MP ON HOT SEAT IN NORMAN CASE
VICE-ADMIRAL’S LAWYER INTENDS TO PROBE ACTIONS OF BRISON: COURT FILINGS
Lawyers for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman have served notice they intend to probe the actions of one of the Liberal government’s top cabinet ministers as they try to clear the name of the naval officer accused of leaking confidential information.
In newly filed court documents, Norman’s lawyers allege that as a November 2015 deadline approached to sign a deal to lease a much-needed naval supply ship from Quebec-based Davie Shipbuilding, both defence minister Harjit Sajjan and Judy Foote, then minister responsible for procurement, were in favour of moving ahead with the project. Set in motion by the previous Conservative government, the deal also had the backing of senior government bureaucrats.
But Treasury Board president Scott Brison intervened just before the deadline, the documents claim, raising questions about putting the Davie deal on hold.
Norman’s lawyers claim Brison, a
Nova Scotia MP, is close to Atlantic Canada’s wealthy and powerful Irving family. Their shipbuilding firm had submitted its own proposal to provide a supply ship, which the Conservative government had rejected in favour of Davie’s bid. “It will be the defence’s position that Minister Brison was behind the effort to delay and potentially terminate the Davie agreement,” the documents state.
The claims are contained in an application Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein filed in an Ottawa court Friday seeking access to a massive trove of classified government documents she argues are necessary to mount the vice-admiral’s defence when he comes to trial on a criminal charge of breach of trust.
Norman, who as vice-chief of the defence staff was second-incommand of the Canadian Forces, was suspended from his position by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance in January 2017, some 14 months after then-CBC journalist James Cudmore reported that the newly elected Liberal government planned to delay a contract awarded to Davie Shipbuilding to provide the navy with a supply ship.
In the face of the resulting publicity the government backed down on the delay, but asked the RCMP to investigate the alleged leak of information. The government claimed the information was protected by cabinet confidence, which it is illegal to release without authorization.
After the RCMP raided Norman’s house, Vance suspended him from his duties. He was not charged until March 2018.
The RCMP allege Norman championed Davie’s proposal and provided Davie officials with information from the cabinet meeting and the discussions about delaying the deal with the company. Norman was not at the meeting and was not in Ottawa at the time.
Henein’s application argues that, far from interfering in a shipbuilding contract for personal gain or preference, as the Crown has alleged, Norman was working to ensure that the orders of elected officials were being followed. It also argues there is no evidence Norman ever leaked cabinet documents, alleging the leak in question actually came from a government employee. And it points out that leaks are endemic in Ottawa, only occasionally investigated and almost never a matter for the courts.
The application also noted that an internal investigation by the Privy Council Office found that at least 42 people knew about the planned cabinet committee discussion on the ship contract beforehand, and that 73 people knew about the outcome of the cabinet meeting about the naval supply ship after it concluded. “The PCO investigation found that there were six separate leaks related to the Ad Hoc Committee alone, including to two separate CBC reporters, Radio-Canada, and the lobbying firm Fleishman&Hillard,” the document says. “The sources of most of the leaks identified in the PCO investigation remain unknown.”
Only Norman has been charged over the leaks.
Among the documents Henein has applied to access are records of communications between Brison’s office and James Irving. Irving had complained in a letter to cabinet ministers including Sajjan, Foote and Brison that his company’s supply ship proposal was not properly examined.
Brison, the court filing claimed, is close to the Irvings and has frequently been lobbied by James Irving on behalf of the company.
Henein is also seeking the minutes of the committee meeting “to determine whether politics trumped the operational concerns held by VAdm Norman, and whether the action of Irving ‘overly-politicized’ the process.”
Irving Shipbuilding has denied allegations it has been involved in any political interference intended to undercut a rival shipyard, and Brison has denied his actions were on behalf of the Irving family. On Sunday Bruce Cheadle, Brison’s director of communications, told Postmedia that “as President of the Treasury Board, Minister Brison’s mandate includes expenditure review and the challenge function to ensure due diligence in government contracting. As the matter is before the courts, it would be improper to comment further.”
During the RCMP investigation, Brison, who had been in federal politics for 20 years, claimed he had never before seen such a leak of sensitive information.
But in her filing to the court, Henein argues that Brison has himself previously been “caught leaking sensitive information.”
In 2005, Brison, then public works minister in Prime Minister Paul Martin’s government, sent an email to a bank official about the Liberal government’s soon-tobe-announced decision on income trusts. “I think you will be happier very soon ... this week probably,” Brison wrote in the email. The next day, the government announced it would not impose a tax on the investment funds, but not before trading in the trusts spiked, prompting an RCMP investigation into a potential leak. Brison eventually acknowledged sending the information but argued it was not a leak of sensitive information since he was not involved in making decisions about income trusts and his comments were based on “what was being publicly speculated at the time.”
Henein points out Brison was never charged over the incident. “He defended himself by stating that the information was speculation based on rumours and information that had been circulating around government, very much like the second-or-third hand information at issue in this case,” she argues.
Brison’s office did not respond to requests for comment made by Postmedia Saturday and Sunday. It is unclear whether his office will surrender documents to Norman’s lawyer.
Henein’s application makes 52 total requests for disclosure of government records, contending the documents the Crown has so far disclosed to the defence have been “selective evidence cherry-picked by the prosecution,” where what is needed is “the full narrative of government activity as it pertained to the (ship contract).”
Among the other records requested are minutes of cabinet meetings; records of communication to and from the Prime Minister’s Office; records of any government investigations related to other leaks that have recently appeared in the media; and wide-ranging records of communication between government ministers and shipbuilding firms, including Irving Shipbuilding. The requests encompass records under both the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government.
Henein also raises concerns about having the Privy Council Office and Prime Minister Trudeau acting as gatekeepers in determining which documents will be disclosed. Her application notes that on two separate occasions, Trudeau predicted publicly that Norman was headed for court, even though no charge had been laid at the time.
The application also counters RCMP allegations that Norman was personally pushing for the Davie ship proposal. It argues Norman had faced pressure from inside government to “express a clear preference” for the Davie ship.
Norman’s trial is scheduled for August 2019, which would likely see it overlap with the next federal election campaign.
THE SOURCES OF MOST OF THE LEAKS ... REMAIN UNKNOWN.