against, arguing many of the documents are not relevant to the criminal case.

'Alarmed and disgusted'

In testimony, the military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman.

His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty.

During a year-end interview last month with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, said he was "alarmed and disgusted" by the notion that someone might have been trying to bury the records.

Vance has been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday as Norman's pretrial hearing resumes in an Ottawa courtroom.

A spokesman for National Defence acknowledged Monday that the Canadian Forces National Investigative Service opened a criminal investigation into the allegations shortly after information commissioner Caroline Maynard opened her own probe.

"This is an ongoing investigation. As such, no timelines are available," said spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said in an email statement.

He suggested that National Defence is working in concert with the information commissioner.

"We have contacted the [Office of the Information Commission] and agreed to work together and provide any information required to conduct the investigation," said Le Bouthillier. "The OIC understands DND is investigating and appreciates that we are taking this seriously. Given these ongoing investigations, ‎it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time."

Sources have told CBC News that interviews have carried out by military police over the last three weeks with an eye to laying charges.

An expert in military law and the access to information system was startled to hear about the involvement of military investigators.

'Military police have got no authority'

The information commissioner, said retired colonel Michel Drapeau, "has the means to investigate and the duty to investigate and all of the necessary powers."

In cases where the commissioner suspects the law has been broken, the procedure dictates calling in the RCMP — not military police — he said.

The military's national investigative service is set up to be at arm's-length from the chain of command, but Drapeau said it's still incredibly unusual for an organization accused of wrongdoing to essentially investigate itself.

He also said he wonders what background the force has to examine potential breaches of the information act.

"Military police have got no authority and no expertise and no competence to do that."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-breach-trust-access-1.4996445

by Terrarium Tue 29 Jan 2019, 5:38 pm

'When did the prime minister know?': Raitt on Norman case

January 29, 2019

by Terrarium Tue 29 Jan 2019, 8:11 pm

Brison seeks standing at Mark Norman hearing, seeking to protect his 'privacy'

Brian Platt
Published: January 29, 2019

Scott Brison, the veteran Nova Scotia MP and former Treasury Board president who resigned from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet earlier this month, has brought his own lawyer to a hearing in Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s criminal case in a bid to protect his privacy and his reputation.

Brison’s lawyer has entered the hearing so Brison can hand over personal correspondence to the court in response to subpoenas from Norman’s defence team, which seek both official and non-official communications.

Although the Department of Justice has been coordinating a massive effort to collect subpoenaed documents, Brison declined to disclose his personal emails to the government. Instead, Brison’s lawyer informed the government in December that he preferred to disclose such documents to the court independently.

“Mr. Brison has a privacy interest in the contents of his personal email communications,” said the application for standing filed last week by Peter Mantas of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. “These include both his own records, and those of his constituency office.”

Brison’s lawyers are scheduled to make arguments on Wednesday at the hearing, which is reviewing requests by Norman’s defence team for a trove of documents the government has deemed classified — but which Norman’s lawyers contend they need in order to mount his defence. The hearing sat for five days in December, and continued on Tuesday for three days.

Norman, who was the second-highest officer in the military, is accused of leaking cabinet secrets to help ensure the government moved forward with a $700-million project to have Quebec-based Davie Shipbuilding provide a supply ship for the navy. He faces a single count of breach of trust.

Among the documents Norman’s defence team is seeking are all communications between Brison (including his staff and his constituency office) and representatives of Irving Shipbuilding.

Irving, a Davie rival, had written to cabinet ministers urging them not to go forward with the Davie project. Brison has said he had no communication with Irving about the project outside of the letter they sent to him. Irving has denied claims they made any attempt at political interference, and has already been granted standing in the hearing.

Brison’s lawyer says he is cooperating in the disclosure process and “does not seek to hinder Vice-Admiral Norman’s efforts to obtain the production of documents relevant to his defence.”

However, Brison is looking to protect against “unmerited intrusions into his privacy,” and to make sure the requests are clear, his court application claims.

He is also seeking to protect his reputation, the application says, particularly against the accusation that he is close to the Irving family that controls the shipbuilding firm. The defence has disclosed evidence that one witness told the RCMP that Brison was “Irving’s boy.”

“This pejorative comment (although apparently having its origins in a witness statement), and others like it, appear to suggest that the Applicant made his decision to review the naval supply ship procurement at the behest of Irving,” the application says. “Mr. Brison did not communicate with Irving in making his decision to review this procurement. Any such suggestion is speculative, unsupported by any evidence and is, in fact, false.”

The application says Brison “has an interest in ensuring that in the course of document disclosure being made in this matter, he is not unfairly targeted with gratuitous swipes at his integrity and reputation.”

General Jonathan Vance, the head of Canada’s military, was on standby to be called to the witness box on Tuesday, but the day was entirely taken up with questioning of a justice department paralegal who is coordinating the government’s effort to search for and collect subpoenaed documents.

Norman’s lawyers Marie Henein and Christine Mainville argue the government’s search has been lacklustre, and may have missed documents they need for Norman’s defence.

Vance is now scheduled to be questioned on Wednesday morning, where he will likely be grilled about his own interactions with journalists.

Norman’s lawyers will likely also press Vance on an allegation that surfaced in December that the Department of National Defence purposefully used pseudonyms for Norman to obstruct attempts to disclose records about him through access-to-information requests.

Mainville filed an exhibit on Tuesday that includes some of the pseudonyms used for Norman in documents, such as “the boss” and “C34”, a reference to him being the 34th commander of the navy.

• Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter: btaplatt

https://o.canada.com/news/politics/brison-seeks-standing-at-mark-norman-hearing-seeking-to-protect-his-privacy/wcm/1a14da73-b1b7-4d74-8742-69b04167ca38

by Terrarium Tue 29 Jan 2019, 9:11 pm

Power Play: Pre-trial for Mark Norman continues

Col. (Ret’d) Michel Drapeau explains why there is a 'struggle for control' at the pre-trial of Mark Norman.

Jan 29, 2018

by Lonestar Wed 30 Jan 2019, 5:41 am

Codename 'Kracken': Mark Norman's defence accuses military of using aliases to conceal documents

Murray Brewster, Kathleen Harris · CBC News · Posted: Jan 29, 2019

Scott Brison denies being 'Irving's Boy,' seeks privacy protections in Mark Norman case

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Mark-norman-20190129

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyers have released a list of elaborate codenames they claim defence officials used in an attempt to bury documents sought by the defence in relation to his breach-of-trust case.

Lawyers for the military's former second-in-command claim that, in order to thwart document searches related to his case, defence officials have taken to using a variety of aliases in their communications. One of those codenames — 'Kracken' — could be a (misspelled) reference to the giant monstrous squid of legend best known to modern audiences for appearances in the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

It could also be a play on words referring to an acronym for Commander Royal Canadian Navy.

Norman's lawyers entered into the court record at Tuesday's pretrial hearing in Ottawa a full list of aliases they say were used by defence officials for their client — including the substantive VCDS [Vice Chief of the Defence Staff], MN3, C34 and 'The Boss.' Norman's defence team is battling with the federal government for the release of documents they claim are relevant to his defence.

Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a $668 million contract to lease a supply ship for the navy. The Crown alleges that the former commander of the navy tipped off a now-former CBC reporter about the results of a secret Liberal cabinet committee decision to put the project on hold in November 2015.

The government eventually went ahead with the lease arrangement but launched a police investigation into the leak.

Records buried?

Last month, the court heard that senior staff at National Defence avoid using Vice-Admiral Norman's name in internal correspondence as a way to keep his records out of the public domain. The allegations were made at a pretrial hearing last month by a member of the military who handles access to information requests.

The military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman. His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty.

Ironically, Norman's lawyers obtained the list of codenames through an access to information request.

In a year-end interview with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, flatly denied the Department of National Defence uses aliases to hide documents.

"We don't hide names. We don't use codenames," he said. "If it was done, if it has been done, it's wrong, dead wrong and we'll stop it."

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Mark-norman-document

A list of code names and abbreviations, which lawyers for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman claims were used to subvert access to information requests in his breach of trust case, was released Tuesday in Ontario Superior Court. Norman is charged with one count of breach of contract trust, accused of leaking cabinet secrets.

Vance was slated to testify Tuesday, but his appearance was pushed back a day as former federal cabinet minister Scott Brison's lawyers were granted standing in the case.

Norman's lawyers have accused Brison of political interference in the shipbuilding deal at the centre of the case.

They claim, in a court filing, he tried to kill the $668 million plan to lease a naval supply ship from the Davie shipyard, in Lévis, Que. on behalf of a rival, Irving Shipyard.

His lawyers deny any meddling.

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Question-period-20171102

"Mr. Brison did not review this procurement at the behest of Irving because he is 'Irving's Boy,"' reads Brison's application for standing.

"This pejorative comment ... and others like it, appear to suggest that the applicant made his decision to review the naval supply ship procurement at the behest of Irving. Such allegations are utterly false."

The long-time MP has already denied wrongdoing under questioning in the House of Commons, prior to his resignation earlier this month.

Brison is expected to be a Crown witness.

His lawyers appeared in court Tuesday to deliver emails from his personal account covered by a defence subpoena, which asked for, among other things, correspondence between him and representatives of Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

Paper trail concerns

Norman's lawyer, Marie Henein, said those items of correspondence should have come up in the federal government's hunt for relevant documents.

Henein said it's another indication that the search for documents relevant to the vice-admiral's defence has fallen short.

"I have no confidence that it has all been captured," she said.

Robert MacKinnon, the Justice Department lawyer responsible for the search, denied the system had failed and said that emails from private accounts are still being collected.

He said Brison's lawyers contacted him and offered the emails, but wanted to deliver them personally.

Brison seeks privacy protections

In the application for standing, lawyers said Brison appreciates Norman's right to mount a full defence and does not want to hinder his efforts to obtain all relevant documents.

Brison is prepared and ready to cooperate, but wants legal standing in the case to "protect against unmerited intrusions into his privacy, and to ensure that disclosure requests are clear and complete," the document reads.

Much of the day was taken up by Norman's lawyers questioning the Privy Council Office bureaucrat in charge of the search for government records.

Patsy Bradley testified that retrieving some records at National Defence has been a challenge because of a policy that requires the contents of dormant email accounts of political staff to be "wiped" after six months.

That is potentially significant because Norman has claimed — as part of his broader defence — that he was carrying out the orders of the previous Conservative government, which went to great lengths to push through a $668 million plan to lease a supply ship for the navy. The emails and notes of political staff at the time could be significant to his defence.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-cds-norman-case-1.4996881?fbclid=IwAR2tdhQKg6V0f7iVMPmvykxC_KdMcZAC48Uv_IUN2zJKZbkpfHbHnguxL2c

by **Lincoln** Wed 30 Jan 2019, 1:38 pm

Vance to be questioned about Norman “codenames” - general claimed codenames were never used

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN January 30, 2019

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Cpt130-the-canadian-press

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance will be on the witness stand Wednesday to answer questions from Vice Admiral Mark Norman’s lawyers about allegations the Canadian Forces tried to prevent the release of documents needed by the naval officer for his upcoming trial.

In December, the federal court heard from a military officer who explained about the method used by the Canadian Forces to avoid producing records about Norman that had been requested under the Access to Information law. The military witness revealed that his superior officer, a brigadier general, told him Norman’s name was deliberately not used in internal Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces files — meaning any search for records under the Access to Information law about Norman would come up empty.

Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein alleges that codenames used in place of Norman’s name is further proof that the deck was being stacked against the vice admiral and the DND and government is trying to prevent records from being released.

After that court-room bombshell Gen. Vance told the CBC that he was disturbed by the allegations from the military officer, whose identity is protected by court order to prevent retaliation against him from the Canadian Forces.

“I’m alarmed and somewhat disgusted by this, if it’s true,” Vance said in the CBC interview. “I cannot say enough about how bad this is, if it’s true.”

“We don’t hide names,” said Vance. “We don’t use codenames.”

But in a surprise move, Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein introduced into court on Tuesday the various codenames being used by the Canadian Forces for Norman’s name. Some of those codewords were being used by Vance’s office, according to the document obtained by Henein through an Access to Information request submitted to the DND.

The codewords used in place of Norman’s name include N3, MN3, and Kracken. Kracken is a misspelling of the word Kraken which is another term for Chief of the Maritime Staff or CRCN.

If, for instance, an Access to Information request was made for all documents with the words “Mark Norman” in the record, and instead of Norman the codeword N3 was used, then the Canadian Forces or the DND could claim legally that no such records exist.

That is exactly the scenario that was described in December when the military witness told the court that he was processing an access-to-information request about Mark Norman in 2017 that returned no results. When he sought clarification, the witness testified his supervisor, a brigadier-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.”

Henein told the court Tuesday that her attempts to uncover the truth and get documents was like being in “a spider’s web.”

“This is not out of thin air,” she explained to the court. “We called a witness who said there was some belief there were codenames.”

Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, who has questioned why the government and the Canadian Forces has not turned over the requested records, likened the exercise to try to get the records Norman needs for his defence akin to peeling back the “layers of an onion.”

The court also heard from Justice Canada paralegal Patsy Bradley about how officials in different departments searched for the records Norman’s defence team had requested. Bradley confirmed that many of the codewords developed by the Canadian Forces and DND to replace Norman’s name were not used to search for documents.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/vance-to-be-questioned-about-norman-codenames-general-claimed-codenames-were-never-used?fbclid=IwAR3Wsc6OyL4q7FsiYJGvM5fIxvQCSsV46cEToV6Yq6XFdb-moM_4y7bV0FM

by Jackson Wed 30 Jan 2019, 5:33 pm

January 30, 2019

Canada’s top soldier spoke with
Trudeau after learning of Norman
case — but no records exist

By Amanda Connolly National Online Journalist Global News

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Cpt104513009

Hours after learning from RCMP that his second-in-command was under investigation for allegedly leaking cabinet secrets, Canada’s top soldier had a phone call with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after briefing top-level political staff about the case.

But there appear to be no military records of what exactly the two discussed in the early hours of a case that has rocked the Canadian Forces and prompted accusations of political interference and scapegoating.

In testimony before an Ottawa court on Wednesday, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance explained how he first learned the RCMP was investigating his vice chief of defence staff, Vice-Adm. Mark Norman, in a meeting on Jan. 9, 2017.

In that meeting were several deputy ministers, RCMP officials, Vance and the national security adviser to Trudeau.

Afterwards, both Vance and the national security adviser met for roughly five minutes with Gerry Butts and Katie Telford to brief them on the news that the RCMP was investigating Norman in relation to a report leaked to media in November 2015 that the newly-elected Liberals had considered freezing a $700-million deal to buy the navy a new supply ship.

Both of its remaining vessels had rusted out or caught fire in the years previous.

Vance said he asked for Butts or Telford, who are Trudeau’s principal secretary and chief of staff, respectively, to inform him of what was going on.

Later that day, he received a phone call from Trudeau about the matter.

But Vance told the court he took no notes and is not aware of there being any records showing what was discussed during that call, nor in any of the other meetings with either Butts and Telford or with RCMP officials that day.

Norman was abruptly suspended from his duties as the country’s second most senior soldier on Jan. 16, 2017, with no public explanation given.

Vance had previously declined to tell reporters which officials he informed of the investigation into Norman.

Yet the question of how much Trudeau knew about the case has dogged him for close to two years now, as have accusations of political interference.

Trudeau made public remarks in 2017 and in February 2018, prior to Norman being charged with one count of breach of trust for the alleged leak, that he expected the matter would “inevitably” lead to “court processes.”

He has since been asked repeatedly in question period and by media as to how he came to that determination, given Norman was not charged until March 2018.

Trudeau has refused to comment on the case since those initial remarks.

Vance told the court he was advised that Norman would be charged prior it actually being laid.

He did not tell the court who informed him of that, saying instead, “I can’t recall.”

When asked whether he shared that information with anyone, Vance said he told either Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan or told the deputy minister of the Department of National Defence with the instruction to tell the minister.

In a scrum with reporters following his testimony, Vance said he was not informed of the pending charges in February 2018, when Trudeau made his remarks, and that it only occurred a couple of days prior to Norman being charged in March 9, 2018.

The revelation that Trudeau and Vance spoke directly about the case, and that Vance informed or intended to inform a senior member of Trudeau’s cabinet about pending charges, raises new questions about accusations made repeatedly by Norman’s defence team. Norman’s defence counsel says he is being scapegoated by the Liberals because the leaked report of the plans to freeze the supply ship deal effectively forced the government to honour it.

Ditching the deal with Davie Shipyards,, which was inked under the former Conservative government, would have hit taxpayers with a penalty fee of roughly $89 million.

Scott Brison, who until earlier this month served as President of the Treasury Board, told RCMP when they launched their investigation that the leak had damaged his ability to do his due diligence in re-evaluating the deal after the Liberals were elected.

However, Brison was among several cabinet ministers pressed by Irving and Seaspan, two rival shipyards to Davie, to reconsider proposals to do that same work at their own shipyards in the weeks leading up to the leak.

Brison has close ties to the Irving family. His emails and any potential communication with the firm related to the supply ship deal have been repeatedly sought by Norman’s defence team in the pre-trial hearings in his case so far.

On Tuesday, Brison’s lawyers filed an application seeking standing in the case.

In their filing, his legal team said it wanted to be able to protect his “privacy” and “interests” as the case unfolds.

Testimony is set to continue Wednesday afternoon.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4906358/jonathan-vance-mark-norman-justin-trudeau/

by Zapper Wed 30 Jan 2019, 6:53 pm

Access searches for military should be broadened for other identifiers: Vance

THE CANADIAN PRESS January 30, 2019

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 Ajw104-the-canadian-press

Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance leaves the courthouse during a break in the proceedings at suspended Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's pre-trial, Wednesday, January 30, 2019 in Ottawa.

OTTAWA — The Defence Department wasn’t trying to hide any information when its staff used terms other than Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s name in internal communications, Canada’s top military officer testified in Norman’s criminal case Wednesday.

But, Gen. Jonathan Vance conceded, the department could have done a better job of looking for documents that identified Norman only by acronyms and other labels when answering legal requests for documents about the vice-admiral’s case.

Norman, who was head of the navy and Vance’s No. 2 until he was suspended two years ago, is facing a charge 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 his defence team has accused the Trudeau government of playing political games with him, singling Norman out for sharing private information when others were leaking as well.

Norman’s politically charged trial is scheduled to run through this fall’s federal election campaign; this phase of the case, a multiday pre-trial hearing, is about determining what evidence is relevant and what sensitive materials the government has to disclose to Norman’s defence lawyers.

On Tuesday, Norman’s legal team produced a number of pseudonyms and other identifiers used within the government to refer to his position following testimony last month that department officials intentionally avoided using his name in emails and other correspondence.

Norman’s lawyers have asked for access to thousands of government records they say will exonerate their client. They’ve argued that the use of “code names” at the Defence Department is part of a pattern by the government to prevent, or least delay, the release of key documents that will ensure their client receives a fair trial.

His lawyers listed several code names officials at the department have used to refer to him — including The Boss, MN3, C34 and The Kraken.

Vance, chief of the defence staff, said the use of other terms to refer to military personnel is common in internal communications and documents.

“Those acronyms are not intended to avoid anything,” Vance said in response to a question from Norman’s lawyer, Marie Henein. “In fact, it would be in my mind foolish to use the acronyms that we’ve seen as a code word because they’re so common.”

“Kraken,” for instance, is meant to be a play on the word for a mythical gigantic squid that comes from Norman’s title as commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, or “CRCN.”

On the other hand, Vance said, “if there is a sinister effort by some to use something completely unassociated with the normal vernacular to try and bury communications, well, that would be very serious.”

“How is anyone supposed to know how you refer to them?” Henein asked Vance, referring to people with Norman’s job title and position.

Vance replied “it would be on us” to ensure that searches directed at the department are interpreted to capture the various ways that Norman’s position and title might come up. He added that this task is not managed by the Armed Forces, but by the civilian department.

He also told the court that he provided additional search terms for Norman to the Justice Department late last week.

Following his appearance, Vance told reporters outside the Ottawa courthouse that he wants to ensure the military plays an “effective, correct role” when it comes to the production of documents for Norman’s case.

“And if there’s anybody out there who is in any way trying to thwart that, then we’ll certainly try to get to the bottom of it because he deserves a full and fair defence,” Vance said.

“This has been a difficult and painful process for all of us, including Vice-Admiral Norman. None of this makes anyone in uniform happy.”

During his testimony, Vance also said he’d spoken to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about Norman’s suspension and met in person to inform other senior figures in the government, including Trudeau’s top aides Katie Telford and Gerald Butts, exchanges that the Conservatives seized on in question period on Parliament Hill.

“So far we have heard that documents have been withheld from (Norman), access-to-information requests have been deliberately sabotaged so as not to turn up any documents, we’ve learned today about private dinners and conversations and little meetings that happened with the prime minister and his inner circle that, not surprisingly, no notes or documentation to go along with them,” said deputy Tory leader Lisa Raitt, and accused Trudeau of having prejudged Norman’s case before he’d even been charged with anything.

“I, of course, have regular interactions with the chief of defence staff,” Trudeau replied. “In this instance, the chief notified me of steps being taken regarding this individual. The notion that any politician was involved in those decisions is completely false and I won’t comment further as the matter is before the courts.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/access-searches-for-military-should-be-broadened-for-other-identifiers-vance/wcm/d7147ca9-fd6b-4208-be3c-67df72615b24

by Terrarium Thu 31 Jan 2019, 8:52 am

Conservatives raise questions about Vance’s meetings with Trudeau’s advisors on Mark Norman case

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN January 31, 2019

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 12059175

Jan. 9, 2017 was a busy time for Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance. As Vance testified in court Wednesday at a pre-trial hearing for Vice Admiral Mark Norman, that was the day he heard from senior RCMP officers about the investigation into the naval officer.

Norman was being accused of allegedly leaking information related to the Liberal’s decision to stall a contract to a Quebec firm providing a supply ship to the Royal Canadian Navy.

After hearing from the RCMP about Norman, Vance held separate meetings to brief political officials, including one with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and one with Prime Minister’s Office staff that included Katie Telford, Trudeau’s chief of staff, and Gerald Butts, Trudeau’s principal secretary. He also gave Norman notice he may be relieved from his duties as second-in-command of the Canadian Forces.

Vance also had a brief phone call that day with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to confirm that the prime minister was informed of the situation.

Despite the unprecedented nature of the police investigation into Norman and Vance informing Norman he was considering removing him from his job, the chief of the defence staff testified he never wrote down a single word of the conversations he had that day with Trudeau, the Defence Minister or any of Trudeau’s inner circle.

That night Vance went out for a private dinner with Telford and Butts.

Even with everything that happened that day, “We did not discuss Vice-Admiral Norman,” Vance testified.

The Conservatives, however, seem suspicious.

On Wednesday Conservative MP Lisa Raitt raised the issue of Norman in the Commons and her question indicated she was highly skeptical of the events of that day.

“Vice-Admiral Norman was the second-highest ranking officer in the Canadian military and so far we have heard that documents have been withheld from him and (Access to Information requests) have been deliberately sabotaged so that documents won’t turn up,” she told the Commons. “We learned today about private dinners and conversations and little meetings that happened with the prime minister and his inner circle that have surprisingly no notes or documentation to go along with them. This is very concerning. The fact that this prime minister stands here and says there’s no political interference when he himself cast Mark Norman in guilt before the charges were laid is ridiculous.”

Raitt was referring to the two occasions, before Norman had been charged with one count of breach of trust, when Trudeau stated the vice admiral was headed to court. That, prompted concerns about political interference by Trudeau in the case.

Trudeau said Wednesday that he has “regular interactions” with Vance. “In this instance, the CDS notified me of steps being taken regarding this individual. The notion that any politician was involved in those decisions is completely false,” Trudeau said.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/conservatives-raise-questions-about-vances-meetings-with-trudeaus-advisors-on-mark-norman-case

by **Starman** Thu 31 Jan 2019, 6:53 pm

Former PMO staffer's personal phone and email records must be searched, court hears in Mark Norman case

Norman's lawyer asked that the searches be prioritized, as the defence is planning to bring an abuse-of-process motion in March

Brian Platt
January 31, 2019

OTTAWA — The top political staffer in Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s office will have her personal phone messages and emails searched following a grilling Thursday by Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s defence lawyers.

Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein demanded to know whether Zita Astravas — currently Sajjan’s chief of staff, but previously a senior staffer in the Prime Minister’s Office — had searched her personal files in response to subpoenas seeking communications related to the Norman case.

Mark Norman faces one criminal charge of breach of trust for allegedly leaking cabinet secrets, an allegation he has denied. Astravas joined Sajjan’s office in the summer of 2017, but at the time of the alleged leak of cabinet confidences in November 2015, the subsequent RCMP investigation and the January 2017 decision by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance to suspend Norman from his position as second-in-command of the Canadian Forces, she was the PMO’s director of issues management, a role in which she was chiefly responsible for managing potential political problems.

Do you recall having any communications whatsoever about delaying this trial or the timing of this trial?

Under questioning from Henein Thursday morning, Astravas said she had two phones: a government-issued Blackberry, and a personal iPhone. But Astravas only searched the Blackberry in response to the subpoenas, as she understood that was the advice of the Department of National Defence. She also did not search her personal emails, and did not know whether her Blackberry messages were included in the search.

Henein then began asking specific questions about what was in Astravas’ messages — including whether she had referred to Norman using certain phrases.

“I’m going to ask you whether you ever (used your Blackberry or iPhone) to message or communicate regarding Mark Norman by referring to him as ‘the certain naval officer,’” Henein said. “Do you recall doing that?”

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Trial - Page 5 >quality=60&strip=all

Canadian Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan speaks with the media in Chelsea, Quebec, on December 6, 2018.

“I don’t,” Astravas responded.

“Is it possible you used that phrase?” Henein asked.

“I don’t recall,” Astravas responded.

Henein also asked whether Astravas used “the certain naval fellow” or “a naval colleague” to refer to Norman in messages, which Astravas also couldn’t recall.

“Do you recall having any communications whatsoever about delaying this trial or the timing of this trial?” Henein asked.

“I don’t think so,” Astravas responded. “I don’t remember.”

She also asked whether Astravas knows whether her records from her time in the PMO were searched, as well as those from her time in the defence ministry. Astravas said she did not know, and that she no longer has access to her PMO email records.

After Astravas left the stand, Henein asked that Astravas preserve her personal records for searches in response to subpoenas.

“You’ll follow through with that and make sure that the hold is done?” Justice Heather Perkins-McVey asked Astravas’ counsel. He confirmed that would happen.

Henein asked for the searches to be prioritized, as the defence is planning to bring an abuse-of-process motion in March. “There are documents arising from this evidence that are directly relevant to that, that I expect we’ll be wanting in advance,” Henein said.

Thursday is expected to be the final day of a third-party records hearing ahead of Norman’s trial. The hearing has been consumed with issues over how the government is collecting documents in response to subpoenas, particularly over what search terms were used and which devices and accounts were searched.

Justice Department counsel Robert MacKinnon told the court later on Thursday that the searches asking for all communications should have always included personal devices, and that he would be following up to make sure that happens.

“It doesn’t matter where the government-related business is being handled, if it’s on personal emails or personal data, they’re covered (by the subpoena),” MacKinnon said.

Henein told the judge she will be submitting a list of people to MacKinnon who are priorities to have their personal devices searched.

Norman’s trial is scheduled to begin in August.

• Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter: btaplatt

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/former-pmo-staffers-personal-phone-and-email-records-must-be-searched-court-hears-in-mark-norman-case

by Dragonforce Fri 01 Feb 2019, 8:21 am

A guide to the 'codenames' allegedly used for Vice Admiral Mark Norman

For sinister purposes or not, the use of cryptic phrases for Norman could be a big problem if they obstruct the ability of his defence team to subpoena records

Brian Platt
February 1, 2019
OTTAWA — Have political and military staff been using code phrases to refer to Vice Admiral Mark Norman?

This issue has come up repeatedly in the third-party records hearing ahead of his trial — particularly after the court heard witness evidence that staff may be deliberately avoiding use of Norman’s name so it’s harder to search for documents about him.

Yet when Canada’s top soldier, Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance, appeared as a witness on Wednesday, he said most of the so-called “codenames” are actually just common military jargon and colloquialisms.

Whether they’re for sinister purposes or not, the use of cryptic phrases for Norman could be a big problem if they obstruct the ability of his defence team to subpoena records about him.

Here is a guide to the codenames and jargon for Norman that have emerged so far.

Kraken

It could be appropriate for Norman, who was the head of Canada’s navy, to be nicknamed after a legendary sea monster. But “Kraken” is also the phonetic phrase for CRCN, the acronym for Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy.
C34

This one is straightforward: Norman was the 34th commander of the navy. His predecessor, then, was C33, and his successor is — you get the idea.

MN3

The letters are Mark Norman’s initials; the number refers to his rank. Norman was a vice admiral, which is a three-star equivalent position in the Canadian Forces

The Substantive VCDS

“VCDS” refers to Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, which was Norman’s position as the second-in-command of the Canadian Forces. “Substantive” would have been used while Norman was suspended from duty (after the criminal investigation was revealed in January 2017). Norman was still in the position formally, but others were fulfilling the duties while he was suspended. The others were the “Acting” VCDS, while Norman was the “Substantive” VCDS.

The Boss

A self-explanatory phrase — but also one so common that if used on important communications, it may be nearly impossible to find them later if, say, a subpoena is filed.

“The certain naval officer”

Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein cited this as a possible code phrase used by political staff to refer to Norman. Henein grilled Zita Astravas, chief of staff to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, about whether she had ever used this phrase in personal messages. Astravas responded that she couldn’t recall.

• Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter: btaplatt

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-guide-to-the-codenames-allegedly-used-for-vice-admiral-mark-norman

by Sponsored content