Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charges Against Admiral Norman Stayed

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Maverick View Post

    There's nothing stopping Trudeau and Sajjan from apologizing outside of the House of Commons.
    There are legal reasons as to why they might not do it in public vs HoC tho. Pierre Pollievre's entire career is based on these rules.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Green_and_White View Post

      If it was scheduled vote it would likely be in a different sitting, like the one tomorrow everyone is salivating over. Not tacked on to the end of question period. To that end, you're again just making the assumption that the party whips knew before hand. Find me a link/article where it backs that claim up and I'll gladly eat some crow.
      It says right in the Hansard that they consulted with all the parties beforehand... The PMO and defence minister knew this was coming, and exactly when the motion would be introduced... Points of Order

      Justice [Points of Order]

      [Expand]

      Hon. Lisa Raitt (Milton, CPC):
      Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

      That the House recognize Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for his decades of loyal service to Canada, express regret for the personal and professional hardships he endured as a result of his failed prosecution, and apologize to him and his family for what they experienced during their legal conflict with the government.

      (1510)


      [Expand]

      The Speaker:
      Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

      Some hon. members: Agreed.

      The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

      Some hon. members: Agreed.

      (Motion agreed to)

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by bohsask View Post
        It says right in the Hansard that they consulted with all the parties beforehand... The PMO and defence minister knew this was coming, and exactly when the motion would be introduced...
        Thank you for providing that. I stand corrected about the prior engagement/consultations and will take my lumps for being mistaken. Though, again, there are still assumptions at play that they knew and intentionally ducked out to avoid it. As per my reply to Maverick, this motion was ultimately legally non binding. If they were ever going to apologize and try and save face, it's odd they'd sit that out, just to have the headlines berate them for it. Though admittedly the Liberals politic game has been rattled the last few months.
        Last edited by Green_and_White; 05-15-2019, 02:25 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Green_and_White View Post

          Raitt brought up the issue/vote after JT had already left to meet the Croatian President in Hamilton. You can hmmmmm all you want, but at least present the facts.

          https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...oday-1.5134975
          I see Bohsask went into Hansard and got the proof. I had also watched O'Toole on CTV Power Play say that all parties knew this motion was coming and the Liberal beside him did not dispute it.

          It appears that the PM is going out of his way to be tone deaf towards certain types of people. People who stand up to him.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post

            I see Bohsask went into Hansard and got the proof. I had also watched O'Toole on CTV Power Play say that all parties knew this motion was coming and the Liberal beside him did not dispute it.

            It appears that the PM is going out of his way to be tone deaf towards certain types of people. People who stand up to him.
            The timing of Trudeau's departure was listed on his official itinerary. In any case the apology was at best empty symbolism. No mention of wrongdoing or mistakes by any party, just sorry you endured that "failed prosecution."

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post

              What a bunch of spineless c*****! You charge a guy on the absolute flimsiness of reasons, deny him financial support that is rarely refused to public servants, obstruct access to documents that are critical to his defence and conduct another whisper campaign to destroy his reputation. Then once your Captain Dreyfus like case is rightly tossed out on its ear you belatedly decide to cover his legal fees but you don't have the intestinal fortitude to tell this news to his face? The PM, Defence Minister and the former President of the Treasury Board are absolute f****** disgraces to their offices.
              Our government tried to use the powers of the state to frame a man with a crime. This goes far beyond merely "destroying his reputation".

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by DJR View Post

                The timing of Trudeau's departure was listed on his official itinerary. In any case the apology was at best empty symbolism. No mention of wrongdoing or mistakes by any party, just sorry you endured that "failed prosecution."
                Totally agree with your assessment.
                In other words there will be no apology ever from the MND and the PM because they think they did nothing wrong.
                Maybe if the PM himself would admit that his assertion (done twice) that this matter will end up in court; and let me remind you that these statements were made before the RCMP laid a charge, was a little premature and ill advised then maybe some of us in the military will cut him a bit of slack. But all politicians seem to be incapable of admitting an error, which to me is a sign of lack of a capacity to be a broad thinker and assess points of view that is not in lockstep in with theirs.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post

                  Totally agree with your assessment.
                  In other words there will be no apology ever from the MND and the PM because they think they did nothing wrong.
                  Maybe if the PM himself would admit that his assertion (done twice) that this matter will end up in court; and let me remind you that these statements were made before the RCMP laid a charge, was a little premature and ill advised then maybe some of us in the military will cut him a bit of slack. But all politicians seem to be incapable of admitting an error, which to me is a sign of lack of a capacity to be a broad thinker and assess points of view that is not in lockstep in with theirs.
                  To be fair, that's not limited to politicians. That also describes the majority of posters here in the lounge lol.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by C.M.Burns View Post

                    Our government tried to use the powers of the state to frame a man with a crime. This goes far beyond merely "destroying his reputation".
                    Yet he could have been exonerated the day McKay or anyone from the previous cabinet spoke up. They waited a couple years.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by squish View Post

                      Yet he could have been exonerated the day McKay or anyone from the previous cabinet spoke up. They waited a couple years.
                      Lets also not forget that everyone seems to agree he leaked the documents and the prosecutor still said his actions were 'secretive and inappropriate' if not criminal. People are making this out like Trudeau personally called the PPSC and RCMP and said 'go get him' despite any evidence to back that up. In fact, Jody Wilson-Raybould alluded to the solid independence of the PPSC in the Norman case in the recorded phone call with Wernick and why she felt the SNC thing was crossing a line in comparison. Surely the right wingers who were championing her as the be-all-and-end-all of integrity and fortitude a month ago would concede that her words in this case have a similar weight, right?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Green_and_White View Post

                        Lets also not forget that everyone seems to agree he leaked the documents and the prosecutor still said his actions were 'secretive and inappropriate' if not criminal. People are making this out like Trudeau personally called the PPSC and RCMP and said 'go get him' despite any evidence to back that up. In fact, Jody Wilson-Raybould alluded to the solid independence of the PPSC in the Norman case in the recorded phone call with Wernick and why she felt the SNC thing was crossing a line in comparison. Surely the right wingers who were championing her as the be-all-and-end-all of integrity and fortitude a month ago would concede that her words in this case have a similar weight, right?
                        But not criminal is what I believe was said. The idea that Norman "did the right thing" is hard to justify.

                        This whole shipbuilding thing was a gigantic cluster. If you wrote a book on how to F things up you could not do better. Near the end of the old gov't they bypassed normal procedures and said to build us a ship, presumably to have something to show for the hundreds of millions already spent and the rapidly ballooning costs. Neither gov't had any clue how to get this done in any reasonable manner. What Irving did was simply say that proper procedures were not followed, which was correct. The leak was in an effort to notify the ship builders that the gov't of the day was looking into the way the contract was awarded. While Norman had permission to speak to them he did leak documents, as we understand it. I assume his motives were mainly to get a ship built but that is no justification.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Personally I think the ends (getting a badly needed ship built on time and on budget) justify the means (letting the public know there would be a 89 million penalty if they canceled the contract and awarded it to their buddies, the Irvings)

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by DJR View Post

                            But not criminal is what I believe was said. The idea that Norman "did the right thing" is hard to justify.

                            This whole shipbuilding thing was a gigantic cluster. If you wrote a book on how to F things up you could not do better. Near the end of the old gov't they bypassed normal procedures and said to build us a ship, presumably to have something to show for the hundreds of millions already spent and the rapidly ballooning costs. Neither gov't had any clue how to get this done in any reasonable manner. What Irving did was simply say that proper procedures were not followed, which was correct. The leak was in an effort to notify the ship builders that the gov't of the day was looking into the way the contract was awarded. While Norman had permission to speak to them he did leak documents, as we understand it. I assume his motives were mainly to get a ship built but that is no justification.
                            My understanding of going the single source retro fit route was because they had already been without a supply ship for 3 years already and putting it out for competition would have created further delays. So didn't Norman get permission to seek out a single source contract to get them the ship built? Which I don't think turned out too badly, under budget and ahead of schedule

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by The_G View Post

                              My understanding of going the single source retro fit route was because they had already been without a supply ship for 3 years already and putting it out for competition would have created further delays. So didn't Norman get permission to seek out a single source contract to get them the ship built? Which I don't think turned out too badly, under budget and ahead of schedule
                              He did get permission, but no one knew that until last week apparently.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by squish View Post

                                He did get permission, but no one knew that until last week apparently.
                                Not sure I'm aware of what you're referring to. Was that info in the documents that the Liberals with held from the investigators? I thought I had read that Mr Harper had wrote a letter regarding this?

                                Comment

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X