Author Topic: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight  (Read 323374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,705
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #950 on: May 15, 2019, 22:04:55 »
So you're saying he's a NWO officer?

Which you obviously are not, DP.

Otherwise you would have known that it is either "NWO" period, or "NW officer".

But not "NWO officer, which is a tautology in the same category as SIN number.

/pedant NWO off


 ;D

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 470,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,997
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #951 on: May 15, 2019, 22:07:37 »
And here I thought it was Naval Warfare Operations... or New World Order, but those are the ones flying black helicopters.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline kratz

    Back into the Fall routine.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 266,363
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,361
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #952 on: May 16, 2019, 20:22:19 »
It's no surprise the Liberal majority blocked the call for a parliamentary inquiry, but the weak justification is slim at best:

NationalPost.com

Quote
Liberals block parliamentary inquiry into Mark Norman case, reject invitation to have him testify
BRIAN PLATT MAY 16, 2019

OTTAWA — Liberal MPs have blocked an attempt by the opposition parties to hold a parliamentary inquiry into whether there was political interference in the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman criminal case.

The Liberals also voted against inviting Norman to testify at the House of Commons national defence committee and tell his side of the story.

The Conservatives and NDP had brought a motion to the defence committee to launch a study of the Norman case, but the Liberals used their majority on the committee to vote it down on Thursday afternoon.

“This is very disappointing, to know that Vice-Admiral Norman has put in over 30 years in service to his country in uniform, and the Liberals won’t even give him three minutes,” said Conservative MP James Bezan after the meeting ended.

Liberal MPs argued the committee wouldn’t be the right forum for Norman to speak in, describing the atmosphere as “hyper-partisan.”

“Vice-Admiral Norman is one of our highest-ranking military officers, it’s a question about political interference, optically we should not insert him into a politically-charged forum to make the case that he needs to make,” said Liberal MP Sven Spengemann.

The Liberals suggested the media might be a better place to tell his story, but the Conservatives argued he should have the protection of parliamentary privilege, which shields him from liability over what he says.

But Conservative MP Erin O’Toole — a former air force officer — said he doesn’t think active members of the military should be seeking to testify, and that it would have been more appropriate for the committee to invite Norman.

“Rather than the Liberals turning themselves into pretzels to try to find ways not to do this…if the majority is going to be used to crush it, just come out and say that,” O’Toole said. A few minutes later, the Liberals voted against the invitation to Norman.

Norman was charged in March 2018 with a single count of breach of trust over an allegation he systematically leaked confidential info about a $700-million navy supply ship project. The case collapsed last week after prosecutors acknowledged they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.

The original motion put forward by the opposition would have seen many witnesses called to testify, including Norman, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, and various other senior government figures. It would have also invited Liberal MP Andrew Leslie (who offered testify on Norman’s behalf) and former CBC reporter James Cudmore (who received some of the alleged leaks, and is now a Liberal staffer).

It was NDP MP Randy Garrison who tried to find a compromise by amending the motion to only call on Norman as a witness.

“I remain concerned that he says he has more to say, and that he be given a forum to do that where he can be protected from prosecution,” Garrison said.

Speaking after the meeting, Garrison said he had no confidence the Liberals were serious when they said maybe Norman could testify if he requested to.

Other Liberal MPs on the committee said they don’t see any evidence of political interference in the case. Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen called such allegations “hearsay,” and said the Conservatives were pushing that narrative to avoid talking about the country’s economy.

“I too believe that this is a bit of a fabricated, partisan exercise,” said Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz. She said it’s a distraction from the “key issues of the day,” and said her Toronto constituents are more concerned about climate change, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and the success of the arts community.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,042
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,494
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #953 on: May 16, 2019, 21:44:40 »
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-norman-not-the-only-victim-of-trudeaus-vindictive-streak#comments

LILLEY: Norman not the only victim of Trudeau's vindictive streak

Brian Lilley

Published: May 15, 2019

As the Conservatives hammered the Liberals in the House of Commons for the second night in a row, a woman at the centre of the drama surrounding Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was hammering the actions of the Trudeau government.

Kelly Gabie was the lead federal representative in the negotiations to award a supply ship retrofit contract to the Davie shipyard in Quebec.

<snip>

In a letter to Conservative MP Michelle Rempel, Gabie thanks the MP for her support of Norman but says he hasn’t been the only one hurt.

"The Liberal government has not just hurt (Vice-Admiral) Norman; there has been so much collateral damage affecting every member of the integrated team that worked on that file, either DMs retired out early, ADMs promoted quietly out of Ottawa," Gabie writes.

<snip>

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,877
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #954 on: May 17, 2019, 08:57:04 »
Front page of the Globe and Mail today. Me thinks this thing has legs for a few more days.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-set-in-motion-mountie-probe-that-led-to-charges-against-vice/

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 569,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,305
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #955 on: May 17, 2019, 09:45:22 »
Liberals block parliamentary inquiry into Mark Norman case, reject invitation to have him testify
BRIAN PLATT MAY 16, 2019

[Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz] said it’s a distraction from the “key issues of the day,” and said her Toronto constituents are more concerned about climate change, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and the success of the arts community.
Yes, potential government impropriety, and by extension national security (ship building programme), is a distraction from the arts community!   :facepalm:

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 33,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 904
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #956 on: May 17, 2019, 09:56:08 »
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-norman-not-the-only-victim-of-trudeaus-vindictive-streak#comments

LILLEY: Norman not the only victim of Trudeau's vindictive streak

Brian Lilley

Published: May 15, 2019

As the Conservatives hammered the Liberals in the House of Commons for the second night in a row, a woman at the centre of the drama surrounding Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was hammering the actions of the Trudeau government.

Kelly Gabie was the lead federal representative in the negotiations to award a supply ship retrofit contract to the Davie shipyard in Quebec.

<snip>

In a letter to Conservative MP Michelle Rempel, Gabie thanks the MP for her support of Norman but says he hasn’t been the only one hurt.

"The Liberal government has not just hurt (Vice-Admiral) Norman; there has been so much collateral damage affecting every member of the integrated team that worked on that file, either DMs retired out early, ADMs promoted quietly out of Ottawa," Gabie writes.

<snip>

Wow, that's a bit of a leap. Had the misfortune of working on the NSS file for a while, and a lot of these people were just empire building on the back of a project, and would constantly delay progress to push some BS agenda. Hated that posting, and had me actively applying to civvie jobs. Not going to get into the details, but she was part of the problem, so while I wish her the best in recovery, wasn't sad to see a number of people transferred out.

The worst part of working there was having people who had never stepped worked in a shipyard explaining to me that they somehow understood ship repair and shipbuilding better than anything myself or the various shipbuilding experts we had on call did. I think my final straw was putting together a report from a group with over a century of work in shipbuilding, and having it ignored completely in the decision process. The big giant heads love them some third party expert reports, right up until it doesn't support their uninformed preconceived opinions. :facepalm: :facepalm:

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,678
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #957 on: May 17, 2019, 11:15:27 »
Wow, that's a bit of a leap. Had the misfortune of working on the NSS file for a while, and a lot of these people were just empire building on the back of a project, and would constantly delay progress to push some BS agenda. Hated that posting, and had me actively applying to civvie jobs. Not going to get into the details, but she was part of the problem, so while I wish her the best in recovery, wasn't sad to see a number of people transferred out.

The worst part of working there was having people who had never stepped worked in a shipyard explaining to me that they somehow understood ship repair and shipbuilding better than anything myself or the various shipbuilding experts we had on call did. I think my final straw was putting together a report from a group with over a century of work in shipbuilding, and having it ignored completely in the decision process. The big giant heads love them some third party expert reports, right up until it doesn't support their uninformed preconceived opinions. :facepalm: :facepalm:

Sadly from what I have seen in the forum that seems to be the norm, not the exception. I has the pleasure weeks ago chatting to Rhemantall during a train the trainung course for those new 720G radios. I won't go into detail but what you described seems to not be isolated at all.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Caesar Augustus

  • Guest
  • *
  • 155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #958 on: May 17, 2019, 14:46:27 »
What abt Gen. Vance's involvement? Nobody seems to discuss it here? He seems pretty involved in this too.🤨

'I own it': Vance says decision to suspend Mark Norman was his, not PM's

http://flip.it/zvo-S7

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,877
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #959 on: May 20, 2019, 08:14:58 »
From Murray Brewster. A lot of poo hit the fan on this issue and I think the only entity that didn't get spattered is Seaspan. ;D

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-supply-ship-trudeau-1.5141446

Who was at fault? According to the government, nobody — or maybe everybody

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: May 20, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

There's a time-honoured tradition in Ottawa: when things go wrong — horribly wrong — somebody gets thrown under the bus.

The collapse of the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman saw that custom accelerated at breakneck speed this week as the Liberal government sought to put as much distance as possible between itself and the failed prosecution.

The most prominent person among those tossed beneath the wheels is the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, who — according to both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — was the one who decided to suspend Norman in the first place.

"The chief of defence staff has full responsibility for the administration and command of the Canadian Armed Forces," Trudeau told the Commons during question period this week.

Sajjan, who served under Vance in Afghanistan, also tried to steer blame toward the chief of the defence staff during marathon questioning Wednesday night related to his department's budget.

"When the decision [to suspend Norman] was made, I supported it," the minister said, citing the chief's authority under the National Defence Act. "I have faith in the chief of defence staff to carry out his duties."

Those remarks made it sound as though the minister was an innocent bystander who had no authority to question or challenge Vance's decision.

That's pretty ironic, since senior government officials have for months framed the prosecution of Norman, on allegations of leaking cabinet information, as an effort to reinforce civilian control over the military.

The commander of the navy, they argued, should never be allowed to usurp the will of the elected government of the day by agitating for a leased supply ship.

The notion that military men should be "limited to request[ing] and advising on needs" is seeded throughout the Crown's factum in the Norman case, filed last December.

Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance participates in an interview with The Canadian Press in his office in Ottawa on Friday, Jan. 11, 2019. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)
On Friday, Vance insisted that the decision to suspend Norman was his alone and was made without political direction or interference.

And beyond informing Sajjan and Trudeau of the RCMP investigation, the defence chief said, "I have never, ever spoken to anybody political about this, beyond that, ever. Period."

There are some in Ottawa who will interpret that statement as Vance taking a bullet for the Liberal government — but the law does invest him with the authority to act.

Whether he should have acted so swiftly — whether he should have demanded to see more information from the RCMP in advance — is a question observers have been asking from the outset. But the calls have become louder since the Crown conceded it did not have all of the evidence when it decided to lay a charge of breach-of-trust against Norman.

"The main point to take away from all of this," said retired lieutenant-colonel Rory Fowler, a former military lawyer now in private practice, "is that the CDS was not obliged to do what he did and, quite frankly, the decision had nothing to do with the Code of Service discipline. His decision was administrative in nature."

Others being tossed under the bus this week include harried (and occasionally befuddled) civil servants whose slow, deliberate combing of federal government documents subpoenaed by the defence turned the court process into an extraordinary exercise in frustration.

Buckets of black ink were poured over the various records through redaction, apparently in the interest of preserving cabinet secrecy or solicitor-client privilege.

"The decision to redact information was made by public servants in this case and overseen by the court," said Justice Minister David Lametti. "We met all our obligations."

What the Liberals failed to explain was why Conservative-era cabinet documents — which could have helped to exonerate Norman early on — were not in the hands of either the RCMP or the Crown.

The Conservatives are using that fact, among others, as the foundation for their call for a public inquiry.

Not even the Ontario government escaped the bus this week. In what was one of the more creative deflections, justice officials and (eventually) Liberal MPs argued that it wasn't the federal government that actually prosecuted Norman.

Rather, the director of public prosecutions was acting in the name of the Attorney General of Ontario because the case was grinding through provincial court system.

Given all their verbal and mental gymnastics this week, Liberal MPs have shown little curiosity about how they got into this mess in the first place — and a fierce desire to get far away from it.

Maybe in quieter moments they'll reflect on why the former Conservative government felt compelled to hotwire the military procurement system in an exceptional deal with the Davie Shipyard, in Lévis, Que., to lease a supply ship for the navy.

And why former ministers failed to speak to the RCMP after Norman was charged.

"The deal has literally no comparison," said Dave Perry, a defence analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Procurement regulations were changed to make it go ahead the way it did. A letter of intent signed immediately prior to the election period. Everything about this was atypical."

And perhaps, one day, the Liberals might ask why one of the country's most senior and decorated naval commanders staked his career on that project.




Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,622
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #960 on: May 20, 2019, 16:33:30 »
An article from the Hill Times discussing Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's experience.
https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/05/20/conservatives-confident-mark-norman-will-expose-more-liberal-wrongdoing/200489?

I have been thinking over the past while what are some of the possible outcomes for the Admiral.
1. Reinstated as Vice CDS or appointed CDS. 2.Shuffled into some benign military post. 3. Give a senior civil servant spot.
4. Golden handshake.
Thoughts?

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 68,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,843
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #961 on: May 20, 2019, 17:37:11 »
1. Reinstated as Vice CDS or appointed CDS. 2.Shuffled into some benign military post. 3. Give a senior civil servant spot. 4. Golden handshake.
Thoughts?
5. Released having reached retirement age.  Even though he may have elected CRA 60, there is no requirement for the CAF to retain him until age 60 if there is no place to put him.  GO/FO, I believe, serve at the pleasure of the GiC and can be released 5(c) at any time if not succession planned for higher.

I would suspect the relationship between the VAdm and the CAF, particularly the CDS is strained.  The CDS has no choice but to reinstate him as per QR&O 19.75 (5).  What to do with him in this eventuality was probably never considered as the PM and many others expected him to be found guilty.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 189,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,546
  • It's all good
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #962 on: May 20, 2019, 18:21:09 »
GOFOs essentially serve at the pleasure of the CDS, who serves at the pleasure of the PM...
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 68,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,843
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #963 on: May 20, 2019, 18:26:52 »
GOFOs essentially serve at the pleasure of the CDS, who serves at the pleasure of the PM...
Kinda figured you'd be along shortly.  I was close... thanks, PPCLI, Guy. 
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,161
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #964 on: May 20, 2019, 18:54:26 »
Question I have: Jame Cudmore of the CBC, then employed by the government. The media protects it's sources. Anyone (gov't investigators/RCMP/CDS/DM officials) ask Cudmore if it was VAdm Norman? Yes or no answer. Is that revealing sources if Cudmore said it was someone else he received the info from, not VAdm Norman?
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,299
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #965 on: May 20, 2019, 22:54:20 »
The feds hired him within days of writing that article. There is no legal privilege with journalism sources-if a source of journalism information  is demanded by an authority through an established legal process, they must comply. There's no grey area here, the Supreme Court made that crystal clear in the Vice media case.
Living the lean life

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,042
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,494
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #966 on: May 21, 2019, 17:46:42 »
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/we-did-it-well-lametti-defends-justice-departments-response-to-subpoenas-in-mark-norman-case

'We did it well': Lametti defends Justice Department's response to subpoenas in Mark Norman case

Norman's lawyers criticized the department for the lengthy, arduous process in disclosing crucial documents

Brian Platt May 20, 2019 5:15 PM EDT

OTTAWA - Justice Minister David Lametti says he’s satisfied his department did the best job it could in finding, reviewing and disclosing thousands of government documents requested by Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s defence team.

<snip>

Even so, Norman’s defence team made several successful arguments in court that the searches were not as comprehensive as they should have been. In some cases the search terms weren’t being used consistently across departments. In others, personal phones and email accounts weren’t being included in response to subpoenas for “all communications.”

Justice Perkins-McVey called it “baffling” that the Crown still had not handed over the requested documents and ordered the Justice Department to search again for them.

“This was an extraordinarily complex request for documents,” Lametti said. “At every stage, in good faith, we adjusted. There were things that one wouldn’t anticipate, necessarily. We fixed this thing in an ongoing way as we moved forward.”

After the case was stayed, Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein argued the government shouldn’t have been fighting so hard in the first place to hang onto documents and fight the subpoena requests. “No person in this country should ever walk into a courtroom and feel like they are fighting their elected government or any sort of political factors at all,” she said.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeaus-dark-cast-of-characters-at-the-centre-of-scandal

LILLEY: Trudeau’s dark cast of characters at the centre of scandal

Brian Lilley Published: May 21, 2019

Perhaps Jody Wilson-Raybould should be meeting up with Mark Norman to compare notes.

The Vice-Admiral and the former attorney general likely have much in common in how they have been treated by Team Trudeau.

In separate interviews with Postmedia over the last few days, the pair have been telling their respective stories.

<snip>

What they have in common is the attempt by Team Trudeau to interfere in the supposedly independent justice system.

They also share the same cast of characters.

Katie Telford, Michael Wernick, Scott Brison and of course Trudeau himself.

Telford is Trudeau’s chief of staff who famously said, “We don’t want to debate legalities any more.”

That is what Telford told Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff after hearing another explanation on why SNC-Lavalin would not be getting the sweetheart deal to avoid prosecution.

Translation: forget what the law says, do what the PM wants.

Telford was also there when Norman was suspended prior to trial, getting a special briefing for political staffers including the now departed Gerry Butts.

<snip>

Given how Norman describes the situation it is likely Telford, a civilian and political staffer, knew more about the allegation against Canada’s second highest ranking military officer than Norman himself did.

The whole Norman affair started after then-Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick effectively kickstarted the investigation.

After Trudeau became concerned about the leak regarding the shipbuilding contract, Wernick wrote a 60-page memo for Trudeau detailing the situation and why he thought Norman was to blame.

When the RCMP was asked to investigate the request came from Wernick.

<snip>

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,622
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #967 on: May 25, 2019, 09:35:46 »
Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance and Vice-Admiral Mark Norman met this week to discuss the return of the senior naval officer as second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Although Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said Vice-Adm. Norman would not be getting his old job back as vice-chief of the defence staff, a source said the discussions between General Vance and Vice-Adm. Norman focused on when he could return to the No. 2 post.

The source, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about what transpired between the two senior military officers, said the issue is about timing and ensuring his reinstatement is done responsibly.

A source said Gen. Vance made the decision to bring Vice-Adm. Norman back on his own and that an immediate announcement is unlikely because a role has to be found for Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk, who was named Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in July, 2018.

The meeting took place on Monday, and one source described it as a warm conversation between two old friends.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/technology/science/article-first-satellites-for-elon-musks-starlink-internet-venture-launched/

What happened, had an attack of common sense in Ottawa?  Sounds like the right thing to do, almost to good to be true.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 68,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,843
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #968 on: May 26, 2019, 10:15:31 »
A source said Gen. Vance made the decision to bring Vice-Adm. Norman back on his own...

The article makes it seem that the CDS did something magnanimous, when, in fact he didn't.  As I stated above, the CDS has no choice but to reinstate him as per QR&O 19.75 (5) and/or QR&O 101.09(4), which both read: "the authority who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty shall order that the member return to duty when the circumstances giving rise to the decision to relieve the member from the performance of military duty are no longer present.".
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,253
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,949
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #969 on: May 30, 2019, 17:28:26 »
Senate votes to hear testimony from Vice-Admiral Mark Norman

A second attempt to hold parliamentary hearings on the collapse of the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was successful late Tuesday, as a handful of Independent senators voted in favour of a Conservative motion to hear him testify.

The motion, put before the Senate defence committee, calls on it "to examine and report on the circumstances that led the RCMP to lay now stayed criminal charges" against Norman, the military's former second-in-command.

The committee now looks to see the former vice chief of the defence staff, his boss Gen. Jonathan Vance and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan called to testify before June 20, when Parliament is widely expected to rise for the final time before the fall election.

The committee will have to meet again to decide when that testimony will be heard.

More at link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-mark-norman-parliamentary-hearings-murray-brewster-1.5153487
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 149,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,710
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #970 on: May 30, 2019, 19:09:39 »
Sept-Oct would be nice....

Offline kratz

    Back into the Fall routine.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 266,363
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,361
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #971 on: June 07, 2019, 17:11:59 »
VAdm Norman is on the guest list for next week's RCN Change of Command parade.

Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 470,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,997
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #972 on: June 07, 2019, 17:25:09 »
VAdm Norman is on the guest list for next week's RCN Change of Command parade.

Incoming Kraken? ;)
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,877
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #973 on: June 07, 2019, 21:53:47 »
Incoming Kraken? ;)

Nope, Art McDonald is CRCN.

Offline kratz

    Back into the Fall routine.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 266,363
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,361
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #974 on: June 09, 2019, 16:20:54 »
Incoming Kraken? ;)

I was inaccurate WRT VADM Norman. He'll attend a secondary event after the COC this week.
So no, there's no speculation of him as a drowned Kraken.    ;D

From what I see, it'll be the best coast as the next Kraken vs the sandy bottom.   :whistle:
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.