The charges relate to Norman releasing confidential cabinet information. Whether that information was released in written form, electronic form or just repeating what he heard it can be breach of trust. Why the Libs ever went after Norman is a mystery to me. Irving is another of their corporate friends though.
The feminist who muzzles women
- Thread starter Forthedevil
- Start date
Lol! Government naval ship procurement documents belong to the government of Canada they do not belong to Cabinet. Do you even understand what constitutes a Government document vs a "cabinet secret"?The charges relate to Norman releasing confidential cabinet information. Whether that information was released in written form, electronic form or just repeating what he heard it can be breach of trust. Why the Libs ever went after Norman is a mystery to me. Irving is another of their corporate friends though.
The CBC disagrees. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/matthew-matchett-norman-charges-1.5017684But he wasn't charged with breach of trust for sharing "cabinet secrets" as you claim. He shared government documents relating to naval ship procurement with Irving shipyards. Those are government documents NOT "cabinet secrets". In addition; there is no Criminal Code provision (i.e. No law) regarding "Cabinet confidentiality." Put another way; if Norman breached cabinet confidentiality or leaked "cabinet secrets" why was he not charged with breaching Cabinet confidentiality? Because the law he allegedly broke was leaking confidential Government documents. Just because a document is classified as a Confidential Government Document does not in any way mean that said document is a "cabinet document". Even if a confidential government document is reviewed/used/shared amongst Cabinet, it does not transform said document into a "cabinet document".
To quote the relevant section ....
Norman is accused of leaking the news of that decision to a CBC reporter. The Crown also alleges the former commander of the navy was slipping cabinet secrets to Davie in the run-up to the contract signing under the former Conservative government.
And as you can read he shared those "cabinet secrets" with Davie Shipyards, not Irving.
Well apparently not. Please explain the difference.Do you even understand what constitutes a Government document vs a "cabinet secret"?
And here's an article that refers to the leak of "government secrets"The CBC disagrees. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/matthew-matchett-norman-charges-1.5017684
To quote the relevant section ....
Norman is accused of leaking the news of that decision to a CBC reporter. The Crown also alleges the former commander of the navy was slipping cabinet secrets to Davie in the run-up to the contract signing under the former Conservative government.
And as you can read he shared those "cabinet secrets" with Davie Shipyards, not Irving.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...mans-lawyers-push-emails-trudeau-senior-staff
And here's yet another article that refers to the leak of "confidential information"
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/26/tor...th-bid-to-force-liberals-to-disclose-records/
What term a news outlet chooses to use does not mean it is the correct legal terminology. Cabinet as a group produces almost zero documents; save for maybe Cabinet meeting minutes. That said; Cabinet will review/discuss many documents produced by let's say civil servants, Cabinet members, deputy ministers, etc. The important distinction here is that authorship of these various documents is not Cabinet itself; although Cabinet may use these documents in the normal course of Cabinet meetings. A document can be produced for the benefit/use of Cabinet, but that document will almost always be authored/produced by somebody else. Thus there is almost never anything that can be considered a "cabinet document." However; there can be "cabinet secrets" per se. In fact; everything discussed in Cabinet meetings is considered a "cabinet secret" and bound by cabinet confidentiality. If Cabinet discusses a presentation made by let's say National Defense; that presentation may or may not be deemed confidential depending on the contents of the presentation. If the presentation is deemed confidential then anyone (Cabinet member or civil servant, etc) who leaks that document will be in breach of trust. However; the presentation is not deemed a "cabinet secret" (although it is deemed confidential); nor is it deemed a "cabinet document" simply because it was presented to Cabinet. The "cabinet secret" is the discussion that Cabinet has with respect to the presentation, not the presentation itself. As I stated earlier; Cabinet almost never produces "documents". The reason relates to our system of government. Because Canada is a constitutional monarchy, there can be no public record of Cabinet dissent. Cabinet's role under our Constitution is to advise the Crown, that advice must be unanimous and without dissent among Cabinet. If it were not unanimous; that means we are giving the Queen a decision and not advice. As silly as it may sound; the Queen/Crown/Monarch in a constitutional monarchy should never be given a decision to make. That is why Cabinet produces next to no documents; to avoid any situation where Cabinet dissent may be made public. That is why all discussion at Cabinet meetings are considered Cabinet secrets and bound by Cabinet confidentiality; to avoid any situation where Cabinet dissent is made public. Circling back to the Norman case and the CBC's use of the term "cabinet secrets"; Cabinet secrets in practice are the discussions had by Cabinet in Cabinet meetings. Cabinet secrets are almost never documents, per se, because Cabinet doesn't produce very many documents.
Pedantic. As a matter of law the distinctions you are trying to draw are nonsense. Ask yourself why Norman was ever charged to begin with? Think corporations close to the LiberalsAnd here's an article that refers to the leak of "government secrets"
https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...mans-lawyers-push-emails-trudeau-senior-staff
And here's yet another article that refers to the leak of "confidential information"
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/26/tor...th-bid-to-force-liberals-to-disclose-records/
What term a news outlet chooses to use does not mean it is the correct legal terminology. Cabinet as a group produces almost zero documents; save for maybe Cabinet meeting minutes. That said; Cabinet will review/discuss many documents produced by let's say civil servants, Cabinet members, deputy ministers, etc. The important distinction here is that authorship of these various documents is not Cabinet itself; although Cabinet may use these documents in the normal course of Cabinet meetings. A document can be produced for the benefit/use of Cabinet, but that document will almost always be authored/produced by somebody else. Thus there is almost never anything that can be considered a "cabinet document." However; there can be "cabinet secrets" per se. In fact; everything discussed in Cabinet meetings is considered a "cabinet secret" and bound by cabinet confidentiality. If Cabinet discusses a presentation made by let's say National Defense; that presentation may or may not be deemed confidential depending on the contents of the presentation. If the presentation is deemed confidential then anyone (Cabinet member or civil servant, etc) who leaks that document will be in breach of trust. However; the presentation is not deemed a "cabinet secret" (although it is deemed confidential); nor is it deemed a "cabinet document" simply because it was presented to Cabinet. The "cabinet secret" is the discussion that Cabinet has with respect to the presentation, not the presentation itself. As I stated earlier; Cabinet almost never produces "documents". The reason relates to our system of government. Because Canada is a constitutional monarchy, there can be no public record of Cabinet dissent. Cabinet's role under our Constitution is to advise the Crown, that advice must be unanimous and without dissent among Cabinet. If it were not unanimous; that means we are giving the Queen a decision and not advice. As silly as it may sound; the Queen/Crown/Monarch in a constitutional monarchy should never be given a decision to make. That is why Cabinet produces next to no documents; to avoid any situation where Cabinet dissent may be made public. That is why all discussion at Cabinet meetings are considered Cabinet secrets and bound by Cabinet confidentiality; to avoid any situation where Cabinet dissent is made public. Circling back to the Norman case and the CBC's use of the term "cabinet secrets"; Cabinet secrets in practice are the discussions had by Cabinet in Cabinet meetings. Cabinet secrets are almost never documents, per se, because Cabinet doesn't produce very many documents.
Then as a matter of Law; please correct me. And why Norman was charged is simple; it's the same reason why anyone is charged: law enforcement investigated, presented evidence to Crown prosecutor and recommended charges, for which the Crown prosecutor agreed with and voila, we have a court case.Pedantic. As a matter of law the distinctions you are trying to draw are nonsense. Ask yourself why Norman was ever charged to begin with? Think corporations close to the Liberals
For the Liberal apologists who say “they can speak their truth anytime”
That is what Trudeau promised from the beginning. And Indigenous reconciliation. And many other bromides. In practice, in the Trudeau Cabinet, women are to be seen but not to be heard. There is ambiguity about how freely Wilson-Raybould and Philpott can speak. Justin Trudeau can end that ambiguity. I can only assume he has something to hide. So much for the Trudeau brand.
That is what Trudeau promised from the beginning. And Indigenous reconciliation. And many other bromides. In practice, in the Trudeau Cabinet, women are to be seen but not to be heard. There is ambiguity about how freely Wilson-Raybould and Philpott can speak. Justin Trudeau can end that ambiguity. I can only assume he has something to hide. So much for the Trudeau brand.
Uh huh. Irving. Scott Brison. Massive delays with the Feds producing documents requested by the defence. Scott Brison, witness in the criminal trial has resigned from cabinet. I’m betting that it never goes to trial. The prosecution is under instructions to delay until the Court invokes R v Jordan.Then as a matter of Law; please correct me. And why Norman was charged is simple; it's the same reason why anyone is charged: law enforcement investigated, presented evidence to Crown prosecutor and recommended charges, for which the Crown prosecutor agreed with and voila, we have a court case.
Lol! The Norman case is in pretrial and scheduled to go trial in the summer if memory serves. Kind of debunks your "prosecution is under instructions to delay" assertion. And, just an FYI, the court/judge does not "invoke" R v Jordan; counsel for the accused would petition the court to stay or withdraw charges due to unreasonable delay in getting to trial using R v Jordan as the precedent. In any event; seems unlikely as trial is scheduled. And why would prosecution want to delay it's own case; even if they were "under instructions" as you claim - if someone can pull the strings to force a prosecutor to delay their case, just get them to drop it. Logic is not one of your stronger attributes young man.Uh huh. Irving. Scott Brison. Massive delays with the Feds producing documents requested by the defence. Scott Brison, witness in the criminal trial has resigned from cabinet. I’m betting that it never goes to trial. The prosecution is under instructions to delay until the Court invokes R v Jordan.
More of the pedant. I know the court process. But thanks anyway. Just as we will have an election we will see the result of the Norman prosecution.Lol! The Norman case is in pretrial and scheduled to go trial in the summer if memory serves. Kind of debunks your "prosecution is under instructions to delay" assertion. And, just an FYI, the court/judge does not "invoke" R v Jordan; counsel for the accused would petition the court to stay or withdraw charges due to unreasonable delay in getting to trial using R v Jordan as the precedent. In any event; seems unlikely as trial is scheduled. And why would prosecution want to delay it's own case; even if they were "under instructions" as you claim - if someone can pull the strings to force a prosecutor to delay their case, just get them to drop it. Logic is not one of your stronger attributes young man.
That's about the only factual thing you have stated that I can recall.Just as we will have an election we will see the result of the Norman prosecution.
Uh huh......That's about the only factual thing you have stated that I can recall.
